[Senate Hearing 108-435]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-435
POST-9/11 VISA REFORMS AND
NEW TECHNOLOGY: ACHIEVING
THE NECESSARY SECURITY
IMPROVEMENTS IN A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
AND TERRORISM
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 23, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
92-725 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Virginia
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
AND TERRORISM
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire, Chairman
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming BILL NELSON, Florida
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Aber, John, Vice President for Research and Public Service,
University of New Hampshire.................................... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Estorino, Jose, Senior Vice President of Marketing, Orlando/
Orange County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc., Orlando,
Florida........................................................ 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Hardy, David, Acting Assistant Director, Records Management
Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation...................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Jacobs, Janice L., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services,
Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator From Florida..................... 22
Oberlin, William, President, American Chamber of Commerce, Seoul,
South Korea.................................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Sununu, Hon. John E., U.S. Senator from New Hampshire............ 1
Verdery, Hon. C. Stewart Jr., Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Border and Transportation Security, Department of Homeland
Security....................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Appendix
Additional information submitted for the record by Janice L.
Jacobs......................................................... 65
Additional questions submitted by the committee for the record... 70
(iii)
POST-9/11 VISA REFORMS AND
NEW TECHNOLOGY: ACHIEVING
THE NECESSARY SECURITY
IMPROVEMENTS IN A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
----------
Thursday, October 23, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee on International
Operations and Terrorism,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in
Room SD-419, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. John E. Sununu,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Sununu. Good morning, and welcome to today's
hearing on post-9/11 visa reforms and new technology. We're
trying to understand whether we're achieving necessary security
improvements that everyone in America expects in today's
changing environment.
The events of September 11th have made every American even
more proud of our open and dynamic society. We welcome even
more enthusiastically visitors to our shores to attend
business, academic, or scientific meetings, visit friends, or
study at the outstanding universities around the country. From
the White Mountains of New Hampshire to the sparkling beaches
of Florida, we recognize that those that travel here to enjoy
the beauty of America, tourists, and other visitors make an
enormous impact on our economy. We know that, as well as a
great trading nation and a leader of development of new science
and technology, our present and future prosperity, as well as
our military and economic security, depend upon the swift
movement of people, goods, and services all around the globe.
The attacks of 9/11, however, forced us to reassess our
policies in a number of areas including the challenging task of
ensuring that those who come to our country as guests or
immigrants mean us no harm by a more rigorous scrutiny of
travelers that want to visit our shores.
Since September 11th, Congress has worked closely with the
executive branch to improve our ability to control our borders
and prevent terrorists and criminals from entering our country.
Congress passed two major pieces of legislation to address this
need, the Patriot Act of 2001, and the Enhanced Border Security
and Visa Entry and Reform Act of 2002. In these bills, we have
taken a wide range of steps, creating the new Department of
Homeland Security, adding new requirements for strengthening
the visa application and review process, and using new
technology, such as biometrics in passports and visas, to
protect our borders.
Today, we'll examine these post-September 11th visa
issuance reforms and the new technology that supports them.
We'll discuss these issues first with our distinguished
witnesses from the Departments of State and Homeland Security,
as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In our second
panel, we'll hear from several leading figures from the private
sector to ascertain how the visa reforms affect them.
The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security recently
recommitted themselves and their agencies to ``work
cooperatively to create and maintain an effective, efficient
visa process that secures America's borders from external
threats and ensures that our borders remain open to legitimate
travel in the United States.'' They reaffirm that ``such travel
is important to our international, economic, and national
values and interests.''
This subcommittee understands the tremendous challenge that
these and other agencies, including the FBI, undertake every
day to keep terrorists and other criminals out while welcoming
our friends. In fiscal year 2002, there were about 440 million
border crossings into the United States at over 300 designated
ports of entry. Of the more than 358 million borders crossers
who entered through land ports, almost 50 million entered as
pedestrians. The rest entered in more than 131 million
vehicles, including cars, trucks, buses, and trains. Further,
State Department processed about 8.4 million non-immigrant visa
applications and issued 7 million U.S. passports. These numbers
alone give stark indication to the scope and magnitude of the
challenge that our witnesses today deal with every day.
Today, we'll focus on the procedures related to non-
immigrant visas, including border crossing cards for Mexican
citizens, as well as entry procedures for those using the Visa
Waiver Program. The goal is to examine the visa-related reforms
that this new government team, Departments of State and
Homeland Security, working closely with the FBI, have made
overseas and here in Washington. We're particularly interested
in how new technology is being used to consolidate and
expeditiously exchange information that agencies have on
terrorism criminals who would threaten our security.
Among the questions we'll be asking, What steps are being
taken to ensure that the visa and border control officers on
the front lines are getting the information they need to ensure
that evildoers cannot enter the country? Will, for example, the
new Terrorist Screening Center, which is administered by the
FBI, be able to meet the requirement to provide accurate and
timely information on terrorists trying to gain admission
through legal ports of entry in the United States? Looking to
the future, a key question is, What new resources will be
required to ensure that this new system operates the way it
should? And what are the performance goals now set by agencies
for timely decisions? I would add, whether or not those
performance goals are meeting the expectations and the needs of
those in private industry or other areas of the economy that
depend on the timely issuance of visas.
Such decisions are important to speed bona fide and
legitimate visitors that are on their way and to enable us to
work with others to apprehend terrorists. We seek the private
sector's perspectives on the impact of reforms on these
legitimate travelers, as well.
We'll hear from two panels of witnesses today. We will
begin with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa
Service, who will outline the new visa and border card
application and adjudication process, from beginning to end. We
will then hear from the Department of Homeland Security
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Border, and Transportation
Security about the agency's new and vital role in this area.
And finally we will have the acting assistant director for
Records Management from the FBI to brief us on the FBI's
important role in the new process.
Our second panel will consist of representatives from
business and academia, that deal with travel and the access of
foreign visitors that might have an impact on our economy, to
provide us with their perspectives of the new process. I also
hope that they'll share with us their insights of the impact
the reforms will have on foreign friends and the perception of
those foreigners on the United States.
I appreciate the time you've all taken from your very busy
schedules to be with us this morning. I know Mr. Oberlin,
representing the American Korean Chamber of Commerce, has come
all the way from Seoul, and some other witnesses have traveled
from as far as New Hampshire.
We will begin with our first panel. If there are no
objections, I will enter all of your written statements into
the record, ask each of you to summarize in five minutes your
key observations. If you can do your best to keep to our
timetable, that will allow the greatest possible amount of time
for questions and interaction. And I do assure you any written
testimony will be submitted for the record.
With that, let me welcome you and begin with Ms. Janice
Jacobs, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services
from the Department of State.
Welcome, and please feel free to provide us with a summary
of your written testimony.
STATEMENT JANICE L. JACOBS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR VISA
SERVICES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
I'm pleased to be here today to discuss the critical role
that the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs plays in
securing our nation's borders. Protecting the security of the
United States from foreign threats has always been, and
continues to be, the primary goal of the visa process. The
Secretary has also articulated our policy of ``Secure Borders/
Open Doors,'' many times before the Congress and public. We are
acutely conscious of the need for legitimate travelers, who
constitute the overwhelming majority of our applicant pool, to
receive swift, thorough, and clear adjudications of their visa
applications so that they can plan their travel to the U.S.
consonant with the goals of that travel.
It is an undeniable fact that in some parts of the world it
now takes longer to receive a visa to travel to the U.S. than
it did in the past. This is a direct consequence of the greater
scrutiny to which certain visa applicants have been subjected
in the wake of 9/11. At the same time, we continue to reform
the visa process to make it more efficient and effective, but
always within the context of security.
I'm proud to report to you today on some of the many
improvements to the visa process since the terrorist attacks on
September 11th, and I also would like to enter into the record
a list of these accomplishments that we've undertaken since 9/
11.
Senator Sununu. Without objection.
[See the appendix to this hearing, page 65, for the
information referred to by Ms. Jacobs.]
Ms. Jacobs. Obviously, the best way to stop terrorists or
criminals from receiving a legitimate U.S. visa is to identify
those persons beforehand to our consular officers. The Consular
Lookout and Support System's 15 million records on people
ineligible to receive visas comes from U.S. government-wide
sources and helps us do just that. Data are essential, but you
obviously need to know how to use them in order to reliably
distinguish the genuine threats from the legitimate visitors.
Consular officers consequently apply their language and area
skills to analyze an application and put relevant questions to
the would-be visitor, when required.
We recently revised our regulations to limit the
circumstances under which a post may waive the requirement to
personally interview applicants so that this resource may be
used with greater frequency. Requiring more personal interviews
also allows our embassies and consulates to prepared for the
introduction of biometric identifiers in the U.S. visa by
October 26th, 2004, as required by law. In accordance with
international standards established by the International Civil
Aviation Organization, we have selected facial recognition and
electronic fingerprint scanning as the most effective and least
intrusive. We are currently collecting fingerprints at six
posts, and will be collecting at all 211 visa issuing posts by
the mandated deadline.
Since terrorist groups are agile organizations that are
constantly recruiting members, we have designed a system of
Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) requirements that require a
consular officer abroad to refer selected visa cases identified
by law enforcement and intelligence information for greater
review by Washington-based agencies. Of the various SAO
procedures, Visas Condor was created to focus on potential
terrorism applicants. Review of Condor cases requires close
cooperation with our partners in law enforcement and the
intelligence community to ensure that all the best analysis is
brought to bear on such cases before deciding whether to issue
an applicant a visa. In no case do we issue a visa over the
objection of law enforcement or the intelligence community.
We also have an SAO procedure to ensure that sensitive U.S.
technology is not stolen or inappropriately shared with those
who would use it to harm the U.S. or our allies. Known as the
Visas Mantis, this procedure also requires close cooperation
with other agencies that are experts in law enforcement,
counter-terrorism, and high technology. Once the analysis is
complete, we review all information provided, and advise the
consular officer as to whether or not there is any derogatory
information on the applicant.
We have fortunately come a long way from the beginning of
the Condor process, when, frankly, none of the agencies
involved in the clearance process were able to handle the
volume of cases. Since then, we have coordinated closely with
the other agencies to improve the interagency process. We also
shifted the clearance of Condor cases to our National Visa
Center in New Hampshire in July of this year, created a special
Mantis team in the visa office devoted exclusive to technology
transfer cases, and are piloting a $1 million project this
November to allow for seamless electronic transmission of visa
data among foreign-service posts, the Department of State, and
other Washington agencies.
The integrity of our own travel documents, both physical
and procedural, is another lynchpin in the security of our
country's borders. We are currently developing an intelligent
passport with an imbedded chip that will use a facial-
recognition standard consistent with the ICAO standard that is
accepted internationally. The data initially written to the
chip will be limited to the same biodata shown on the data page
in the current version of the passport, along with a full
digital image of the passport-bearer's portrait.
We have assembled an interagency working group to develop a
project plan for implementing our program. Our objective is to
begin piloting the passport in October 2004, with systemwide
implementation by the end of 2005.
As I noted above, we will meet the congressionally mandated
deadline of Section 303(b) of the Enhanced Border and Security
Act to add biometrics to visas we issue to foreign nationals.
Let me further add that to support this program, we will be
expanding our data-share arrangements with the Department of
Homeland Security. We will be providing DHS the electronic
record of all issued visas, in real time, to include the visa
recipient's photo and fingerprints. The fingerprint data will
be checked against the DHS Lookout Database known as IDENT. We
expect that DHS will use our visa data to speed up the
identification, verification, and inspection of travelers
arriving at U.S. ports of entry.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about our new
partnership with the Department of Homeland Security. In this
historic time of change, State and DHS have come together to
establish procedures that will provide a sound basis for
maintaining an effective, efficient visa process that secures
America's borders from external threats while continuing to
promote legitimate travel to the U.S. We worked long and hard
together on a framework that gives the Secretary of Homeland
Security the policy role contemplated by the Homeland Security
Act, while maintaining the Secretary of State's clear chain of
command over consular officers, and relying on the foreign
policy and visa processing expertise of the Department of State
and its consular officers.
I hope I have conveyed our deep commitment to enhancing the
security of the visa process. I hope I have also conveyed our
commitment to maintaining the openness of our society to
foreign visitors from all aspects of life--students, family
members, scholars, business travelers, and tourists. All enrich
our country and bring significant economic benefits to the
United States. Secure Borders/Open Doors remains our goal. Our
challenge has been to integrate the security enhancing features
of our new programs in both the visa and passport worlds in a
manner that does not discourage legitimate travel to the U.S.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobs follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janice L. Jacobs
Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the critical role that the
State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs plays in securing our
nation's borders. Protecting the security of the United States from
foreign threats has always been, and continues to be, the primary goal
of the visa process. The Secretary has also articulated our policy of
``Secure Borders/Open Doors'' many times before the Congress and
public. We are acutely conscious of the need for legitimate travelers--
who constitute the overwhelming majority of our applicant pool--to
receive swift, thorough, and clear adjudications of their visa
applications so that they can plan their travel to the U.S. consonant
with the goals of that travel. It is an undeniable fact that, in some
parts of the world, it now takes longer to receive a visa to travel to
the US than it did in the past. This is a direct consequence of the
greater scrutiny to which certain visa applicants have been subjected
in the wake of 9/11. At the same time, we continue to reform the visa
process to make it more efficient and effective but always within the
context of security. I am proud to report to you today on some of the
many improvements to the visa process since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. (I would also like to enter into the record this
list of improvements.)
Secretary Powell has described our consular officers abroad as
America's first line of defense against terrorists and criminals who
seek to enter the US to do harm to our citizens and foreign guests.
Obviously the best way to stop terrorists or criminals from receiving a
legitimate U.S. visa is to identify those persons beforehand reliably
to our consular officers so they can spot them on visa lines and take
appropriate action against them. Thanks to the USA PATRIOT ACT, which
mandated interagency data-sharing, our Consular Lookout and Support
System (CLASS) now contains more than 15 million records on people
ineligible to receive visas, more than double the number available
before 9/11. CLASS counts on the systematic contributions of many
federal government agencies--but especially those of the law
enforcement and intelligence communities--to provide up-to-date
information on terrorist threats to the United States. In fact, the
majority of information (61%) now in CLASS is derived from other
agencies.
Data information is essential but you obviously need to know how to
use it in order to reliably distinguish the genuine threats from the
overwhelming majority of visa applicants who simply wish to visit our
country for legitimate reasons. Consular officers employ the language
skills and country knowledge acquired prior to arrival at post, along
with new techniques now taught at the Foreign Service Institute that
allow them to better recognize deception. Officer training and state-
of-the-art consular systems come together in the visa interview where
an officer can assess an applicant's bona fides, perform the mandatory
namecheck and decide whether or not to issue a visa. While personal
interviews may be costly in time and money, they are an essential part
of the process to enable us to better assess the visa applicant. This
is why we recently revised our regulations to limit the circumstances
under which a post may waive the requirement to personally interview
all visa applicants.
Requiring more personal interviews also allows our embassies and
consulates to prepare for the next major reform, the introduction of
biometric identifiers in the U.S. visa as required by Section 303 of
the Enhanced Border and Security Act. By October 26, 2004, all U.S.
visas must incorporate a biometric identifier. In accordance with
international standards established by the International Civil Aviation
Organization, we have selected facial recognition and electronic
fingerprint scanning as the most effective and least intrusive. We are
currently collecting fingerprints at six posts (San Salvador, Guatemala
City, Frankfurt, Brussels, Ottawa and Montreal) in an efficient and
respectful manner and will continue to expand our capability to all
visa-issuing posts to meet the congressionally mandated deadline of
October 26, 2004.
Since terrorist groups are agile organizations that are constantly
recruiting members, we have designed a system of Security Advisory
Opinion (SAO) requirements that require a consular officer abroad to
refer selected visas cases, identified by law enforcement and
intelligence information, for greater review by Washington based
agencies. Of the various SAO procedures, ``Visas Condor'' was created
to focus on potential terrorism applicants. Review of Condor cases
requires close cooperation with our partners in law enforcement and the
intelligence community to ensure that all the best analysis is brought
to bear on such cases before deciding whether to issue the applicants a
visa. In no case do we issue a visa over the objections of law
enforcement or the intelligence community. In the last fiscal year, we
processed approximately 212,000 SAO cases, which represent only 2.2 per
cent of total visa workload.
We also have an SAO procedure to ensure that sensitive U.S.
technology is not stolen or inappropriately shared with those who would
use it to harm the US or our allies. Known as the ``Visas Mantis,''
this procedure also requires close cooperation with other agencies that
are experts in law enforcement, counter-terrorism, and high technology.
Once the analysis is complete, we review the derogatory information
provided in light of the provision of the Immigration and Nationality
Act and other relevant law. We then advise the consular officer as to
whether there is any derogatory information on the applicant.
We have nonetheless come a long way from the beginning of the
``Condor'' process and the very difficult period from the summer of
2002 when we first required a positive response from law enforcement
prior to issuing any visa subject to this review. None of the federal
agencies involved in the clearance process, including State, were
technically equipped to handle the volume of data that began to come in
to us when ``Condor'' began. To improve the overall process, we have
made a number of technical changes in coordination with other agencies.
In July of this year, we improved the efficiency of the clearance
process by shifting clearance of ``Condor'' cases to our National Visa
Center in New Hampshire. We also created a special Mantis team in the
Visa Office devoted exclusively to technology transfer cases. We are
also piloting a one million dollar project to allow for seamless
electronic transmission of visa data among Foreign Service posts, the
Department of State and other Washington agencies. The other agencies
will no longer receive a telegram but a reliable data transmission
through an inter-operable network that begins with the Consular
Consolidated Database. Using the Consular Consolidated Database as an
electronic linchpin will improve data integrity, accountability of
responses in specific cases, and statistical reporting. We will pilot
this project in November.
The integrity of our own travel documents, both physical and
procedural, is another linchpin in the security of our country's
borders. Although the Enhanced Border Security Act does not address the
issue of biometrics in the U.S. passport, we believe it is desirable
for the U.S. to commit to a comprehensive program to incorporate this
new technology into the U.S. passport in light of the clear security
and identity advantages that this new technology offers. We are
currently developing an ``intelligent passport'' with an embedded chip
that will use a facial recognition standard consistent with the ICAO
standard that is accepted internationally. The data initially written
to the chip will be limited to the same bio-data shown on the data page
in the current version of the passport, along with a full digital image
of the passport bearer's portrait. We have assembled an interagency
working group to develop a project plan for implementing our program.
Our objective is to begin piloting the passport in October 2004 with
systemwide implementation by early 2006.
As I noted above, we will meet the congressionally mandated
deadline of section 303(b) of the Enhanced Border and Security Act to
add biometrics to visas we issue to foreign nationals. Let me further
add that to support this program we will be expanding our datashare
arrangements with DHS We will be providing DHS the electronic record of
all issued visas in real-time to include the visa recipient's photo and
fingerprints. The fingerprint data will be checked against the DHS
lookout database known as DENT. We expect that DHS will use our visa
data to speed up the identification verification and inspection of
travelers arriving at US ports of entry.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about our new partnership
with the Department of Homeland Security. In this historic time of
change, State and DHS have come together to establish procedures that
will provide a sound basis for maintaining an effective, efficient visa
process that secures America's borders from external threats while
continuing to promote legitimate travel to the U.S. We worked long and
hard together on a framework that gives the Secretary of Homeland
Security the policy role contemplated by the Homeland Security Act
while maintaining the Secretary of State's clear chain of command over
consular officers and relying on the foreign policy and visa processing
expertise of the Department of State and its consular officers.
I hope I have conveyed our deep commitment to enhancing the
security of the visa process. I hope I have also conveyed our
commitment to maintaining the openness of our society to foreign
visitors from all aspects of life: students, family members, scholars,
business travelers and tourists all enrich our country and bring
significant economic benefits to the United States. ``Secure Borders/
Open Doors'' remains our goal. Our challenge has been to integrate the
security enhancing features of our new programs in both the visa and
passport worlds in a manner that does not discourage legitimate travel
to the U.S. I welcome your questions.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Ms. Jacobs.
Our second witness will be C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., who is
the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Border, and Transportation
Security at the Department of Homeland Security.
Welcome, Mr. Verdery.
STATEMENT OF HON. C. STEWART VERDERY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR POLICY, BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Verdery. Good morning, Chairman Sununu and Chairman
Lugar.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of Homeland Security's new role in the
visa issuance process and to describe how we intend to carry
out our responsibilities now that the Memorandum of
Understanding between DHS and the Department of State is in
effect.
I'll speak as to how DHS will enhance security of the
current visa issuance process, and highlight several DHS
initiatives and statutory deadlines that will affect the entry
and admission of foreign nationals to the United States.
Before delving into these topics, I'd like to mention how
honored I am to return to the Senate for the first time in an
official DHS capacity. I served Senators Warner, Hatch, and
Nickles for over six years in this body, and have special
appreciation for the legislative and oversight responsibilities
that you and your colleagues exercise every day.
As Ms. Jacobs described, in developing and implementing the
MOU, DHS has developed a collaborative and cooperative
relationship with the Department of State. Our respective
bosses, Asa Hutchinson and Maura Hardy, have established a very
productive working relationship, and we're consulting on a
variety of issues, including the visa clearance process and
interview requirements for visa applicants. DHS and DOS also
participate in several interagency working groups addressing
issues such as the upcoming biometrics deadlines for documents,
and the entry/exit system known as US-VISIT.
DHS intends to do a top-to-bottom review of the visa
process to assess whether there are security weaknesses in the
existing regulatory scheme or efficiencies to be gained without
sacrificing security. This review is a high priority for the
Department and will require collaboration with my colleagues at
DOS, other executive branch departments, various stakeholders
in the business community and private and public sectors,
including the education establishment.
We're committed to ensuring that adequate resources and
staff are devoted to implementation of the MOU and are working
within the President's fiscal year '05 budget request to assess
the resource needs for this program, which will be handled, on
an operational level, by the Office of International
Enforcement within BTS. In the interim, OIE will fund
operations from existing BTS budgets and leverage existing
resources and personnel to staff our overseas operations.
We already have officers in Saudi Arabia reviewing all visa
applications, as required by law. Our officers have full access
to a variety of law enforcement databases and selected legacy-
INS information.
The true value of DHS officers, in addition, lies in their
wealth of law enforcement experience, especially related to
border admissions and interior enforcement. By placing DHS
officials at consular posts at the very beginning of the visa
process, we're able to ensure that homeland security
requirements are addressed immediately during visa
adjudication.
The next phase for deployment currently envisions five
regional hub sites that will cover approximately 23 countries.
These sites will be selected based on a variety of factors,
including visa volume, and security and threat assessments.
Possible locations--and these are possible--include Pakistan,
Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Indonesia.
DHS has also launched a number of initiatives that will
affect the visa process and admission to the United States. BTS
is implementing the US-VISIT system, which will capture entry
and exit information of certain visitors to the United States.
Increment I of the system involves deployment of the entry/exit
system at air and sea ports of entry by December 31st of this
year, and collection of biometric and biographical information
from visa holders. This information collected through the US
VISIT program will enable DHS to check potential visitors
against up-to-date watch lists and to restore integrity to our
immigration laws for individuals who overstay or otherwise
violate the terms of their visas.
DHS is also piloting border crossing card (BCC) readers at
six ports of entry. DHS and DOS already incorporate biometrics
into the BCCs, which are issued to Mexican nationals who
qualify for B1 or B2 non-immigrant visitor status and cross the
border frequently. DHS will be taking delivery of approximately
1,000 BCC readers starting next month. The BCC pilot tests have
already helped DHS to identify a number of impostors and aliens
attempting to enter the United States fraudulently.
There are also two congressionally mandated deadlines that
will affect foreign travelers seeking admission under the Visa
Waiver Program, or VWP. The first is the machine-readable
passport, or MRP, deadline required by the Patriot Act. DOS
granted a postponement of this October 1st, 2003, deadline to
21 countries currently participating in the VWP, and the Bureau
of U.S. Customs and Border Protection within BTS has already
issued field guidance to inspectors at the ports of entry, in
terms of handling foreign nationals who are subject to the
waiver. For those countries, this deadline now coincides with
the October 26th, 2004, deadline for VWP countries to begin
issuing passports enhanced by biometric information, which is
required by the Border Security Act.
Finally, an effective and secure visa system also requires
improved information-sharing and watch-list integration so the
officers adjudicating or reviewing applications or screening
travelers at U.S. ports of entry have all available tools and
information needed to make sound decisions. DHS, in partnership
with the State Department, the Department of Justice, the
Central Intelligence Agency, and the Homeland Security Council,
is participating in two important and soon-to-be-integrated
initiatives, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, or TTIC,
whose key responsibilities are the development and maintenance
of an all-source database on known and suspected international
terrorists, and the Terrorist Screening Center, the TSC, which
will develop, integrate, and maintain a consolidated terrorist
screening list of individuals known or suspected to be engaged
in terrorist activities.
In conclusion, we recognize the importance of maintaining a
visa process that allows legitimate travelers--whether for
business, for education, or for family reasons--to continue to
travel to the United States while ensuring that homeland
security requirements receive the priority they deserve.
We look forward to working with our other DHS components,
our law enforcement partners, the Department of State, the
private sector, and the public sector to ensure that
collectively we develop a visa system that provides the
security that the American people expect and deserve.
Thank you for the invitation to testify today. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Verdery follows:]
Prepared Statement of C. Stewart Verdery, Jr.
Good afternoon, Chairman Sununu, Ranking Member Nelson and
distinguished members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss Homeland Security's new role in the
visa process and describe how we intend to carry out our new
responsibilities now that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State Department is in
effect. I also will speak to how DHS will add value to the current visa
process without duplication of effort. Finally, I would like to
highlight several Homeland Security initiatives and statutorily
mandated processes that affect entry procedures and admission of
foreign nationals to the United States.
We recognize that DHS has a tremendous challenge ahead in terms of
developing sound visa policy and adopting effective reforms to further
enhance security in the current visa process. Our interests extend
beyond the process by which non-immigrant or immigrant visas are issued
at U.S. diplomatic and consular posts abroad. Our interests extend to
the use, or exemption from use, of visas or other travel documents once
issued and the admission of individuals to the United States generally.
Any revision to existing visa policy or related procedures requires a
thorough understanding of the mechanics of overseas and domestic
operations and how they affect travel--from the initial application for
a visa or travel document abroad, to the inspection process at the U.S.
ports of entry, to admission to and departure of travelers from the
United States.
Although the visa MOU has been in effect only a few weeks, DHS
already has developed a cooperative partnership with State Department
to begin examining various aspects of the visa process. Even prior to
our formal assumption of responsibilities under the MOU, we worked with
the State Department to tighten vulnerabilities in the visa process
abroad. DHS and State Department consulted on a variety of issues,
including criteria for visa clearances under Visas Condor and Mantis;
streamlining of visa clearance procedures; and changes to interview
waiver procedures for visa applicants. Today, DHS and State Department
participate in ongoing interagency working groups including the US
VISIT working group which, among other matters, addresses collection of
biometric information from visa applicants at consular posts abroad;
the Data Management improvement Act (DMIA) Taskforce which is
responsible for evaluating and making recommendations for
implementation of the entry-exit system; and the Visa Security Program
(VSP) Steering Committee which supports the Office of International
Enforcement (OIE) and makes recommendations on significant issues
affecting implementation of the MOU.
DHS intends to do a ``top-to-bottom'' review of the visa process
and assess which aspects work well and which areas need improvement. We
also will evaluate current regulations that affect the visa process to
see if there are any security weaknesses in the existing regulatory
scheme. This review is a high priority for the Department and requires
extensive work with the State Department, other executive branch
departments, and various stakeholders in the business community and
public and private sector. Our ultimate goal is to adopt visa policies
and procedures that emphasize security as well as efficiency. I am
currently chairing a visa policy working group that will develop short
and long-term policy initiatives related to DHS' visa responsibilities
under the MOU. This working group will make recommendations to
Secretary Ridge on how DHS should alter or improve visa policy.
We still are in the early stages of implementation of the visa MOU.
The OIE, a distinct entity within the Border and Transportation
Security Directorate (BTS), is responsible for overseeing management
and implementation of the visa MOU and for assignment of DHS personnel
to select consular posts. DHS has committed to ensuring that adequate
resources and staff are devoted to implementation of the MOU and visa
security program and is working, in the context of the President's FY'
05 budget request, to assess the financial requirements and appropriate
budget needed to fund the program. In the interim, OIE will fund
current operations from existing BTS budgets, and leverage existing
resources and personnel to staff OIE and cover overseas operations at
designated consular posts.
DHS officers are already in Saudi Arabia reviewing all visa
applications prior to adjudication as mandated by the Homeland Security
Act. Our officers in Riyadh and Jeddah also have provided valuable
assistance, expert advice and training to consular officers on
fraudulent documents, fingerprinting techniques and identity fraud. As
part of the review process, DHS officers at home and abroad have full
access to a variety of law enforcement databases, including the
National Crime Information Center (NCIC), Treasury Enforcement
Communication System (TECS); Interagency Border Inspections System
(IBIS); National Security Entry Exit System (NSEERS); Student Exchange
and Visitor Information System (SEVIS); Biometric print fingerprint
system (IDENT); and Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS). They
also have access to selected legacy-INS automated adjudications data
and certain commercial databases.
The real value of DHS officers lies in the wealth of their law
enforcement and fraud experience and expertise, particularly from the
perspective of border admissions and interior enforcement. By placing
DHS officers at consular and diplomatic posts at the very beginning of
the visa process, we are able to ensure that homeland security
requirements are addressed immediately during visa adjudication and
issuance--in essence, pushing the security perimeter of the United
States outward to the point of first interaction with individuals
seeking to enter the United States--at the time of their visa
application.
DHS intends to deploy and assign personnel to select overseas posts
in a phased approach. Phase I has already occurred with the DHS
operation in Riyadh and Jeddah. Phase II will involve deployment to
additional selected. Working with the Department of State, DHS will
select the additional sites based on factors such as threat level or
security risk, visa volume, and adequacy of physical facilities and
communication capability. Possible next locations are: Pakistan, Egypt,
United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Indonesia. Prior to final selection
of additional locations, DHS and DOS assessment teams will travel to
each site, and certain alternate locales, beginning at the end of this
month and again in late November/early December. On return, the
assessment teams will make formal recommendations to Secretary Ridge on
which countries should be selected for Phase II deployment. We will
update the committee once those sites have been determined.
DHS has launched a number of initiatives, some statutorily-mandated
and some in conjunction with the State Department, that will affect the
visa process and admission of foreign nationals on either Border
Crossing Cards (BCCs) or non-immigrant visas. We are committed to
ensuring that every initiative or decision that may affect visa
issuance or travel and entry into the United States always involves
careful consideration of the impact of national security requirements
on the traveling public, U.S. industries and on agency resources. DHS's
Office of Private Sector Liaison serves as a point of contact for
affected parties to voice their concerns about any proposed DHS
initiative, policy or action. The Office of International Affairs also
coordinates information exchange with foreign governments and other
nations friendly to the United States on a variety of issues including
matters related to the visa process. We recognize the need for open
dialogue and communication with affected parties and for an effective
outreach strategy and public information campaign that makes the
traveling public aware of the many changes required by recent
legislation and national security enhancements.
BTS is in the first phase of developing the US VISIT system. US
VISIT is a new border security and enforcement program that will
capture entry and exit information of certain visitors to the United
States. The information collected will include biometrics such as
fingerprints and a digital photograph that will validate identity and
authenticate documents used for travel to the United States. The system
will be capable of tracking the entry and exit of foreign visitors who
require a visa or certain other travel documents to enter the U.S. US
VISIT will make entry easier for legitimate travelers and more
difficult for illegal entrants through the use of biometrically enabled
documents.
Increment I of US VISIT involves deployment of the entry exit
system at air and sea ports of entry by December 31, 2003. This first
phase will allow DHS to identify entry and exit of foreign nationals
who travel in and out of the United States by air and sea on a visa or
other travel document to collect and verify biometrics for foreign
nationals who travel on a visa at air and seaports; to check such
travelers against watch lists using biographic and biometric data; and
to monitor the duration of individual visits. The US VISIT program at
air and sea ports of entry is further enhanced by the electronic
passenger manifest procedures that require airlines to submit
information on passengers prior to their arrival to, and departure
from, the United States. DHS has pilot projects ongoing in Atlanta and
at the Baltimore Washington International (BWI) airport. Increment II
is tied to the October 26, 2004, deadline mandated by section 303(b)(1)
of the Enhanced Border Security Act, which requires both DHS and DOS to
issue machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas and other travel and
entry documents that incorporate biometric identifiers. By this date,
DHS must be able to read and verify these new documents that are
presented by foreign nationals seeking admission to the United States.
Congress currently requires implementation of the integrated entry-exit
system at the 50 highest volume land ports of entry by December 31,
2004 and the remaining land border ports by December 31, 2005.
The information collected through the US VISIT program will enable
DHS to better enforce the immigration laws pertaining to individuals
who overstay their visas or otherwise violates the terms of their
admission to the United States. By using new biometric and other
security-related technology, DHS will improve the integrity of the
overall visa issuance and admission process. DHS and DOS already
incorporate biometrics into Border Crossing Cards (BCCs), which are now
issued only to Mexican nationals who qualify for B-1/B-2 non-immigrant
visitor status and who cross the border frequently. The biometric BCC
is functionally the equivalent of a B-1/B-2 visa for each entry that
the alien makes, although there are specific time of visit and distance
limitations on the alien's travel when he enters the United States.
Applicants apply for BCCs with the State Department. During the
application process, the State Department captures biometrics, the
fingerprints and face, and these biometrics are then submitted to DHS.
DHS checks the biometrics against various watch lists, enrolls the
applicant in the BCC database and sends the outcome of the database
check to the State Department for adjudication of the application. If
the BCC application is approved that applicant may seek admission at
any port of entry. In instances where applicants use a BCC in lieu of a
separately issued B-1/B-2 non-immigrant visa, the applicant's admission
is limited to a 72-hour period and a 25-mile radius of the port of
entry, except for aliens entering through certain ports in Arizona who
may travel up to 75 miles within that state.. BCCs presented at
airports are scanned by readers at the primary inspection lane. As
required by statute, inspectors match the biometrics (photo) on the BCC
that is presented against the characteristics of the alien who bears
the card prior to authorizing admission. At airports, the alien's
information is verified against the information presented by the
airlines prior to the applicant's arrival in the United States. If a
BCC is presented at a land border, the card may or may not be scanned
through a BCC reader, depending on whether the applicant arrives at the
port of entry through a pedestrian, cargo, commercial or vehicle lane.
All applicants, however, are subject to inspection and referred to
secondary, if deemed necessary by the primary inspector, where a more
through inspection may be accomplished.
DHS has piloted BCC readers at six ports of entry. Each port of
entry was equipped with the BCC readers known as the Biometrics
Verification System (BVS). These readers have the ability to
biometrically verify those individuals applying for entry bearing BCC's
on a limited basis. DHS is work to finalize the deployment schedule.
DHS will take delivery of 1,000 BVS readers, with 200 BCC readers to be
delivered each month starting in November of this year. Preliminary
results from the BCC pilot tests have helped DHS to identify a number
of impostors and aliens attempting to enter the United States by
fraudulently presenting a BCC. Ultimately, the information captured
under the BCC system will be integrated into the US VISIT process.
Finally, there are two congressionally mandated deadlines that
affect foreign travelers seeking admission under the Visa Waiver
Program (VWP): the October 1, 2003, machine readable passport (MRP)
deadline required by section 417 of the USA Patriot Act, and the
October 26, 2004, biometric deadline required by section 303 of the
Border Security Act. The October 1, 2003, MRP deadline is distinct from
the October 26, 2004, deadline for biometrics in MRPs. Under section
303 of the Border Security Act, by October 26, 2004, VWP countries are
required certify that they have a program to issue passports that
contain biometrics as a condition of continued participation in the
VWP. Also, on or after October 26, 2004, any alien seeking admission
under the VWP must present an MRP that contains ICAO compliant
biometrics, unless the passport was issued prior to that date.
On the October 1, 2003, MRP deadline, the State Department, in
consultation with DHS, agreed to permit individual VWP countries to
apply for a one-time waiver of the October 1, 2003 MRP deadline.
Exercising his legislatively-authorized prerogative, the Secretary of
State granted a waiver until October 26, 2004 to 21 countries currently
participating in the VWP based on their having met certain
requirements. Each country granted a waiver was required to make a
formal request, via diplomatic note, acknowledging that the waiver
would be a one-time opportunity and only valid until October 26, 2004,
the date by which nationals of VWP countries must present a machine-
readable passport. Countries also had to certify that they were making
progress towards ensuring that machine-readable passports are available
to their nationals and that they are taking appropriate steps to
protect against the misuse of their non-machine readable passports. The
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has already issued field
guidance for inspectors at the ports of entry for handling foreign
nationals who are subject to the waiver. CBP procedures require
inspectors to notify travelers from VWP countries of this new
requirement with handout material indicating that the non-MRP will no
longer be accepted for travel to the United States after October 26,
2004. In addition, CBP inspectors are instructed to hand write ``MRP
notified'' adjacent to the admission stamp in non-machine readable
passports. On the October 26, 2004 MRP biometric deadline, DHS and the
State Department are working along with our VWP partners to ensure
understanding of the ICAO standards.
An effective and secure visa system requires more than adopting new
technology or making enhancements to existing processes. It also
requires improved information sharing and watch list integration so
that officers adjudicating or reviewing visa applications abroad or
screening travelers at the U.S. ports of entry have all available tools
and information needed to make a sound decision.
Based upon direction from the White House, DHS, in partnership with
the State Department, the Homeland Security Council, Department of
Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency is participating in two
important, and soon to be integrated initiatives, that improve
interagency access to terrorist-related information during visa
adjudication and admissibility determinations. The President announced
his decision to create the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC)
during his State of the Union address and the Center began operations
on May 1 of this year. One of TTIC's key responsibilities is the
development and maintenance of an all-source database on known and
suspected international terrorists. On September 16, 2003, President
Bush signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive-6 establishing the
Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). The TSC will develop, integrate, and
maintain a consolidated terrorist screening list about individuals
known or suspected to be engaged in terrorist activities. TSC will
permit appropriate users access to terrorist identities information for
use in a wide range of screening opportunities. The OIE is developing a
visa vetting protocol that fully ensures that capabilities of both the
TTIC and TSC are integrated into the visa vetting process.
DHS recognizes the importance of maintaining a visa process that
allows legitimate travelers to continue to travel to the United States
and we will continue to balance these interests while ensuring that
homeland security requirements receive the priority they deserve in the
visa process. We look forward to working with other DHS components, our
law enforcement partners, and the Department of State to ensure that
collectively, we develop a visa system that provides the security that
the American people expect and deserve.
Thank you for the invitation to testify today and I look forward to
any questions you might have.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Verdery.
Our third panelist is Mr. David Hardy, the acting director,
acting assistant director, for Record Management at the FBI.
Thank you, Mr. Hardy, for being here, and welcome.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HARDY, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RECORDS
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Mr. Hardy. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Sununu and Chairman Lugar, thank you for inviting
the FBI to testify in this hearing in which you will be
examining the FBI's role in the process of vetting foreign visa
applicants to the United States.
My written testimony contains a detailed explanation of the
name-check process, or the visa security review, as it's
sometimes called, that occurs at the FBI. But, in short, the
process identifies whether a name or a visa applicant is found
in the FBI records, and then we determine if it is or it could
be the individual whose name we're reviewing. Then we determine
whether there is pertinent information on that individual. And
finally we determine whether a Security Advisory Opinion should
be given to State concerning that particular individual.
I want to emphasize to you that the FBI is sensitive to the
impact that delays in visa processing may have on business,
education, tourism, this country's foreign relations, and the
worldwide perceptions of the United States. With these
considerations in mind, the FBI is working diligently with the
Department of State and other federal entities toward the
common goal of improving the expediency and efficiency of the
visa clearance process.
At the same time, the consequences of the FBI's mission on
homeland security requires that our name-check process be
primarily focused on accurate and thorough results. This means
that there are instances when the FBI's review of a visa
request must require as much time needed as to obtain an
unequivocally correct result. In addition, this process has
identified individuals who are of concern to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
The FBI's goal is to have all Mantis and Condor vetting
requests completed within 120 days. In my written testimony are
two attachments, which show the current status of the Visas
Condor Program and the Visas Mantis Program, and their status
as of October 1st. I invite your attention to them so that I
can explain the charts to you.
Attachment A, which is for Visas Condor, if you will look
in the month of September, the FBI received 7,986 requests. By
October 1st, the FBI had resolved all but 521 of these
requests. In the month of August 2003, the FBI received 7,381
Visas Condor requests, and by October 1st we had resolved all
but 257 of these requests.
If you can turn to Attachment B, which is for Visas Mantis.
For Visas Mantis, the FBI received 1,029 requests in the month
of September 2003, and by 1 October had resolved 832 of them.
In the month of August, the FBI received 1,122 Visas Mantis
requests, and by October 1st had resolved all but 116 of these
requests.
The percentage of completion of these requests continue to
rise over time. Ninety-seven percent of Visas Condor and 95
percent of Visas Mantis were resolved within 90 days. Visas
Mantis are particularly difficult to resolve due to the
predominance of the requests we receive from China and the
commonality of Asian names.
A common question we receive, then, is, How long does it
take to complete a visa request name check? And as shown in
these graphs, for these two type of visa requests, 80 to 93
percent are completed in 30 days. For both type of visa
requests, 97 to 98 percent of the requests are resolved within
120 days.
Most of the name-check requests that are over 30 days old
are the result of the time required to retrieve and review
field-office record information. Some delays occur at the
analysts' desks. These are the counter-terrorism, counter-
intelligence, and other appropriate desks, but that is to be
expected. The analysts that review these requests are the same
ones that are assigned to support ongoing operations or to
support the flow of intelligence to policymakers. While this
adds to their significant responsibilities, they are the best
professionals that the FBI has, and they're the appropriate
individuals to make informed decisions of whether a request of
a visa represents a threat to our homeland.
These efforts are not without substantial challenges. Prior
to September 11th, the FBI name-check system processed
approximately 2.5 million name checks. In fiscal year 2002,
that number increased to 3.2 million. This is for all name
checks, not just for visa name checks. And for fiscal year
2003, the number of requests reached 6.3 million. At earlier
hearings, we had estimated 9.8 million requests, but the
request of name checks decreased over the summer, although the
number of visa requests have not decreased. Attachment C
illustrates this explosive increase.
With the advent of new screening requirements in late 2001,
specifically the Visas Condor Program, the FBI was overwhelmed
by the increase of names to be checked. We did experience a
backlog, and there were problems. Certain visa requests were
lost between the Department of State and the FBI. We've all but
eliminated that backlog and are working together with the
Department of State to ensure that any old visa requests have
been accounted for and processed. This has been accomplished
through clarification of the FBI name-check database, software
modifications, development of internal FBI tracking systems,
and improvement in the coordination with the visa name-check
processing, particularly with the Department of State.
This summer and fall, we closely monitored the student visa
submissions for this school year, and believe that we were able
to meet the seasonal demand, something that did not happen in
summer 2002.
We are using the National Academy of Sciences' data to
assist us in monitoring our response time and to conduct spot
checks for both students and visiting scholars. Again, we have
not seen any systematic problems associated with our review
process.
We recognize that our current name-check process is not
sufficiently robust for the volume of requests that we now
receive, and that the current process of retrieving records and
information from our field offices is too cumbersome. The FBI
is developing remedies for both of these concerns.
Again, the FBI recognizes the importance of accurate and
timely name-check processing. And, Mr. Chairman, I want to
emphasize to you, this has the direct attention of the Director
of the FBI.
The FBI appreciates the interest of the committee in this
matter, and I am prepared to answer any questions that you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardy follows:]
Prepared Statement of David M. Hardy,
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to testify in this hearing,
in which the committee is examining the FBI's role in the process of
vetting foreign visa applicants to the United States. My name is David
Hardy and I currently serve as Chief of the Record/Information
Dissemination Section, the section within the FBI's Record Management
Division responsible for the National Name Check Program. My goal today
is inform you of the manner in which the FBI is an integral part of the
cooperative effort of federal agencies to screen certain visa requests.
FBI NAME CHECK PROCESS
Certain visa applicants require substantial vetting prior to
issuance of a visa. Two of these categories are Visas Condor, relevant
to certain individuals who are from designated countries and who
satisfy additional criteria which may make them worthy of additional
scrutiny, and Visas Mantis, relevant to certain individuals who will
have access during their visit to American special technologies.
Since June, 2002, the FBI has been able receive visa applications
by automatic uploading of Department of State cables. Visa request
information from the cable is parsed and placed in a server for
transfer to the FBI's National Name Check Program (NNCP). Parsed
information is run against the FBI Universal Indices (UNI). The
searches seek all instances of the individual's name and approximate
date of birth, whether a main file name or reference. By way of
explanation, a main file name is that of an individual who is the
subject of an FBI investigation, whereas a reference is someone whose
name appears in an FBI investigation. References may be associates,
witnesses, co-conspirators, or victims whose name has been indexed for
later retrieval. The names are searched in a multitude of combinations,
switching the order of first, last, middle names, as well as
combinations with just the first and last, first and middle, and so on.
It also searches different phonetic spelling variations of the names,
especially important considering that many names in our indices have
been transliterated from a language other than English.
If there is a match with a name in a FBI record, it is designated
as a ``Hit,'' meaning that the system has stopped on a possible match
with the name being checked, but now a human being must review the file
or indices entry to further refine the names ``Hit'' on. If the search
comes up with a name and birth date match, it is designated an
``Ident'' An ``Ident'' is usually easier to resolve.
Approximately 85% of name checks are electronically returned as
having ``No Record'' within 72 hours. A ``No Record'' indicates that
the FBI's Central Records System contains no identifiable information
regarding this individual. By agreement with the Department of State,
partially due to our concern about the time factors in approving most
visa requests, a No Record equates to a No Objection to the issuance of
a visa. The substantive investigative divisions in the FBI, (i.e.,
Counterterrorism Division (CTD), Counterintelligence Division (CD),
Criminal Investigative Division (CU)) and the Cyber Division (CyD)) do
not review visa requests where there is no record of the individual.
Duplicate submissions (i.e., identically spelled names with identical
dates of birth submitted within the last 120 days) are not checked and
the duplicate findings are returned to the Department of State.
Because a name and birth date are not sufficient to positively
correlate the file with an individual, additional review is required. A
secondary manual name search usually identifies an additional 10% of
the requests as having a ``No Record'', for a 95% overall ``No Record''
response rate. The remaining 5% are identified as possibly being the
subject of an FBI record. The FBI record must now be retrieved and
reviewed. If the records were electronically uploaded into the FBI
Automated Case Support (ACS) electronic record-keeping system, it can
be viewed quickly. If not, the relevant information must be retrieved
from the existing paper record. Review of this information will
determine whether the information is identified with the subject of the
request. If not, the request is closed as a ``No Record.''
The information in the file is reviewed for possible derogatory
information. Less than 1% of the requests are identified with an
individual with possible derogatory information. These requests are
forwarded to the appropriate FBI investigative division for further
analysis. If the investigative division determines there is no
objection to the visa request, the request is returned to the name
check dissemination desk for forwarding to the Department of State. If
there is an FBI objection to the visa request, the investigative
division will prepare a written Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) and
forward it to the Department of State. In reviewing these visa
requests, the FBI has identified individuals attempting to enter the
United States who are of serious concern to the FBI.
I want to emphasize to you that the FBI is sensitive to the impact
that delays in visa processing may have on business, education,
tourism, this country's foreign relations, and worldwide perceptions of
the United States. With these considerations in mind, the FBI is
working diligently with the Department of State toward the common goal
of improving the expediency and efficiency of the visa clearance
process. At the same time, the consequences of the FBI's mission on
homeland security requires that our name check process be primarily
focused on an accurate and thorough result. This means that there are
instances when the FBI's review of a visa request must require as much
time as needed to obtain an unequivocally correct result.
PROCESSING TIMES
The FBI's goal is to have all Mantis and Condor vetting requests
completed within 120 days. Attachment A illustrates the current status
of Visas Condor names checks, and Attachment B illustrates the same for
Visas Mantis name checks. This status was taken on October 1, 2003. For
example, for Visas Condor, the FBI received 7,986 requests during the
month of September 2003. By October 1, 2003, the FBI had resolved all
but 521 of these requests, for a 93% resolution rate. (See Attachment
A) In the month of August 2003, the FBI received 7,381 Visas Condor
requests and by October 1, 2003, had resolved all but 257 of these
requests for a 97% resolution rate. For Visas Mantis, the FBI received
1029 requests in the month of September 2003 and by October 1, 2003,
had resolved 832, or 80% of them (See Attachment B). In the month of
August 2003, the FBI received 1,122 Visas Mantis requests and by
October 1, 2003, had resolved all but 116 of these requests for a 90%
resolution rate. The percentages continue to rise over time, 97% of
Visas Condor and 95% of Visas Mantis were resolved within 90 days.
Visas Mantis are particularly difficult to resolve due to the
predominance of requests from China and the commonality of Asian names.
A common question we receive is, How long does it take to complete
a visa request name check? As shown on these graphs, 80 to 93% are
completed in 30 days. For both types of visa requests, 97-98% of the
requests are resolved in 120 days. Most name check requests that are
over 30 days old are the result of the time required to retrieve and
review field office record information. Some delay occurs at
substantive analysts' desks, but this is to be expected. These analysts
are assigned to the investigative divisions and are primarily assigned
to the analysis of intelligence reports from around the world in order
to support on-going investigations, or to support the flow of
intelligence to policy makers. Despite these significant and voluminous
responsibilities, these are the best professionals to review
information in our records and to then make an informed decision on
whether a requester of a visa represents a threat to our homeland, or
is interested in illegally acquiring our targeted technology.
Nevertheless, as I stated earlier, the FBI's resolves 98% of all types
of visa requests within 120 days.
Resolved Visas Condor--2003
Attachment A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
Month Received Requests Requests
Received Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October....................................... 6,436 6,417
November...................................... 8,355 8,337
December...................................... 6,488 6,460
January....................................... 5,374 5,342
February...................................... 4,492 4,473
March......................................... 6,648 6,620
April......................................... 5,836 5,811
May........................................... 5,059 5,021
June.......................................... 7,384 7,266
July.......................................... 9,307 8,996
August........................................ 7,381 7,124
September..................................... 7,986 7,465
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved Visas Mantis--2003
Attachment B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
Month Received Requests Requests
Received Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October....................................... 875 875
November...................................... 1,283 1,282
December...................................... 1,119 1,113
January....................................... 1,354 1,347
February...................................... 1,035 1,023
March......................................... 2,011 1,986
April......................................... 985 970
May........................................... 1,240 1,217
June.......................................... 2,589 2,564
July.......................................... 1,737 1,652
August........................................ 1,122 1,006
September..................................... 1,029 832
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Name Checks (1994-2003)
Attachment C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Names
Fiscal Year Checked
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1994.............................................. 1,792,874
FY 1995.............................................. 2,091,426
FY 1996.............................................. 2,939,521
FY 1997.............................................. 2,850,769
FY 1998.............................................. 2,148,993
FY 1999.............................................. 2,957,525
FY 2000.............................................. 2,449,981
FY 2001.............................................. 2,771,241
FY 2002.............................................. 3,288,018
FY 2003.............................................. 6,309,346
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
These efforts are not without substantial challenges. Prior to
September 11, 2001, the FBI name check system processed approximately
2.5 million name check requests per year. In FY 2002, that number
increased to 3.2 million. For FY 2003, the number of requests reached
over 6.3 million requests. (At earlier Congressional hearings the FBI
estimated that the number would reach 9.8 million requests. The rate of
growth decreased over the summer months. It should also be noted that
while over all name check submissions decreased over the summer, the
number of visa request name checks showed no decrease.) Attachment C
illustrates this explosive increase. With the advent of new visa
screening requirements in late 2001, specifically the Visas Condor
program, the FBI was overwhelmed by the increase in names to be
checked. We did experience a backlog, some visa requests were lost
between the Department of State and the FBI, and visas requested in the
spring and summer of 2002 were delayed beyond the time period travelers
had anticipated. We have all but eliminated the backlog, and are
working together with the Department of State to ensure that any old
visa requests have been accounted for and processed. This was
accomplished through clarification of the FBI name check database,
software modifications that allowed development of detailed metrics,
the development of an internal FBI tracking system for SAO opinions,
and improvement in the coordination of visa name check processing.
We closely monitored student visa submissions for this school year
and believe that we were able to meet this seasonal demand. We are
using National Academy of Sciences' data to assist us in monitoring our
response time for both students and visiting scholars. Again, we have
not seen any systematic problems associated with our review process.
However, the FBI recognizes that the explosion in numbers of requests
necessitates development of even more efficient processes in order to
sustain the current pace of processing name check requests. The FBI is
in the process of implementing a number of interim improvements to
minimize manual submissions by all agencies and increase efficiency
within the name check process. The FBI has developed high-level
functional requirements for a new name check application compatible
with the new FBI information systems in development. These new
information systems, over time, will eliminate dependence on the
retrieval of paper files. The development of this new name check
application is now undergoing review within the FBI's Investment
Management Process.
DECENTRALIZED RECORDKEEPING SYSTEM
I have touched upon our IT systems challenges, but now I want to
discuss another factor in delays in the FBI responding to a visa name
check. FBI files are currently stored at one of approximately 265
locations, including the FBI's Headquarters facility, several
warehouses around the Washington Metropolitan area, in records centers
either operated by the NARA or commercial concerns, four large
Information Technology Center facilities on the east and west coast, at
each of the 56 field offices, many of the larger of our 400 resident
agencies, and at legal attache offices worldwide. Delays result from
NNCP personnel identifying a file's location then requesting file
information from a field office. Time delays mount as field office
staffs search file rooms and then ship needed information or a prepared
summary to FBI Headquarters. This process--repeated for many tasks, not
only dilutes the FBI's responsiveness, but also limits information
sharing--a critical success factor in working counterintelligence and
counterterrorism cases.
One possible solution to these problems the FBI is exploring would
be a central records repository where all of our closed paper files
could be located, and our active files stored electronically. Our
frequently requested closed files could be scanned and uploaded into
our electronic record-keeping system, so that Agents and analysts world
wide would have instant, electronic access to the information they need
to do their jobs.
CONCLUSION
Again, the FBI recognizes the importance of accurate and timely
name check processing. I want to emphasize to you, this issue has the
full attention of Director Mueller. The FBI appreciates the interest of
the committee in this matter. I am prepared to answer any questions the
committee may have.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much, Mr. Hardy.
We're joined by Senator Nelson, as well as Chairman Lugar.
And I will begin the questioning. I'll try to take less than
five minutes so that I may turn to Senator Nelson for any
opening comments and questions that he may want to get into.
Let me ask each of you to begin by commenting on
information sharing. That seems to me to be a central issue
here--the ease, the speed with which law enforcement, State,
Homeland Security, and the FBI can share information and get
access to information in order to evaluate requests for visas
in a timely manner.
I'd like each of you to comment on what you see, currently,
as the greatest obstacle to a good, strong, consistent
information-sharing between agencies.
And why don't we begin with you, Mr. Verdery.
Mr. Verdery. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's clear the problem
that you identified is an important one. Whether you're talking
about a Consular officer, a DHS officer overseas, or a Customs
and Border Protection inspector at the border, not to mention a
state and local officer who might have run into somebody,
having access to the kind of information they need to do their
job is obviously critical. I think this is the central thinking
behind both the TTIC and the TSC that the Administration has
unveiled over the last few months, the TTIC is running as we
speak, and the TSC is coming online, I believe, late this year
or in January, to try to come up with the integrated or
consolidated sharing of information so that the people who have
a need to know have the information they need to have. And so
that's, obviously, been a problem over the years, that these
two initiatives will link up together.
From our point of view, we will be both the supplier of
information to these entities and a client, so we'll be
receiving intelligence that will go in, to develop
intelligence. We'll also be recipients, in terms of getting
information from the TTIC and TSC and sharing it with the
border inspectors, and our DHS overseas officers.
One thing I would just mention is, there has been a lot of
progress in terms of making sure that the information that the
State Department receives during the visa application process
is available at the borders, at the ports of entry, for the
inspectors so they can see, through the data-share program,
information that was received at the time of application to
make sure that it's verified when the applicant shows up at the
port of entry for admission to the United States.
Senator Sununu. Ms. Jacobs, what is the biggest obstacle
to information sharing between agencies right now?
Ms. Jacobs. Well, I would just like to mention that I
think the data-sharing has increased enormously after 9/11. We
are making greater use of our consolidated database that has
all information on visas that are issued or denied, sharing
that information with inspectors at the ports of entry. We have
doubled the number of lookouts in our Lookout system. We are
finding new ways to share data with other agencies. Soon we
will be sharing the fingerprint data that we collect overseas
with the Department of Homeland Security with the inspectors at
ports of entry.
I think that probably the two greatest obstacles that we
all face, one would be the uneven pace of modernization of
existing systems and systems architecture. And we all have new
systems, I think, that we're trying to put in place. They don't
necessarily talk to each other yet, and I think that's one
thing that we really need to address.
The more that we can share information electronically, the
more that we can do special clearances, or security advisory
opinions, in particular, electronically, the faster the process
will go. We are undertaking, at the State Department, to use
our consolidated visa database to begin doing name checks
electronically. We're going to pilot that program in November,
and we hope to have it up and running by January of next year.
I think the other thing, the second greatest obstacle right
now is perhaps the quality of the data that we share. I think
we need to work a little bit on formats, the type of
information, making sure that it is consistent, so that
everyone is able to read the same things and understand what
the Lookout data means.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Hardy, I'll give you a chance to
answer that question in a moment, but, Ms. Jacobs, is there a
plan in place, at State and certainly within your organization,
to deal in some way with the system's modernization question?
Ms. Jacobs. Absolutely. We replace computer hardware every
three to four years on our existing systems, and our systems
are continually modified and updated to meet ne requirements. I
think that the systems used by the Bureau of Consular Affairs
are really state-of-the-art. As I mentioned, our consolidated
database, which now has about 70 million visa records, 30
million of those have photos attached, we are finding new
functionality for that system all the time. I talked about this
new project to do electronic name checks. We're also using that
data to share information with other agencies. The Bureau of
Consular Affairs has just established a technology information
management steering committee to undertake quarterly reviews of
its projects. So I think we are, at State, doing everything we
can to keep up to date.
Senator Sununu. Thank you.
Mr. Hardy?
Mr. Hardy. As Secretary Jacobs referred to, in the FBI
record review, our name-check process, two existing systems
were essentially modified and adapted to work together, and so
that has not been without the requirement for a great deal of
coordination and loss of time as we try to adapt these two
systems. The State Department is in the process of developing a
new system, as is the FBI, and so many of the problems that we
have currently will resolved as these new systems come online.
I will also state, though, that a significant amount of
human cooperation and information sharing has overcome the lack
of compatibility of these two systems, and it is through a
great deal of hard work of people in both agencies that we're
able to keep the robust information flow that is occurring.
As to other information issues, particularly concerning the
investigative decision, I'll have to take that for the record,
as it's out of my area of expertise.
Senator Sununu. Thank you.
Senator Nelson?
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
calling this hearing.
This is an important subject, and in your next panel we
have someone from Florida representing the tourism industry, to
tell this subcommittee just how vital that industry is to our
state and how much our Florida economy is so heavily dependent
on the tourism industry. Close to 900,000 jobs in the state are
related to tourism and all the ancillary businesses, such as
the hotels, the restaurants, the theme parks, the airlines, the
cruise ships. And so I'm looking forward to this panel, and
it's of vital importance to our state.
Changes to the current policy toward the visa issuance are
clearly needed, and we must ensure that we don't allow people
who want to do us harm enter this country. At the same time,
we've got to streamline the system. We clearly have to protect
ourselves, but, in the process of protecting ourselves, we've
got to enable the commerce to continue.
So we're now in a position to evaluate the failings and the
shortcomings of the previous policy and to implement the
changes needed to improve the systems. During these
discussions, I'd like us to remember that we live in a global
economy, and we simply can't close our doors to the foreign
nations, nor can we create a system that is so burdensome that
we discourage good, law-abiding nations to come here to visit,
to work, to study, and otherwise contribute to our economy and
to our country, as a whole.
We have had hearings, Mr. Chairman, of which--you and I
both sit on the Commerce Committee--we've had hearings on the
health of the nation's tourism industry, especially after
September 11th.
Now, I have some concerns that some of these visa policies
discussed could have a negative impact on the international
tourism, and this is at the same time that we recognize that
what we ought to be doing is reaching out to our foreign guests
and having them coming to America. And so, last year, we
appropriated $50 million to the Department of Commerce to
create the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board. And it's a
remnant of what we had 20 years ago, which was a little agency
called the USTTA, the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration.
And by leveraging just a few dollars in foreign advertising, it
brought untold numbers of guests, which stimulated our economy
here. Well, we are now reintroducing this idea after a two-
decade hiatus, and I hope it's going to be one way that we can
encourage more people to come and visit the U.S.
The ease of issuing non-immigrant visas is greatly
important to sustaining tourism and other sectors of the
economy. Fingerprinting services are a small, but a key,
component to effective and efficient visa issuance. The ability
of consulates to process fingerprints electronically is crucial
in this age of rapid global movement.
In our Commerce Committee, we had a question of, in the
aftermath of September 11th, what we found, that some of the
hijackers had come here, they had taken flight lessons. My
state happened to be a state where they had taken a lot of
those. We have enacted legislation that--for foreign nationals
taking flight lessons. And we want to encourage that activity;
it's a legitimate business. So how do we protect ourselves?
Well, we're requiring that they have fingerprints done, and
done in an expeditious manner so that it won't hurt those
flying schools' business. And, as I understand the process,
fingerprinting is one of the final components of a background
check, following the verification of names and other
biographical information. And yet, in the past, we've seen it
has taken up to three weeks to complete, and this is a very
lengthy time for anybody that wants to come here, and it's also
a lengthy for someone that is here in the United States, for
clearance. And if the applicant is not cleared, for whatever
reasons, that person clearly is--it's in our interest that we
find out why they didn't get cleared.
So thank you for letting me make my opening statement, and
what I'd like, then, is to ask of the panel to discuss and
explain when can we expect electronic fingerprint collection to
be widespread, and which countries will be among the first to
have American consulates equipped with the technology? And take
us through the scenario of what can a foreign national expect
in the future when they go into an American embassy or
consulate in their country to apply for a visa to come to the
U.S.
Thank you.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you for that question. I'm happy to
answer it, because we have actually just started our
fingerprint program at several of our posts overseas. As you
know, we're required by law to include biometric identifiers
with the visas that we issue by October 26th of 2004, and there
are about six to eight posts right now where we are doing that.
Doing that is working extremely well. In fact, I have here to
show you basically what we're using. It is an electronic
scanner, and all the applicants have to do is put down an index
finger from each hand, very quickly. It takes about 30 seconds,
and the fingerprint has been collected.
Senator Nelson. What are those six or eight posts? And
when will that be installed?
Ms. Jacobs. Okay, we are already collecting at Frankfort,
Brussels, Guatemala, San Salvador, Ottawa, Montreal, and I
think we start Cairo in the next couple of days. And, as I
said, we'll be worldwide by October of 2004.
The process itself is very quick, it's very easy. This data
will eventually be shared with the inspectors at ports of
entry, and we will also be checking a database that DHS
maintains, called IDENT, so there will be a name check in
addition to the name check that we do through out Lookout
system.
Senator Nelson. Well, that sounds very encouraging. That
sounds like October of '04 you're going to basically be able to
fingerprint check everybody in a quick and efficient manner on
any person applying for a visa to come to the U.S.
Ms. Jacobs. That's right. There is another process
involved. We do have a lot of the NCIC, the FBI criminal data,
in our Lookout system. If there is a hit on somebody who
applies, where it looks like it's the same person, on those
particular individuals we do have to take ten rolled
fingerprints and send those back to the FBI to verify whether
it's the same person. So that process does take a little bit
longer than the electronic process that I was describing
earlier.
Senator Nelson. How much longer?
Ms. Jacobs. I think we're doing those in about three
weeks.
Senator Nelson. And what's the difference there? And what
percent of all your visa applications will take that more
lengthy process?
Ms. Jacobs. It's a very small percentage of the
applicants. It just depends on whether there's a name that's
either a direct hit or a close hit in the NCIC data. I think
that eventually we may be able to do that electronically, as
well. It's certainly something we're working towards.
We have an FBI agent who works up at our National Visa
Center, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, who actually is
processing these, and he's very dedicated to turning these
around quickly.
Senator Nelson. And when you say a ``small percentage,''
what are we talking about?
Ms. Jacobs. I'll have to get back to you, I think, with
the exact number, but of all of the applicants it's a very
small number that actually--where we have to do the ten
fingerprints.
[Ms. Jacobs' response to Senator Nelson's question
follows:]
Ms. Jacobs. Of the 7,079,805 non-immigrant visa
applications received worldwide during FY 2003, 24,364, or
0.34% were required to have their fingerprints taken as a
result of a possible match in the NCIC FBI criminal database.
Senator Nelson. And that is just an estimate now. You're
estimating that it's going to be a very small percentage.
Ms. Jacobs. Yes. Yes, sir. But I'm fairly certain it is a
very small percentage.
Senator Nelson. But that's because they get back a direct
hit.
Ms. Jacobs. Right.
Senator Nelson. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Chairman Lugar, welcome to our subcommittee.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Sununu. I
thank you and Senator Nelson for a very important hearing.
My question comes really from the testimony of the next
panel, and I cite specifically testimony of Jose Estorino, from
Florida, whom Senator Nelson has mentioned. He gives a summary,
which is certainly balanced, that, by and large, these new
rules and requirements make sense, from a homeland security
perspective, and that TIA and the U.S. travel industry support
efforts to enhance national security. But the many prospective
international visitors, who experience wave after wave of new
travel requirements, and so forth, paint a big picture that the
United States is becoming a destination that's too difficult to
enter, too expensive to visit, and simply not worth the effort.
He cites Brazil, where a 45 percent fall-off in travel to the
United States has been noted. He then details South Korea, and
another witness gets into the South Korean problems, and
estimates that maybe a sixth of the persons who would be coming
to the United States, for various reasons, will not be coming.
In the Brazilian case, it's an interesting anecdotal
discussion, because it's a big country. If Brazilians must
travel long distances to do the paperwork, this could amount to
$450 of expense per member--for a family of four, $1,800--and
what was meant to be a vacation simply becomes ``a bridge too
far.'' Likewise, in South Korea, there are equally daunting
problems.
Now, these dilemmas are well-known, I think, to everybody
who's been discussing this issue. I started with the balance
summary, that homeland security, as we have seen is extremely
important. We've had a congressional inquiry going on in the
Intelligence Committee, seemingly endlessly, as to why our
government failed, intelligence-wise, in terms of our record-
keeping, or whoever else was involved, that led to the death of
many Americans on September 11th. So it's a serious business.
I'm just curious, from your standpoint, though, as persons
representing three different departments, who does a broad
overview of what this means to the country, as a whole? For
instance, is it possible that the Secretaries of State and
Homeland Security, the Attorney General, would meet in any
informal or even formal way? Or is this at the level of the
President? We try to assess what all this means to us, in terms
of loss of national income, in terms of loss of international
scholarship, and the perception of our country. My general
summary of all the testimony today, but also anecdotally of a
lot more, is that the cost of this program, in addition to the
bureaucratic cost, the payment of the salaries and the expenses
of doing all this--which are considerable--the cost in terms of
our exports, the balance of payments, quite apart from the
reputation America has, is very, very substantial.
I'm just curious: maybe this subcommittee is finally left
to try to make these evaluations. Maybe the reason why we try
to bring together two panels, those who are dealing with the
real world and those who are dealing with the mechanisms of
government, is to try to address this specific problem.
Do you have any view of who in our government, either
executive or legislative, is supposed to take a more olympian
view of what the general assets and liabilities of all of this
are? If there are disasters, who mitigates them?
Ms. Jacobs, do you have an overall view of this situation?
Ms. Jacobs. Yes, sir, thank you. Actually, it's a very
good question, because I think all of the agencies involved in
border control and border protection are trying to work on
these measures in a way that does not discourage travel. I
think we all recognize the billions of dollars that tourists
introduce into the economy of this country, certainly students
coming here--I think that's about a $12 billion industry--and I
think we are all trying to work together.
I think that, to answer one of your questions, Secretary
Powell, Secretary Ridge, and Attorney General Ashcroft do meet
on a regular basis to talk about these issues, and sometimes
they really get down in the weeds on some of it, too, about
fingerprinting and all of the different things that we're
doing. And those are very healthy discussions, because they are
looking at the big picture, and they are trying to figure out,
you know, are we doing these things in a smart way and to make
sure that we're sharing information, sharing data, and, in the
end, not discouraging legitimate travelers from coming to the
U.S.
So I think, yes, I think there are people looking at this,
there are people who certainly understand that their security,
yes, has to be our top priority, but there are many other
interests here at play, and people are watching those and
taking an interest.
I'd give you an example, if I may, on how we're working on
the U.S. Visit Program, which is the DHS's entry/exit system,
will start early next year. All of the fingerprint data that we
will be collecting will eventually be shared with the
inspectors at ports of entry. We are already getting our
systems more compatible so that we're able to share all kinds
of information. I think perhaps that's one of the answers to
this. If we can do this in a smart way, where we're using the
most up-to-date technology so that we can check and keep out
the people that we really need to keep out while letting in the
legitimate travelers, I think that's the goal of the agencies
represented here today.
The Chairman. Well, that's encouraging, that there could be
some, as you say, ``smart technology.''
Now, I mention this because this is a very controversial
thing in our own country. Frequently we have constituents who
say aged ladies are being stopped in our own security
operations, and other people who are clearly not threats to
American security. But yet, in a democratic principle, we say
it doesn't matter who you are, how aged, how infirm, what your
problem is, you've got to proceed in these ways. And those who
are suggesting that there might be some smart technology that
somehow leads us to greater discrimination of who might be a
troublemaker leads then to lots of problems politically between
various groups in our society, and we go back and forth.
No easy answers to this, but the net effect, most of our
domestic airlines would say, has been a fall-off in patronage.
Now, it may be the recession. And I note the New Hampshire
University situation cites perhaps the decline in enrollment,
or lack, that we haven't had much more, there comes from that,
and so it may be. But there are a good number of people who
would just testify airline travel internally, here, has become
so daunting and discouraging, people have figured out other
ways of simply doing it. Now, it may be more secure, but it may
be dead by the time we're finished.
These are the issues that--and I'm grateful to your
testimony that the Secretaries do visit specifically about
these things, as you say, get into the weeds, in terms of the
overall American posture and prosperity, as well as our
reputation abroad, because I just think that's critically
important.
And I would say, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that you would
have subsequent hearings at various benchmark times to, sort
of, see how it's all going. It may be, as the streamlining
occurs, that tourism begins to peak up and we found that the
worse didn't happen. And the problems that I find, say, with
Purdue University, which you've found in New Hampshire, over
5,000 students, many coming from countries very controversial,
on all of these lists, but extremely important, in terms of the
technology sharing, our overall diplomacy with many, many
countries, and I just see a tremendous loss occurring here.
Now, the delays mean, as anecdotes come in this testimony,
that people delay courses of study. Eventually, they may get it
done a year or two later, if they're not discouraged and go
somewhere else, have a relationship with another country. And
these are serious issues, even while we're trying to work
through the nitty-gritty of security.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence of this
additional editorial.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar. I'm
more than happy to indulge the committee Chairman.
In fact, I'd like to pursue that a little bit more. I think
one of our witnesses mentioned the level of cooperation between
counterparts at the State Department and Homeland Security, but
with regard to the impact on travel or tourism or business or
academia, is there a formal mechanism for consulting these
other stakeholders when we're looking at changes in policy or
procedures? And, second, is there a formal mechanism for
discussing, with industry, potential new applications of
existing private-sector technology to help solve some of these
problems?
And I'd like each of you to address that, beginning with
you, Mr. Verdery.
Mr. Verdery. Well, in terms of official working groups to
advise the Department, the one that you might be most familiar
with is the Data Management Improvement Act Task Force, the
DMIA, which Congress set up to advise then the Attorney General
and now Department of Homeland Security on entry-exit issues.
The DMIA has a number of important business stakeholders--
airports, airlines, the travel industry, and the like--along
with relevant government players--State and Commerce and the
like--and they advise us on entry-exit, especially the US-VISIT
program.
Senator Sununu. How often does that group get together?
Mr. Verdery. I think officially it's quarterly, but we
work with them quite a bit. Just in my short stint in the
Department, I've met with them probably a half dozen times, and
then we obviously meet with the individual members. The US-
VISIT team and our office is working incredibly closely with
the airports and the airlines on the US-VISIT program, because
we understand how crucial they are to its success, both in
terms of designing the systems at airports to allow for better
check-in and check-out, and with the airlines in terms of
making sure the passengers know what's in store for them. In
fact, there's going to be a blizzard of press activity over the
next few months to make sure the traveling public from foreign
countries knows, when you show up at a port of entry, that
you're going to slap these two fingerprints, have a quick
picture taken during your interview process with the customs
officer.
While I have the floor for just a second, I just wanted to
echo what Ms. Jacobs said, in terms of the way these issues are
handled at a principals level many times. The Attorney General,
Secretary Ridge, and her department are very involved with US-
VISIT and the other various biometrics deadlines. This is a top
priority. He's given us very clear direction to facilitate
travel.
And I truly believe that these systems are going to create
efficiencies over time. The analogy that came into my head
while you were talking, Chairman Lugar, is if you told somebody
20 years that you were going to scan everything at a
supermarket, people would have said, ``Wow, that's--you are
going to wire that all up, and that's going to take forever.''
Well, now it obviously saves people time, it speeds people
through.
And that's the idea, that the biometrics are going to make
it easier for people to prove that there's no problem. If you
don't show up on a watch list, there's no hit, you zoom on
through, there's less discretionary problems, and it allows us
to focus our energies, both at the visa issuance process and at
the port of entry, on the very small number of people where we
think there might be an issue.
So I do think that it's going to take a little growing
pains, and we are working hand-in-glove with State, especially
on US-VISIT and these other issues. But, in the medium-term,
I'll call it, I am convinced this is going to be a boon to the
travel industry, whether it's the students or business travel.
Senator Sununu. Ms. Jacobs, did you have anything you
wanted to add to that?
Ms. Jacobs. Yes, sir. We are active members of the Tourism
Policy Advisory Board that Senator Nelson mentioned. Within the
State Department, we have a number of bureaus. Our Economic
Bureau, EB, is always coming to us with concerns from the
airlines. We have our regional bureaus, which also come to us
with concerns about delays and the drop in travel that people
have seen. So we are always aware of the issues.
In addition to that, we have a very active outreach
program, with different business groups, academic, scientific
groups who come to see us on a regular basis to both talk
about, sort of, the overall picture, their concerns, and
oftentimes they give us specific cases that they want us to
look into where there might be delays. And so we do have a very
active outreach and dialogue program with all of these
different groups that have an interest in bringing legitimate
travelers here.
Senator Sununu. Senator Lugar also mentioned cost. I mean,
literally the cost of the application process, let alone the
time and the effort that might be involved for applying for a
visa.
Two specific cases. I believe the current price to apply
for a non-immigrant visa is a hundred dollars. And today there
was a report that plans are in place to charge foreign students
a hundred-dollar fee to pay for the new student tracking
system.
Is this pricing structure a problem? Is it an issue? Does
it act as a deterrent? Does it discourage visitors that we
really should want to come to this country, should welcome to
this country, from doing so?
Ms. Jacobs?
Ms. Jacobs. The $100 that we do charge non-immigrant visa
applicants is a processing fee that is charged to most all of
our applicants. Actually, our consular operations are funded by
the fees that we collect from our visa applicants, from the
non-immigrant applicants. And so it is based on a cost of study
on the service that is provided.
Whether it's a deterrent or not, you know, you can argue, I
think, both ways on that. Some people say that it is not;
others say that once you get close to a hundred dollars, it
suddenly becomes a factor in whether people want to apply for a
visa.
Senator Sununu. Does it cover more--you know, when all is
said and done and you look at your costs and what you collect
in revenues, does it cover more than the cost of the processing
and what's done with any overage? And is there reciprocal
pricing by other countries?
Ms. Jacobs. It is not over the price of the services that
we're providing. In fact, with all of the new requirements that
we have undertaken after 9/11 and with the drop in demand going
on at the same time, we were doing around 10 million,
processing 10 million visas, in FY-01. We did about 6.9 million
in FY-03. So there has been a drop in numbers, which means a
drop in revenue, but our requirements are increasing. And so I
think the answer is no, that the $100 is certainly--we're not
overpricing the cost of visas.
With regard to your question about reciprocity, it really
varies from country to country. Some countries that Americans
enter with no fees, some countries do charge a fee, some less
than a hundred. There are a few countries, including Brazil,
Russia, some others, that charge a hundred dollars or more.
What a lot of countries do is, will let people in free for a
certain amount of time, but if you plan to stay over that time,
say 90 days, then they will charge you a fee for that.
Senator Sununu. Thank you.
Senator Nelson?
Mr. Verdery. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, could I speak a
second to the SEVIS fee that you mentioned, if I could?
Senator Sununu. Yes, please.
Mr. Verdery. Because I believe that regulation is going to
be promulgated either today or tomorrow.
The basic thinking of this is to support the SEVIS student
tracking system mandated by Congress to make sure that foreign
students are enrolled in legitimate universities for a
legitimate course of study. This program's actually been a
great success this fall, in terms of getting people enrolled.
The overwhelming majority of the people made it through with no
problems. We had a instant response team set up to deal with
problems from August 1st to September 15th, and I believe we
cleared over 200,000 foreign students.
But, in terms of the fee, there was no mechanism to cover
the cost of this. There's no appropriation to cover the bulk of
this program? And the decision came down to, do we want the
taxpayers to cover this, or the beneficiaries of the program.
And the decision was made to make the beneficiaries, the
students, cover the fee, and the fee will not only cover the
cost of the program, in terms of dealing with schools and the
credentialing of schools, but also an enforcement mechanism,
for the folks who we find that are not legitimate students. And
we are finding impostors and others who were not enrolled.
Several hundred, I believe, is what has been found this fall.
And we have to have a capability to go find them and take
appropriate action.
Senator Sununu. Thank you.
Senator Nelson?
Senator Nelson. Ms. Jacobs, you said your applications are
down, so you have a revenue shortfall. Does that mean that
you're thinking about raising the hundred-dollar fee?
Ms. Jacobs. At this particular point in time, we're still
looking at it. We have just completed another cost-of-service
study, and we have not made a final decision. I don't think, if
it is raised, that it will be raised by much. But we're still
looking at the information to see if we need to raise it. Our
preference would be not to raise it if we don't have to. But,
unfortunately, because we do depend on the machine-readable
visa fees to fund our operations overseas, and we have the
biometrics requirements and other things that we're doing after
9/11, we're going to have to find ways to fund that, those
additional requirements.
Senator Nelson. Well, let me tell you that in 30 states,
the tourism and travel industry is among the top three
industries in those 30 states. And in a state like Florida,
which has so many foreign guests come in its travel, if you've
got a family of four or five that are coming for a vacation,
four- or five-hundred dollars is a pretty big hit. And it
starts to get into a question of, does it become a deterrent to
those foreign guests coming and taking a vacation in America?
So I would certainly urge you to consider that at the time that
you are considering the raising of the fee, and I would hope
that you don't raise the fee.
Mr. Verdery, when the terrorist screening--when will the
Terrorist Screening Center be established?
Mr. Verdery. I believe it will become operational around
the first of the year. I'd have to get back to you on a
specific date. That is really handled within our Department,
within the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate, rather than the BTS Directorate, where I work.
We're more of a client of it. But I understand, first part of
next year.
[Mr. Verdery's response to Senator Nelson's question
follows:]
Mr. Verdery. The Terrorist Screening Center will be
established December 1, 2003.
Senator Nelson. We were told December the 1st.
Mr. Verdery. That is probably more accurate.
Senator Nelson. When will the Consolidated Terrorist
Screening List be established?
Mr. Verdery. I assume it would be sometime after the TSC
is set up. I think those plans are under development.
Senator Nelson. Okay. If you could get back to the
committee--
Mr. Verdery. I'd be happy to.
Senator Nelson. --we'd appreciate it.
[Mr. Verdery's response to Senator Nelson's question
follows:]
Mr. Verdery. The Consolidated Terrorist Screening List will
be established December 1, 2003.
Senator Nelson. I want to pick up on the Chairman's
comments about the testimony that will be coming with regard to
tourism, and particularly coming from Brazil.
Foreign travel is clearly off, to a place like Orlando that
is the number-one tourist destination in the world. And in the
past, a lot of that travel has come from Brazil. It's estimated
that we've lost nearly half of that travel business from
Brazil.
So, Ms. Jacobs, comment to you--what you think we ought to
do about this. What can we do to encourage and recoup some of
that travel?
Ms. Jacobs. I think it's a difficult question, because
sometimes it's hard to understand all of the different factors
at play regarding the drop in travel to the U.S. I think that
the new visa procedures and requirements may be a part of it. I
think the economic situation of any given country, or perhaps
even the worldwide economic situation, is a factor. I think
that there may be perhaps more fear of travel in general after
9/11. So sometimes it's difficult to understand, you know, to
really point your finger at any one particular thing that is
causing people not to come here anymore.
Our hope, as far as visas goes, is to carry out these
requirements that we have after 9/11 in a way that does not
discourage travel to the states. We want to find, to use, the
systems that we have, the technology that we have available to
us, to do this in a fast way so that we are processing people
quickly through.
I don't think there's any denying, though, that it is going
to be an--for example, the fingerprint requirement that we have
now will require people to travel to a consulate in order to
collect those fingerprints. And so the procedures are going to
be different after 9/11, and I'm not sure that we'll be able to
go back to the way they were before September 11th. But we are
doing everything that we possibly can to keep the process as
efficient as possible.
Senator Nelson. In the old days, there were some countries
that you didn't have to have a visa to travel from. Those days
are gone forever now, are they not?
Ms. Jacobs. The Visa Waiver Program? The Visa Waiver
Program still exists. There are 27 countries that participate.
I think that the vast majority of people who enter the U.S.,
foreign visitors, come in under the Visa Waiver Program.
Senator Nelson. How are we going to protect our shores
from the terrorists coming in under a visa waiver and not
having to do the fingerprint?
Ms. Jacobs. The people from the visa waiver countries
will--first of all, now they--by October of 2004, they'll have
to have--all have to have machine-readable passports after that
date. They will need the new biometric passport, which is a
chip with their picture on it, biodata, which will allow the
inspectors at the ports of entry to do facial recognition to
confirm the identify of these travelers. In addition, we get
information on these passengers before they actually arrive in
the U.S., so that the inspectors at the ports of entry can run
their names through the Lookout system, so that if anyone is in
there, they can be stopped at the port of entry.
Mr. Verdery. Senator Nelson, could I add to that? It's
actually just something I'm working on, as Secretary Jacobs
mentioned that a key part of the Visa Waiver Program is that we
obtain the passenger name record information on incoming
airline passengers before they get on the plane so that our
Customs and Border Protection inspectors can run tracking of
them and targeting to see if people have hits and the like.
This will also be used with the CAPPS II program that TSA is
developing to make sure that these folks are not a danger to
the plane itself, in terms of hijacking.
I have actually been designated by the Secretary to handle
our negotiations with the European Commission on this issue.
They have privacy concerns about turning over and allowing us
to have access to this type of data on their airline passengers
of European origin, and we are negotiating with them as we
speak to make sure that we continue to gain access to that
information, because it really is the only information we
receive for people in the Visa Waiver Program before they show
up at a port of entry.
Senator Nelson. Would Richard Reed have been eligible
under the visa waiver?
Mr. Verdery. I'm trying to remember which country he--I
believe he was.
Senator Nelson. He was a British citizen.
Mr. Verdery. Yes. And that's the kind of information we
would want to be able to run, a passenger's name like his
through our watch list via the passenger name record
information before he gets on the plane. Currently, under an
agreement we have for Customs and Border Protection, that
information is transmitted 15 minutes after wheels-up, so that
they have access to it when they arrive. But for the CAPPS II
program, we need to get the information beforehand so it can be
reviewed before the passengers actually board the plane.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Lugar?
The Chairman. Let me ask--you may already have defined this
before I came in, but what is the Condor and what is the Mantis
program? What are the meanings of those terms, and who are we
looking for?
Ms. Jacobs. Yes, sir. The Visas Condor was established in
January 2002 to check for terrorists, a new requirement. And
then the Visas Mantis is to check against transfer of sensitive
technology. That particular check actually has existed for
years. We just changed the name of it.
The Chairman. Now, how many visas have actually been denied
under either of those two programs?
Ms. Jacobs. We have done about 125,000 Condor checks. To
date, no one has been denied as a terrorist as a result of
those checks. We've done about 12,500 Mantis checks, and I
think the refusal rate is about .05 percent on those, and
that's fairly consistent with what it's been over the years.
The Chairman. On those occasions, what sort of persons
would be denied, or what would be causes for denial?
Ms. Jacobs. Under Visas Mantis, it would be someone whose
program in the U.S. or course of study or purpose of travel
somehow would involve sensitive technology that's controlled.
The Chairman. But, in the first instance, of the Condor,
out of 125,000 applicants, not a single denial of those.
Ms. Jacobs. No, sir.
The Chairman. That's, you know, astonishing on the face of
it, but there might have been some suspicion, I suppose, about
at least one of the 125,000. How does it work? In other words,
what sort of information is required in that particular
program, as opposed to other visa programs?
Ms. Jacobs. Under that program, there are criteria that
are established by various agencies back here in Washington,
and when an applicant falls under the criteria, the case is
referred back to Washington as a Security Advisory Opinion, and
it's looked at by a variety of agencies--intelligence, law
enforcement--and if they have any derogatory information, they
get back to us. If we get a ``no record'' back, then we go
ahead and say that the visa can be issued if the person is
otherwise qualified.
The Chairman. Pragmatically, are you examining that from
time to time to either add requirements or subtract them or
tweak the thing so that it may be more effective and less
inhibiting, in terms of people coming and going?
Ms. Jacobs. Yes, sir. In fact, we just revised the
criteria and got those revised criteria out to the field a
couple of months ago.
The Chairman. I see. Well, I appreciate that technical
information.
I just would comment that I think the work of this
subcommittee on this issue, and your testimony today, is very,
very important. We are trying to take a look at technical
aspects of our security, but many of us, at least all three of
us, in one form or another, are deeply worried about our
economy. You know, in other fora, in other committees, we worry
about jobless recovery or unemployment in the country or the
fact that since 9/11 we've had a downer.
Many people have been discussing this in terms of so-called
``frictional costs,'' the frictional costs being security
measures that businesses are taking all over our country, or
trips that were not taken, sales that were not made, tourism,
that didn't occur. All the fallout of this continues. This is
why I asked. You've been most responsive, as to the fact that
at some level, the Secretary level, people who have a view of
our entire economy and our well-being as American people--
leaving aside the specific security problems that are posed to
each of you--keep a sharp eye on this. We're busy trying to
stimulate the economy through tax cuts and through regulatory
changes and other things that we feel are very, very important.
We pile one on top of another, and we are sometimes criticized
for running up the federal deficit in our attempts to get
something going.
Now, what we're discussing here today, of necessity, is an
inhibitor on that growth, in my judgement, and it's a very
substantial one. The question is, what is the balance? If our
security requires warfare, we have been involved in that. We've
been involved in all sorts of other operations, short of that,
that are very expensive. That may be what we all have to face
as Americans. If so, it's a fairly bleak prospect. This is why
these hearings, it seems to me, are extremely important in
making certain that we think through everything we are doing,
in terms of cost-effectiveness and, in a more Olympian view, in
terms of American security.
I thank each one of you for the privilege of hearing you
this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Chairman Lugar.
Ms. Jacobs, you might have provided this in your
testimony--if so, I apologize--but what is the specific goal
for turning around and making a decision on a visa from
application to final approval?
Ms. Jacobs. Our goal for the cases that are referred back
to Washington--and only about 2.2 percent of all of the visas
that we process are actually referred back to Washington for
some kind of clearance--our goal is to get those cases, once
they come into Washington, through the process and an answer
back to the field within 30 days.
Senator Sununu. And what is the current average duration?
Ms. Jacobs. I think we are doing the vast majority of our
cases in 30 days or less. If the FBI puts a hold on a case,
then they've asked us to give them 120 days to resolve the
case, so some may take longer.
Senator Sununu. You don't track an average time, though,
for them all that you can watch and monitor and determine
whether it's increasing or decreasing?
Ms. Jacobs. We do. The office within the Visa office that
processes the clearances actually goes through and checks on
cases that are overdue, and we actually put those on a disk and
give those to the FBI just to make sure that they've been
checked.
Senator Sununu. So you would argue that you're meeting
your goals at this point.
Ms. Jacobs. Yes, sir.
Senator Sununu. Are you going to change the goal, make it
a little tougher? Set a new goal? Set a higher standard?
Ms. Jacobs. I would like to very much. When we have our new
project in place using our consolidated database, I'm really
hoping that we will be able to turn these around faster.
Senator Sununu. And I assume that Condor applications are
part of the 2.2 percent that you say is referred back to
Washington.
Ms. Jacobs. Yes, sir.
Senator Sununu. Do they comprise all of that 2.2 percent?
Ms. Jacobs. No. No, they--
Senator Sununu. What is the difference in criteria or
evaluation, background checking, that goes on with regard to
the Condor applicants that isn't done with other applicants
that are referred back to Washington?
Ms. Jacobs. Okay. David, do you want to handle that one?
Mr. Hardy. Mr. Chairman, we look at each referral to us
the same way. We do the same check, which is to review all FBI
records to see whether or not there's information on that
individual.
Senator Sununu. So is all of the 2.2 percent then goes
through the same evaluation process, you're saying?
Mr. Hardy. If it's referred to us by the State Department,
yes, that's correct.
Senator Sununu. How does the State Department decide which
of the 2.2 percent gets referred to the FBI and which doesn't?
Ms. Jacobs. All of the cases that come in the--what we
call SAO, Security Advisory Opinions, automatically go to the
FBI, CIA, and other agencies around town. Some of the--it just
depends on the type of check. The Visas Mantis, for example, we
have an office within the State Department, the
Nonproliferation Bureau, that actually looks at those cases, as
well, and gives us advice as to whether they think there's a
problem. So there are several players involved; it just depends
on the type of check that's done.
Mr. Verdery. Mr. Chairman, could I add something?
Senator Sununu. No, not just yet.
Mr. Verdery. Oh, sure.
Senator Sununu. That didn't quite make sense to me. I must
have missed something. Mr. Hardy said that anything that he
receives goes through the same process, which I assume is the
Condor and Mantis evaluations. And you suggested that all of
the 2.2 percent go to FBI and CIA. So that would suggest that
all of the 2.2 percent go through the Condor and Mantis
process.
Ms. Jacobs. No, I'm sorry. That 2.2 percent includes a
number of different checks. They all have animal names. There's
a long list of them. Bears, Donkeys, Horses. I'm not quite sure
how we--
Senator Sununu. So they're not all referred--
Ms. Jacobs. They're not--
Senator Sununu. --to the FBI.
Ms. Jacobs. All of those would be referred to the FBI.
Senator Sununu. Sorry. These two--I mean, these two
statements do not square. If all of the 2.2 percent refer to
the FBI, and the FBI treats them all the same way, then they
all go through the same process.
So maybe, Mr. Hardy, maybe I misunderstood what you said.
All of the referrals that you get, do they all go through the
Condor and Mantis program? Do they all go through the same
background evaluation program?
Mr. Hardy. Sir, I think the Condor and Mantis are subsets
of the 2.2 percent that come through us. All programs, whether
they're Donkeys, Eagles, Condors, Mantises, are reviewed the
same way by the FBI. So the entire menagerie constitutes the
2.2 percent.
Senator Sununu. Okay. Maybe the problem here is using
words like ``reviewed the same way.'' Are you saying they all
go through the exact same set of match identifiers and move
through the same set of databases?
Mr. Hardy. That's correct, sir.
Senator Sununu. Why would you have a distinction, then?
Why have the different categories if they're all going through
the exact same databases? And, in some ways, that would be a
good thing if we didn't have to make these distinctions,
because we had a system that was quite seamless and quite
efficient and could go through the same sets of matches.
Perhaps you can submit the information or the clarification for
the record.
And I'm sure that the problem is mine.
Just a couple of final questions, and I appreciate your
patience.
Mr. Verdery, do the Homeland Security officers who review
the visa applications in Saudi Arabia have access to
information that our Consular officers do not?
Mr. Verdery. They do.
Senator Sununu. And is that a vulnerability at other posts
that don't have DHS officers?
Mr. Verdery. Yes and no. The folks on the ground in Saudi
Arabia and the people who will be deployed to the other posts
that I mentioned during my opening statement will have access
to certain DHS databases, law enforcement bases, that Consular
officers do not. Now, this problem may be solved when the
Terrorist Screen Center is up and running.
In terms of your questions about the places where DHS
officers are not, which right now is everywhere except for
Saudi Arabia, we do have a mechanism in place for questions to
be referred back to Homeland Security here in Washington for
review by the Office of International Enforcement. So there are
people here that can provide this same type of expertise as the
people on the ground overseas as we begin to roll out the
deployment. Clearly, the deployment is going to take awhile,
considering our resources, but we do have a mechanism in place
for the officers overseas, both through the DOS or other DHS
employees who aren't visa security officers, to reach back to
Washington to gain the expertise that they need.
Senator Sununu. Did you give a date by which the five new
hubs will be established?
Mr. Verdery. I believe the goal is toward the end of this
year. Like I mentioned, the locations have not been officially
determined, and we're working to get assessment teams out to
the field to review them, and then we'll have to go up to the
Secretary for review.
Senator Sununu. But the effort has been funded?
Mr. Verdery. The effort is being funded right now out of
existing budgets, out of the other BTS components--the Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection. It's basically being taken out
of hide for this year's budget cycle.
Senator Sununu. Ms. Jacobs, what's the impact of the new
interview requirements on Consular staffing needs?
Ms. Jacobs. The impact has really not been that great at
most of our posts, because most people were interviewing more
applicants after 9/11. Many posts have always interviewed a
large percentage of their applicants because of high fraud or
other immigration pressures to come to the U.S. For the posts
that have been heavily impacted, such as Seoul and some of the
others, we are providing TDY assistance. We sent a Consular
Management Assistant Team to that post to look at the
situation, to come up with recommendations on use of windows,
work flow, things that they can do to perhaps increase
efficiencies. And we will continue to do that.
We are--as I said, though, most of the posts were already
interviewing more people, so it really has not made that much
of a difference. We have about 19 of our 211 posts, at this
point, that have waiting periods of 30 days or more for an
interview. All of the others are below that.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Verdery, I understand that there's
technology out there where we can take the machine-readable
visa and put it through a scanner that can then retrieve or
access the photo that was attached to the application at the
time that you made the visa request. Can your officials that
are at ports of entry right now currently get access to that
information?
Mr. Verdery. They have access right now to the
biographical information. The visas being issued with
biometrics built in, as Ms. Jacobs mentioned, are in
development now. And the photograph is not biometrically
enhanced in the visa and is not available.
Senator Sununu. But the biographic information is the only
thing that can be called up electronically right now.
Mr. Verdery. That's right.
Senator Sununu. If there are no further questions--
Senator Nelson. And when will those photos be available?
Mr. Verdery. I have to refer to Ms. Jacobs on the roll
out--I think they are doing the fingerprints, and the pilots
are ongoing.
Ms. Jacobs. That's correct. We actually do have photos
available. We have about 70 million records in the database at
this point, and about 31 million of those have photos attached.
But when we share the fingerprint data, there will be photo
information shared with that, as well.
Senator Nelson. And that will be, for all countries, by
next October?
Ms. Jacobs. By October 26th, 2004. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. Okay.
Mr. Hardy, I'm going to follow the line of questioning of
the Chairman. Do you do a different kind of investigation on
each of these animal names, or is it all the same?
Mr. Hardy. Yes, sir. We essentially have the same process.
The different categories are basically different criteria that
are looked at. And within the FBI, a Mantis is more likely to
be looked at by, say, the Russian desk or a China desk officer,
as opposed to a Condor, which has to do with terrorism and
would probably be looked at, in the end process, by someone
from counter-terrorism.
Not only are there different criteria, there are different
expediencies. For individuals who are traveling to this country
with non-immigrant visas, there is a requirement to turn them
around quickly, there's considerable attention given to them in
our mission profiles. So what we're trying to do is move them
as quickly as possible, as opposed to some of the other ones--
for example, an Eagle, which maybe a immigrant status or
refugee status--that we didn't talk about here today, because
they're not what primarily impacts international travel.
So we're able to break out the different categories of visa
requests, and then we gauge our priorities as we work through
the process based on the need to move them, or the importance
of that particular program, Condor obviously being one of the
most important programs that we have. So that's the distinction
that occurs, but the overall generic process which occurs is
the same for each of them.
Senator Nelson. With regard to the visa wavier program,
Mr. Hardy, what is in process now--what is in place now that
was not a year ago that would catch a Richard Reed?
Mr. Hardy. First, again, within my own particular area, on
the Visa Waiver Program, we would not see one of those coming
through the name-check program. However, as the FBI identifies
individuals, they do provide them to the Lookout and CLASS
systems, so that they assist in that identification, as has
been earlier discussed by Secretary Jacobs.
Senator Nelson. Are you satisfied? Is your testimony to
this committee that you're satisfied that the procedures are in
place to catch a guy like that?
Mr. Hardy. Senator Nelson, I think as a record-management
individual, I would have to defer that to our analysts and our
substantive desk, which deal with the substance of the
policies. So if I could take that for the record?
Mr. Verdery. Sir, if I could just add that there are
reviews ongoing of the countries within the Visa Waiver
Program. I believe there have been six countries reviewed over
the last year of so, and two of them have been found wanting in
terms of the criteria for the program, in terms of the refusal
rates for people from that country, our confidence in whether
or not passports are stolen or lost, and a whole range of
factors. And we are planning under the MOU that's now been
signed, that that responsibility is primarily ours to review
the Visa Waiver Program, and we are planning on doing so, to
make sure that the countries that are in it are meeting their
obligations.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Verdery, let me ask you--a little out
of your bailiwick, but still important to our tourism industry,
is lessening the hassles of travel and yet enabling still you
to catch the bad guys. On what timetable do we have this kind
of identification system on the passengers that you don't have
a problem having to screen, and, therefore, they will have some
kind of identification that allows them to streamline the
process?
Mr. Verdery. Well, if you're talking about the US-VISIT
program, sir----
Senator Nelson. I'm talking about the domestic market.
Mr. Verdery. The domestic market?
Senator Nelson. Yes.
Mr. Verdery. Are you talking about U.S. citizens
traveling?
Senator Nelson. Yes.
Mr. Verdery. The CAPPS II program, is that what you're
asking about?
Senator Nelson. I don't know the name of the program.
Mr. Verdery. The CAPPS II is the program that TSA,
Transportation Security Administration, is developing and is
scheduled to become effective sometime next year. It has not
begun testing yet. And this would replace the current CAPPS II
program that the airlines run that determine who is referred to
secondary screening. CAPPS II would attempt to make those
decisions based more on identity verification, people that we
have a reason to believe they are not who they say they are or
their factors in their background bump up against something
that raises concern and then they would be referred to
secondary screening for flights.
The overwhelming majority of people would either go through
with no screening, or, after the screening, you might run into
the occasional so-called ``red hit'' that somebody's actually
on a watch list. But the point here is to improve the screening
to lessen the number of people going to screening and to make
it based on some more rational factors. And that should be up
and running next year.
Senator Nelson. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Jacobs--and this will be my last question--earlier this
year, the State Department promulgated a rule which would
require a personal interview of most non-immigrant visa
applicants. What are the costs and space implications for the
staffing and embassy construction of this decision? And is the
requirement of an interview creating the backlog or adding to
the existing backlog of the visa applications?
Ms. Jacobs. Most of the posts have not been affected by
the change of policy. In fact, most of the posts began
interviewing more applicants after 9/11. Some of our posts have
always interviewed a large portion of their applicants because
of fraud or for other reasons. So the impact on the majority of
our 210 posts has not been that great.
There have been a few posts, however, that were not
interviewing a lot people, who are now, such as Seoul. And we
are providing them extra help, extra people. We sent a special
team there to take a look at the situation to see what
recommendations they could make to improve efficiency--the use
of the windows, things of that sort.
The space really has not been an issue. The collection of
fingerprints that I talked about, we're actually doing this
right at the interview window, so we haven't had to add
anything new to the consular sections that would take away
space. At some point in the future, if we were to go to more
fingerprints, which we understand is a possibility because
NIST, the scientists, have told us at some point our database
may get so large that we need more than two fingerprints. If we
have to go to a larger machine, then space will become an issue
for a lot of our posts, and we are talking to our office of
building operations and also to diplomatic security about needs
if we need to enlarge or move offsite.
Senator Nelson. Well, all of you have a difficult job, and
we appreciate the job you're doing, and it's one that we have
to do well, for the protection of us, as well as for the
enhancement of our economy.
Thank you.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
Thank you to our panelists, who obviously have significant
challenges in front of you. But I think we have a pretty good
sense of where the immediate priorities are.
I do note that among the funds in the supplemental was $29
million to deal with the possibility of a shortfall for
machine-readable visa--machine-readable passport fees. So I
think it's fair to say that, at least on the appropriations
side, people are cognizant of the needs to continue to provide
the resources necessary to upgrade these technologies.
Thank you again, and we will submit additional questions
for the record that we weren't able to get to this morning.
I thank you again, and welcome the next panel.
Our second panel will include Mr. William Oberlin, the
president of the American Chamber of Commerce in South Korea,
Dr. John Aber, who is vice president for Research and Public
Service at the University of New Hampshire, in Durham, New
Hampshire, an institution I know very well, and Mr. Jose
Estorino, who is the senior vice president of Marketing at the
Orlando and Orange County Convention and Visitors Bureau, in
Orlando, Florida.
Gentlemen, I very much appreciate you taking the time and
traveling in order to be here today to provide testimony for
the subcommittee. You've been very patient, but I do--I hope
and I believe this was a case where the testimony of the
previous panel was of particular interest to each of you, and I
hope we were able to cover, with our questioning, some of the
same questions that you might have asked of the previous panel.
At this time, it's a pleasure for me to allow you to
summarize your written testimony. Your entire written testimony
will be included in the formal subcommittee record. And we will
begin with Mr. Oberlin.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM OBERLIN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA
Mr. Oberlin. Chairman Sununu, thank you very much.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on the
concerns of the new visa policy and its effects upon U.S.
business in Korea. As president of the American Chamber of
Commerce, I represent approximately 1,000 companies,
approximately 2,500 members, and, in addition, I also work for
the Boeing Company as the country executive for Korea.
Korea is a major trading partner, the 12th largest economy
in the world, and it remains a strong security ally by sending
non-combat troops to Iraq. They have just announced that they
will send several thousand additional combat troops to support
our efforts.
The world has felt significant changes since September 11th
as America comes to grips with previously unimaginable threats.
Our members strongly support all the security changes necessary
to keep our country safe.
The U.S. Embassy in Korea is the largest visa-processing
post in the world. Last May, Secretary Powell announced a new
guideline that had the practical impact of doubling the number
of personal interviews needed in Seoul, from 35 percent to 70
percent. The change in policy was announced during Korea's peak
travel season, with only two week's notice to the industry. The
backlogs in interviews immediately ballooned to more than 60
day's wait from the pre-policy turnaround times of two to five
days.
We are extremely grateful to Consul General Bernie Alter
and his team for their daily dedication to help American
business in this new, difficult environment.
Coming at a time when many foreigners view America with
increasing skepticism, the new visa policies will unfortunately
spur a growth of anti-American sentiment in Korea. One such
example was the recent action taken with virtually no advance
warning to suspend the Transit Without Visa Program. This
suspension came at the beginning of August, when many Korean
students were about to return home from their summer language
programs in Canada. One American carrier told over 100 Korean
students stranded in Canada they could not honor their
reservations because the flight required an aircraft change in
the U.S. Because there was a lack of appropriate notice and
because the event took place during a peak travel season, there
were no seats available on non-American carriers. These
students and their families were severely inconvenienced and
made to feel unwelcome by the United States.
We are concerned that a net increase of only 39 consular
officers for fiscal year '03 and another 40 officers in fiscal
'04 maybe not be enough to adequately handle the current and
expected global demands without creating additional backlog.
Last year, almost 700,000 Korean passport holders entered the
United States, making Korea the fifth-largest source of inbound
travel to the U.S. Unlike Koreans, citizens from the other four
countries--the U.K., Japan, Germany, and France--do not need
tourism visas to enter the U.S. In other words, Koreans form
the largest single group of tourists who require visas to
travel to the U.S. According to the U.S. Commercial Service,
Korean tourists spent almost $21 billion in the U.S. over the
last year. This revenue is at significant risk with our new
visa policy.
Amway Korea annually takes its key distributors on
incentive trips. Amway's '04 convention was scheduled to held
in Las Vegas--or Los Angeles and was to include 8,000 Korean
distributors. Historically, groups have been bulk-processed by
an interview-waiver program internally managed by the consular
section. Now all the applicants must individually apply for a
personal interview via a telephone appointment system, which
requires three to four minutes per application to register for
an appointment. Waits for a interview range from between 30 to
70 days, depending upon the season. Because of the logistics of
pushing 8,000 people through an individual appointment and
interview process, Amway cancelled their L.A. venue and
rescheduled for Japan. The aggregate lost revenue value of that
single group alone was $18 million.
On May 19th, US VISIT, an entry-exit system to monitor the
arrival and departure of international visitors, was announced,
the plan to capture fingerprints and photographs for the
millions of international visitors arriving at U.S. airports
and the seaports beginning in January 1st, '04. This new
security measure has not been well communicated to the travel
industry, and certainly not to the traveling public in Korea.
Again, a necessary policy clumsily implemented will do more to
alienate our already strained relationships.
Also on the horizon is the law requiring all visa
applicants to include biometric identifiers by October '04.
Considering current space and staffing challenges, the expected
waiting times to arrange appointments could be, some say,
devastating, if not very, very challenging.
The reality in Korea is that due to increased security and
a one-size-fits-all approach, we are losing business, tourists,
and students, and, more importantly, we are losing friends and
influence at a time when American can ill-afford the loss.
We believe that in addition to the war on terrorism, there
is also a war raging for global influence, and this is also a
war the U.S. cannot afford to lose. We may not see the results
immediately, but in 20 to 30 years from now, when one looks
back at this time and these challenges, we will be judged on
how much foresight and how much creativity we used in resolving
these difficult issues.
We respectfully urge the departments involved to begin
aggressive information campaigns to explain the policy and to
try and mitigate the negative repercussions. One creative
approach might be to contract mobile biometric information
collectors and, for an addition cost-recovery fee, take the
service directly to the applicants. Allowing applicants to
submit visa applications online, similar to Australia's visa
policy, would shift the burden of the data entry to the
applicants, which would save the U.S. Government time and
money.
Let me conclude by iterating what I stated at the
beginning. The American business community in Korea strongly
supports the federal initiatives designed to protect America
from terrorist attacks. We believe that protection of our
national security must go hand in hand with protecting our
economic security. Procedures and systems designed to deny
terrorists must also work to facilitate the efficient entry of
legitimate international business and leisure travelers. This
is not an either/or proposition, but a matter of balance. We
must achieve the twin goals of improving security and
facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel.
Thank you very much. I look forward to trying to answer
some of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oberlin follows:]
Prepared Statement of William C. Oberlin
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on the concerns
of the new visa policy and its effects on U.S. business in Korea. It is
an honor to be invited here to contribute to this important dialogue on
homeland security and visas. I came here today to share the views of
the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea. As president, I represent
almost 1,000 companies doing business in Korea. These companies range
in size--from very small 1-man companies to several thousand people
working for America's largest and most prestigious companies. In
addition to my position at AMCHAM, I also work for The Boeing Company
as its Country President for Korea.
KOREA BACKGROUND
Korea is a major trade partner for the United States. As the 12th
largest economy in the world, Korea has a GDP of $477 billion and per
capita GDP of over $10,000, placing it in the middle rank of OECD
countries and as the second largest in Northeast Asia after Japan.
Korea is our 6th largest export market with Koreans buying more
American products than those from China, France, Taiwan and Australia.
Our two-way trade last year exceeded $58 billion. It is our largest
market for agriculture and high tech products and is also becoming an
increasingly important market for U.S. services, reaching $11.6 billion
in 2001. These huge business opportunities have not gone unnoticed by
our European and increasingly Asian competition, and they are
aggressively focusing their business sights on Korea.
Korea also remains a strong security ally and was one of the first
to join the U.S. led war on terrorism. They sent non-combat troops to
Iraq and have just announced they will be sending several thousand
combat troops to support our efforts in post-war Iraq. They also agreed
to provide $200 million for the rebuilding of Iraq in addition to the
$60 million already earmarked.
NEED FOR INCREASED SECURITY
The world has felt significant changes since September 11th as
America comes to grips with previously unimaginable threats. Our
members strongly support all the security changes necessary to keep our
country safe. We understand that the movement of people and materials
has changed forever and we are extremely grateful for all the dedicated
efforts of so many to keep us out of harm's way while still expediting
the legitimate flow of people and cargo.
We fully understand and accept the need for increased security in
the visa process and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize
the outstanding efforts our Consular Affairs people have made in their
efforts to delicately balance the increased need for security with the
ever-present necessity to facilitate legitimate travel. They are the
real unsung heroes here.
U.S. EMBASSY: SEOUL
The U.S. Embassy in Korea has the distinction of being the largest
visa processing post in the world. So any change in visa policy has a
profound impact on our members and our businesses in Korea. Last May,
when Secretary of State Cohn Powell announced a new guideline that had
the practical impact of doubling the number of personal interviews
needed in Seoul from 35% or 120,000 interviews to 70% or 240,000
interviews, both our exceptional staff in the State Department's
Consular Affair's team and our own Embassy group immediately went to
work to mitigate the potentially negative impact in Korea.
Unfortunately, the Travel Agent Referral Program, which accounted for
28% of all visas issued by the post and the largest single channel of
visas, was eliminated. Thanks in large part to the efforts of the
Consul, however, the AMCHAM Visa Referral Program for our member
companies, the Business Referral Program for large Korean companies
meeting strict criteria and the University Referral Program were all
extended through October 2004.
Literally overnight, the number of people requiring personal
interviews doubled, with no additional staff or overtime money. In
business, when demand doubles overnight for a product or service with
no appreciable increase in resources, the result is usually long
delays. The change in policy was announced during Korea's peak travel
season with only 2 weeks notice to the industry. The backlogs for an
interview immediately ballooned to more than 60 day waits from the pre-
policy turnaround times of 2-5 days for a visa. Current interview
appointment waits are now about 1 month, largely due to September/
October being the country's lowest demand period for outbound travel.
We are extremely grateful to Consul General Bernie Alter and his team
for their daily dedication to help American business in this new
difficult environment. While their efforts to minimize the damage on
travel between Korea and the U.S. has been invaluable. We believe there
are serious unintended consequences still facing the industry. Coming
at a time when many foreigners view America with increasing skepticism,
the new visa policies will unfortunately spur the growth of anti-
American sentiment in Korea and the new policies, although necessary
for our nation's safety and security, sometimes appear ill coordinated
and poorly communicated.
NEED FOR TIMELY COMMUNICATION
One such example was the recent action taken by Homeland Security
and the Department of State. With virtually no advance warning, they
suspended 2 programs known as the Transit Without Visa (TWOV) and the
International-to-International (ITI) programs. These program
suspensions came in the beginning of August when many Korean students
were about to return home from their summer language programs in Canada
to begin their Korean school year. At least one American carrier told
over 100 Korean students stranded in Canada the American flag carrier
could not honor their reservations because their flight required an
aircraft change in the U.S. before continuing onto Seoul. Because there
was a lack of appropriate notice and because this event took place
during a peak travel season, there were no seats available on non-
American carriers. These students and their families were severely
inconvenienced and made to feel unwelcome by the U.S.
While we understand and fully support the need for additional
security, it sometimes seems that heavy-handed decisions like this have
the unintended consequences of alienating our friends and allies even
more. There is more anecdotal evidence of senior Korean business
leaders beginning to question whether America truly wants their
business.
One of our members is a Belgian citizen, who went to the U.S. on a
business trip and had a harrowing experience. He was detained and
ultimately not allowed to enter the U.S. because his passport was not
machine readable. Throughout this ordeal, he was not allowed to speak
with anyone who could explain what was happening and as a result, ended
up missing an extremely important business meeting. Additionally, his
perception of the U.S. has been negatively affected by this experience.
A leading American IT company nearly lost a multi-million dollar
deal because their client's software engineers and purchasing team's
visa applications took almost 8 weeks to complete.
One of America's premier financial institutions expressed that
their international clients are more and more suggesting meeting venues
be moved to London or Frankf1rt because of U.S. visa difficulties.
CHALLENGES AHEAD
We recognize the need for our government to shift the priorities
from concern on visa issuance about illegal-overstays to security. We
also congratulate the efforts to better apprise consular officers of
counter-terrorism issues, new programs to more fully vet visa
applicants of particular concern and most importantly, the move to
increase staffing for consular officers abroad. However, it does seem
that a net increase of only 39 consular officers for fiscal year 2003
and another 40 officers in fiscal 2004 may not be enough to handle the
current and expected demands without creating additional backlogs.
Remember our Seoul example, virtually overnight we went from
approximately 35% of the applicants needing personal interviews to 70%,
with no appreciable increase in resources. Embassies like Seoul also
face additional challenges of old physical structures and severe space
limitations. The Embassy in Seoul currently has only 9 interview
windows, so even with a significant increase in human capital
resources, they would still be facing enormous physical space
challenges.
KOREAN TOURISTS
In calendar year 2002, almost 700,000 Korean passport holders
entered the U.S. making Korea the 5th largest source of inbound travel
to the U.S. Unlike Koreans, citizens from the other 4 countries--the
UK, Japan, Germany, and France do not need tourist visas to enter the
U.S.; in other words, Koreans form the largest single group of tourists
who require visas to travel to the U.S.
According to the U.S. Foreign Commercial Service, Korean tourists
spent almost $21 billion in the U.S. during the previous year. We
believe this revenue is at significant risk with our new visa policy.
Our Visit U.S.A. Committee tells us that approximately 80% of the total
airplane load leaving Korea is usually booked less than 3 weeks before
the scheduled departure, which is one of the shorter lead times in the
international travel industry. As a result, with competition from many
attractive foreign tourist locations, the Korean market is extremely
sensitive to the length of waiting period for visas appointments. Visa
waits of more than a few days are no longer tolerated when visa free
alternative destinations beckon. Airlines are watching their fall load
numbers very closely and several of our members in the airline industry
privately expressed deep concern about the falling demand for tourism
to the U.S.
In Korea, travel agents tell us America is an increasingly
difficult destination to sell. Koreans have visa exemptions and visa
free agreements with over 100 countries, so they have many other
competitive options available to them. Where other countries seem to be
rolling out the red carpet and welcoming Korean travelers, the welcome
mat for America is indeed looking very frayed. Many of our travel
destination competitors are explicitly marketing themselves as an
alternative to the arduous U.S. visa procedures.
I would like to share with you one example that illustrates the
economic impact of this new policy change. Amway Korea annually takes
its key distributors on incentive trips. Amway's 2004 convention was
scheduled to be held in Los Angeles, California and was to include
8,000 Korean distributors. Historically, groups had been bulk processed
via an interview waiver program internally managed by the Consular
Section. Under the August 1, 2003 policy change, all applicants,
including mega-groups, must individually apply for a personal interview
via a telephone appointment system, which in itself requires 3-4
minutes per application just to register for an appointment. Waits for
an interview then range between 30 to 70 days, depending on
seasonality. Because of the logistics of pushing 8,000 people through
an individual appointment and interview process, Amway cancelled their
Los Angeles venue and rescheduled the convention for Miyazaki, Japan.
The aggregate lost revenue value of this single group alone was $18
million. This scenario is now being repeated constantly as meeting,
incentive and convention business rebooks to non-U.S.A. destinations.
We need your help to ensure that a system capable of processing these
mega-groups is put in place so that America can get back into the
consideration set.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TOURISM
The U.S. economy relies on the billions and billions of dollars
spent each year by tourists. The tourism industry makes up 6% of
America's workforce but has suffered 25% of all jobs lost since
September 11, 2001. Visitors for tourism and business were about 4.3
million visitors in fiscal year 2002, down from 5.7 million in fiscal
year 2000. America needs safe, but open doors. The U.S. share of
worldwide travel has been in a decade-long decline. With respect to
Korea, up until 1995, growth of Korean visitors to the U.S. had tracked
in tandem with Korea's total outbound growth. Since 1995, however, the
U.S. has struggled to attain a 5% growth over a 7 year period, during a
time when total Korean outbound travel has grown by 67%. With the
latest interview policy changes, we expect the U.S. numbers will now
turn negative as many would-be travelers choose other destinations.
America has already dropped from its 30 year position as the 2nd
largest tourist destination for Koreans to a 2003 ranking as number 4
behind Japan, China and Thailand. We expect further slippage going
forward.
STUDENTS
American universities have been drawing on the talents of the best
and brightest students of the world. Roughly half of all students now
receiving Ph.D.'s in the sciences at U.S. schools are foreigners.
However, this trend may not last for long.
These international students are important to the U.S., not just
for the nearly $12 billion they infuse into the U.S. economy each year,
but also for the knowledge they provide to bridge cultural gaps that is
greatly improving the strategic position of the U.S. in the world.
These students develop deep ties to our country, laying the foundation
for productive relationships in the future. The U.S. Commercial Service
estimates over 49,000 Korean students are studying in the U.S.,
contributing over $1.47 billion to our economy annually. We
respectfully urge you to keep these important doors open.
CLOUDS ON THE HORIZON--PERCEPTION OF ``FORTRESS AMERICA''
On May 19th of this year, the Department of Homeland Security
announced new details regarding its U.S. VISIT (U.S. Visitor and
Immigration Status Indicator Technology) system, an entry-exit system
to monitor the arrival and departure of international visitors. The
plan is to capture fingerprints and photographs for the millions of
international visitors arriving at U.S. airports and seaports beginning
January 1, 2004. This new security measure has not been well
communicated to the travel industry and certainly not to the traveling
public in Korea. There is concern that when our friends and business
associates arrive in the U.S. early next year to be fingerprinted and
photographed, many will find the treatment, without advance warning to
be unsophisticated and distasteful. Again, a necessary policy, clumsily
implemented will do more to alienate our already strained friendships.
Also on the horizon is the law requiring all visa applications to
include biometric identifiers by October 2004. While today there are
more than 3 million Koreans with valid U.S. visas in their passports,
this change in policy will likely require 100% of all visa holders as
well as new applicants to come to the U.S. Embassy to be fingerprinted.
Considering current space and staffing challenges, the expected waiting
times to arrange appointments could be devastating. We again express
our deep gratitude for the State Department's Consular Affairs'
leadership in doing their best to provide additional resources in
advance of this onerous requirement. Because this new policy has not
been well communicated to the traveling public in Korea, when the
Korean people realize everyone must be fingerprinted before submitting
their visa application, there is concern that avoidable damage will
again be done to our relationship.
ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL
The reality in Korea is that due to increased security and a ``one
size fits all approach,'' we are losing business, we are losing
tourists, we are losing students and more importantly, we are losing
friends and influence at a time when America can ill afford the loss.
At a time when our policymakers are lamenting the global spread of
antiAmericanism and pushing for better public diplomacy, the
implementation of our new visa policies are making sacrifices we need
not make. We believe that in addition to the war on terrorism, there is
also a war raging for global influence and this is also a war the U.S.
cannot afford to lose. We may not see the results immediately but in 20
or 30 years from now when one looks back at this time and these
challenges, we will be judged on how much foresight and creativity we
used in resolving these difficult issues.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS: USING TECHNOLOGY TO FACILITATE TRAVEL
We respectfully urge the Departments involved to begin aggressive
information campaigns to explain the policy and to try and mitigate the
negative repercussions. There also appears to be no recognition for the
cultural impact of such decisions. Since Korea is one of the most
technologically advanced economies in the world, one creative approach
might be to contract mobile biometric information collectors and for an
additional cost recovery fee, take the service directly to the
applicants.
Allowing applicants to submit visa applications online, similar to
Australia's visa policy, would shift the burden of the data entry to
the applicants, which would save the U.S. government time and money.
American industry is known for its creativity and innovation. Examples
like FedEx's revolutionary package tracking system might be modified
and used to expedite the visa process.
Since September 11, the U.S. government has introduced dramatic
changes to strengthen the security of visa issuance. We must find ways
to reduce delays that impede legitimate business and tourist travel,
without incurring additional security risks. We must fully staff and
fund these increased security programs to prevent damaging of our
strong economic ties. Delays will end in Koreans choosing other
destinations and worse, other business partners. If we want their
continued business, we need to make them feel welcome and provide them
the best service available. When additional security requirements are
needed, we should do our utmost to provide timely information and
communicate the changes as clearly and consistently as possible.
The new security realities in which we now live are here to stay.
So we must find innovative, new ways to facilitate legitimate travel,
while doing our best to carefully scrutinize those who would harm our
nation.
Some people believe increasing the percentage of personal
interviews will automatically improve the security of the U.S. One
concern is that we seem to be moving towards a ``one size fits all''
approach. And in this particular case, one size definitely does NOT fit
all. We support a risk-based approach that would carefully consider a
country's links to terrorism, the mobility of its population and the
government's commitment to support the U.S. on our war on terrorism.
We can unequivocally say that Korea would be at the low end of that
security spectrum. There is no evidence of any Korean passport holder
being involved in terrorism and there are no indigenous terrorist
groups in Korea. The country is homogeneous, making it more difficult
for terrorist cells to operate here. Korea is a strong security ally
who was one of the first nations to answer the U.S. call for support in
Afghanistan and again in Iraq with non-combat troops. And just last
week the Korean government has agreed to send combat troops to join
America in post-war Iraq. Clearly, both economically and more
importantly, security-wise the South Korean people have proved to be
our friends. We respectfully urge our leaders to recognize this
friendship by making it easier for our Korean friends, customers,
employees and relatives to travel to the U.S.
Let me conclude by reiterating what I stated at the beginning, the
American business community in Korea strongly supports the federal
initiatives designed to protect America from terrorist attacks. We
believe that protection of our national security must go hand-in-hand
with protecting our economic security. Procedures and systems designed
to deny terrorists must also work to facilitate the efficient entry of
legitimate international business and leisure travelers. This is not an
``either/or'' proposition, but a matter of balance. We must achieve the
twin goals of improving security and facilitating the flow of
legitimate trade and travel.
Thank you very much for your kind attention and I look forward to
your questions.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Oberlin.
Dr. Aber, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ABER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND PUBLIC
SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Dr. Aber. Good morning, Chairman Sununu and Senator
Nelson.
Thank you for convening this hearing on a topic of central
importance to the vitality of America's enterprise in science
and technology. Events since 9/11 have reaffirmed the need to
maintain an American edge in these fields while creating the
political and administrative membrane that protects the
nation's borders while continuing to encourage the free
exchange of people and ideas across those borders remains a
daunting challenge.
I think there's general agreement that the optimum
management of our research enterprise requires free and open
access by U.S. universities and laboratories to the pool of
aspiring students and scholars who hold citizenships in other
countries. This pool provides a significant part of the energy
and talent that drives our technological advancement.
In presentations to a House committee last spring, Dr.
Shirley Tilghman, president of Princeton University, noted
that, in round numbers, a third of all Ph.D.s in science and
engineering and 40 percent of all Ph.D. degrees in computer
science are awarded to foreign-born students. Two thirds of
these students stay in the country and contribute to our
technological advances. Forty percent of the faculty in
engineering departments across the country are foreign-born.
Not only are the numbers important, but the quality of these
people is also important. Dr. Tilghman notes that 20 percent of
the members of the National Academy of Sciences are foreign-
born, and more than a third of U.S. Nobel laureates, as well.
In addition, in her testimony, Dr. Tilghman noted that
there had been changes post-9/11 that had impacted the free
movement of students and scholars. Most of what she discussed
related to the technology alert list, those fields which
generate an immediate security check or further review by
officers in security organizations. Both the expansion of the
number of topics that are included in that last and the use of
key words in interview processes to trigger these automatic
further reviews were contributing, she felt, to the extension
of the time involved in clearance. Also, the elimination of
time limitations on decisions by State Department officials,
relative to student visas, was also adding to the time
required.
The impact of these changes on visa processing was
reinforced in a statement by two national educational
organizations, whose names are given in the printed testimony.
Their statements stress the importance of interview waivers as
a way of increasing the efficiency of the visa process and
questioned, at the time of their letter, whether or not an
increase that seemed to go from 20 percent of interviews of
candidates to a 90 percent interview rate for candidates could
be handled without increases in funding. And, Senator Nelson, I
believe you asked questions on this to the previous panel.
Just to take the University of New Hampshire as an example,
we continue to see about two to four cases each year of visa
refusals, generally from students coming from China, Africa,
and developing countries. Probably not surprisingly, our
biggest difficulties are with students coming from Russia and
China in high-technology areas. Many of these will
automatically generate the Security Advisory Opinion process,
which, again, was discussed in the previous panel.
There is an effort underway by educational organizations to
try to put some numbers behind these. And, again, you were
asking questions about what fraction of people go through the
additional process and what the time is involved in those
additional processes. Three of these national organizations
have posted a survey on the Web, and I've got the Web site,
again, in the testimony. Their goal is to have good
quantitative numbers from universities about how these changes
have impacted their processing.
Last October, two of these organizations put up preliminary
results suggesting that there had been substantial increases in
processing time and that hundreds of students arrived late for
their classes, resulting in unrecoverable costs to them, losses
of tuition revenues to colleges, and decisions by students to
go elsewhere. The University of Minnesota, for example,
realized a 24 percent decrease in applicants from foreign
students for their programs in the fall of 2003.
SEVIS has been described here as a technological method for
speeding this process. Last spring, there were some technical
difficulties with this mechanism. These seem to be largely
cleared up, and SEVIS is, indeed, speeding the processing. And
I think you heard some very up-to-date statistics, again, from
the previous panel on this.
There have been additional costs, in terms of processing
time. Ninety percent of our two-person team for processing
these foreign student visas at the University of New Hampshire
now goes into SEVIS-related issues. There will be also some
additional costs for hardware and software, but these are
things we bear gladly in order to be able to maintain the flow
of these young and established scholars into our institution.
In terms of actual numbers, at the University of New
Hampshire we have seen a leveling off of numbers of applicants
for student visas through UNH. We would have probably expected
to see an increase. There had been a continuing increase over
the previous years. Although, again, it's difficult to say
whether or not 9/11 alone has caused that leveling off, or the
extent to which recession in the global economy has also
contributed to that.
One area that's actually an exception, where we have seen a
significant reduction in numbers of student applicants is in
people coming for English-language instruction. These are
shorter programs, and hindrances and walls created in that
application process for the visas for those are more
substantial for these shorter programs. Some institutions,
we've seen a 20 percent decrease, some institutions have seen
as much as a 50 percent decrease if that's one of their primary
programs.
Student and scholar mobility is another area which is
probably even a bigger process, and if we were going to focus
on one that limits the ability of our foreign students to
succeed, it would be the difficulty in reentering the country
after they have achieved their visa status and then leave the
country either to return home or go to scientific meetings. In
particular, with Chinese students, those who have successfully
come to the U.S. are becoming very reluctant to either return
home or attend meetings because of the long delays they may
encounter in returning to the U.S. This makes it difficult for
them to maintain professional, personal, and family contacts,
which are needed to persuade consular officers that they won't
remain in the U.S. indefinitely, so it affects them in that
way, as well.
In my search for information about this, it seemed that the
problems being encountered, at UNH in particular, had more to
do with employment visas than student visas. And I realize
that's outside the scope of this particular hearing, but they
do contribute, in general, to the idea of the perception of the
U.S. in other countries. And I think it's interesting--and
there was one mention of this in the previous panel--that
there's really a very large industry around foreign visa
students--a $12-billion-per-year industry--and that we are
beginning, it seems, to lose market share to Australia, Canada,
and the United Kingdom in that arena, partly because of the
perception, at least, that we've become a less welcoming
institution.
There are a number of case studies in the report, and case
studies, I think, are interesting because they put a human face
on this, but I'll just conclude with one which kind of captures
the problem. There was a nursing scholar in the U.S. on a J-
visa, who went to Canada for lunch, and because of a mixup in
her visa status and in the processing of that, she had to
remain in Canada for four weeks. She was the head of her
university's Healthy Asian American Program, and because of
this delay, her institution had to rearrange and re-coordinate
her program in a different way. So just one example of several.
But thank you for holding this hearing, and I hope this has
been helpful.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Aber follows:]
Prepared Statement Testimony of Dr. John Aber
Good Morning Chairman Sununu and members of the committee. Thank
you for holding this hearing on a topic of central importance to the
vitality of America's enterprise in science and technology. Events
since September 11, 2001 have reaffirmed the need to maintain an
American edge in science and technology. A good case can be made that
the vigor of our science and technology community derives in large
measure from what one of my German-born colleagues calls a
``traditionally open and welcoming atmosphere for free discussions and
large-scale international efforts'' here in the U.S. Creating the
political and administrative membrane that protects the nation's
borders but continues to encourage the free exchange of ideas and
people in support of a vigorous scientific community is a daunting
challenge. This testimony will reinforce the importance of the
international exchange of students and scholars to our research
enterprise, and present information on the impact of changes in the
student visa system since 9/11, using examples from both the University
of New Hampshire and other major research institutions around the
nation. I'll close with a statement on perceptions of the U.S. as
result of changes in immigration processes, and a small set of case
histories that put a human face on this important issue.
IMPORTANCE OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS
There is general agreement that the optimum management of our
research enterprise requires free and open access by U.S. Universities
and laboratories to the pool of aspiring students and scholars who hold
citizenship in other countries. This pool provides a significant part
of the energy and talent that drives our technological advancement. The
importance of this source of talent has been emphasized by recent
statements by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security in support
of visa policies that both protect our citizens and provide legitimate
access, stating that ``such travel is important to our international,
economic and national values and interest.''
In presentations to a house subcommittee on a related topic, Dr.
Shirley Tilghman, President of Princeton University, and Dr. David
Ward, President of the American Council on Education, summarized a
number of important facts regarding the impact of foreign-born scholars
on the American research effort that are generally known, but bear
repeating here. These include, in approximate numbers:
One-third of all Ph.D.s in science and engineering, and two-
fifths of those in Computer Science and Engineering, are
awarded to foreign-born students;
Two-thirds of foreign students who receive Ph.D.s here in
science and engineering remain in the country and work here,
and
Two-fifths of faculty in engineering departments across the
country are foreign-born.
In addition to quantity, the quality of work derived by our
research enterprise through the efforts of non-native students and
scholars is also evident. Foreign-born researchers make up:
Nearly one-fifth of the members of the National Academy of
Sciences, and
More than one-third of U.S. Nobel laureates.
Dr. Ward also supplied important statistics on the positive impact
of foreign students on the American economy, both directly while
students, and eventually through their contributions to technological
advancement in U.S. industries. He also makes the point that visiting
students and scholars can be our best proponents of the American way of
life abroad, and play an important role in increasing international
understanding.
The testimonies of Dr. Ward and Dr. Tilghman, both eminent scholars
and educators, are especially relevant in that they are both foreign-
born.
National studies and our experience at the University of New
Hampshire both show that this large representation of international
students in technical degree programs does not result from preferential
recruitment or retention. At the national level, the long-standing lack
of interest in science curricula by U.S. students is a lamentable but
undeniable fact of life, and is the subject of a number of initiatives
by both governmental agencies and private foundations and institutes.
At the University of New Hampshire we combine an enduring commitment to
the kind of high-quality undergraduate educational experience generally
associated with small liberal arts colleges, with focused support and
achievement in selected areas of research excellence. One of our
strongest areas is in Space Physics, particularly Sun-Earth
interactions. Recruiting graduate students from the U.S. into this
field is a tremendous challenge, even though the potential for a
successful and stimulating professional career is very high. Without
foreign-born students, many from Europe as well as other parts of the
world, this important program would lack the energy and stimulation
provided by young and developing scholars, and would be severely
hampered.
IMPACTS OF CHANGES IN VISA PROCESSING SINCE 9/11
Operational and Fiscal
In her testimony to the House Science Committee, Dr. Tilghman noted
changes that, from her perspective, had the greatest impact on visa
processing. These included: (1) expansion of the Technology Alert List
(TAL) to include the biological sciences and urban planning as Critical
Fields of Study; (2) guidance to consular officers that restrictions on
the export of controlled goods and technologies (the TAL) apply to
nationals of all countries and not just to those who are from state
sponsors of terrorism; (3) guidance that consular officers are not
expected to be versed in all fields on the TAL, but should ``listen for
key words or phrases from the Critical Fields list'' while interviewing
applicants; and (4) elimination of time limitations on decisions by the
State Department to suspend the processing of a student visa request.
Each of these changes has increased the number of cases that are
referred to the State Department and other federal agencies for
additional screening and security approval, and the increased case load
has resulted in prolonged processing time for nearly all student visa
applications.
The impact of this change on visa processing time has been
reinforced in a statement submitted to the Committee on Government
Reform by the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural
Exchange and NAFSA: Association of International Educators. That
statement stressed the importance of the waiver of personal interviews
as an important mechanism for increasing the efficiency of visa
application processing. These groups questioned the ability of the
departments involved to handle a change from a 20% interview rate to a
90% interview rate without substantial increases in funding.
At UNH, although we continue to see occasional outright visa
refusals (generally due to presumed immigrant intent on the part of F-1
students and exchange students in J-1 status), we have seen no real
increase over the level of recent years--about two to four cases each
year, generally from China, Africa, and developing countries. More
important adverse impacts derive from the increased time required to
complete a successful application. Consular officers at U.S. embassies
and consulates overseas now more than ever err on the side of caution
in deciding whether to refer a case to Washington for a ``security
advisory opinion'' based on a combination of the applicant's country of
citizenship (or, occasionally, country of birth) and the degree of
sensitivity of their field of endeavor here in the U.S.A. Russian and
Chinese applicants working in fields where technology transfer is a
major concern are especially likely to face delays because their cases
are being referred to Washington. Although the Department of State
tells us that eighty per cent of cases referred to Washington are
cleared in thirty days or less, our anecdotal experience, and that of
our colleagues at other institutions, does not appear to confirm this
statistic.
It would be valuable to have data to underlie the perception that
visa processing times have increased. The perception is surely there.
Visits to the websites of major research universities across the
country reveal a consistent set of statements regarding increased
processing time and the requirement to begin the visa process early.
MIT has instituted official policies that provide guidance on how to
deal with foreign students who are delayed to the point that they
cannot start a semester on time. The letter announcing those policies
(released in February of this year) does suggest, however, that the
number of cases involving substantial delays in student arrival time
have been few.
There is an effort currently underway to determine whether
processing times are increasing or decreasing. Three organizations
representing the university community (NASULGC, NAFSA and AAU \1\) have
posted a questionnaire on the web (www.nafsa.org/survey) to obtain
information both about processing times and about numbers of current
and past applications and enrollments by foreign students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NASULGC = National Association of State Universities and Land
Grant Colleges, NAFSA = NAFSA: Association of International Educators,
and AAU = Association of American Universities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of these organizations (AAU and NAFSA) conducted a preliminary
survey with results released in October 2002. Summary conclusions
included that there had been a ``substantial increase in the numbers of
student visa delays and denial for fall 2002 when compared with fall
2001.'' Particular delays occurred with students from China, India and
Muslim countries, with ``hundreds'' of students missing program start
dates. The most common consequences of these delays were unrecoverable
costs to students, loss of tuition revenue to colleges, and decisions
by students to go elsewhere. One campus in particular, the University
of Minnesota, reported a decline of 24% in international student
applications for the fall of 2003.
The agencies involved have been bringing technology to bear in an
effort to reduce processing time. SEVIS is a web-based system developed
and operated by ICS to allow electronic submission and review of
applications for student visas. Early difficulties with the technology
reported by Dr. Tilghman last spring appear to have been solved, and
SEVIS appears to be reducing processing times. Open questions remain
about whether or not to charge a fee for this application method, and
how this fee, if charged, should be collected. Otherwise, the system
appears to be functional and helpful--a good use of technology to
assure our own technological growth.
The system has impacted university international student offices by
increasing upfront and operational costs associated with the local
management of this system. Dr. Tilghman says that Princeton spent
$38,000 for hardware and committed a full time person to implement
SEVIS locally.
At UNH, implementation of SEVIS has required considerable amounts
of time and effort to ensure that UNH is in compliance with new
tracking requirements, especially relative to visiting students. Our
part-time foreign student advisor and our full-time director devoted
approximately 90 per cent of their time to SEVIS-related issues during
the first half of this year--in addition to time spent during the many
months leading up to initial implementation. This additional time
commitment has resulted from the need to gather additional information
from students, inform them of the requirements of the new program,
and--because the stakes are so high for students who could fall out of
legal status in case of error--double and triple checking the accuracy
of all information and procedures. Time has also been spent working
with national professional associations contributing information with
the goal of influencing future regulations and processes.
Financial costs are yet to be determined. While we anticipate
little need for additional hardware, we will undoubtedly need to
purchase one of several software programs that can interface between
SEVIS and our current data base system. This could eventually cost
$10,000 or more. Meanwhile, the need to confirm enrollments by hand
rather than by ``batching'' data reported through SEVIS to the
Department of Homeland Security is costing our office considerable
staff time. Many smaller schools which are starting off from a less
sophisticated level find the necessary investments of hardware,
software, and staff training overwhelming.
Student Enrollment
In general, we have not seen a significant change in the numbers of
foreign applicants to UNH degree programs. In the absence of the post-
9/11 measures undertaken by government agencies, we could have expected
a continued modest increase each year, but it is difficult to ascribe
the lack of growth to specific factors. The general economic down-turn
and other factors might be equally responsible. Likewise, we have not
seen a significant increase in visa refusals or delays among our
student cases. These trends mirror those reported to the House by Dr.
Tilghman for a number of large private universities.
The one exception to this trend at UNH is a decrease of
approximately twenty per cent in our English language programs, which
tend to be of relatively short duration. Students coming to these
programs are more likely to be discouraged by added costs and
bureaucratic obstacles than are degree candidates. Many other
institutions, especially those which offer English language instruction
only, have seen their numbers cut in half. Because students coming
initially to learn English tend to remain in the U.S. as degree
candidates, decreased enrollments in other programs will likely follow
with a lag time of one year.
Student and Scholar Mobility
Changes in immigration processes are also having an impact on the
movement of students and scholars, affecting their intellectual
progress and contributions to American research. One example involves
Chinese students, who are both a large proportion of the total foreign
student pool, and one which has traditionally faced higher visa refusal
rates than those from most other countries. As a result of past
practice and recent changes, Chinese students who are successful in
getting to the U.S. are most often reluctant to risk a trip outside the
U.S. during the course of their studies or research, for fear of being
refused a reentry visa. They are therefore less likely to maintain the
professional, personal, and family contacts which are needed to
persuade consular officers that they won't remain in the U.S.
indefinitely.
The number of countries for which individual interviews for visas
are required is increasing, and now includes India, Russia,
predominantly Muslim countries, and even Western European countries and
Japan. As significant challenges in the visa process increase, more and
more of our visitors are deciding not to go home to visit family, or to
attend important international professional conferences, for fear of
lengthy disruption of their studies and/or research.
International Perceptions
One of the charges from the committee regarding this testimony was
to comment on ``perceptions of our nation and our people abroad.'' Here
we must rely on anecdote alone, as there are no valid indices of how
our scientific colleagues view the U.S. as an environment for research.
UNH has a significant presence in international research both in space
physics and in the geosciences, and in other selected areas. A number
of our most productive faculty spend a considerable part of their
working life abroad. One of them has expressed to me a general concern
about scientific collaborations, citing recent changes in practices as
creating significant obstacles to international cooperation and
creating the perception in the international research community that
the U.S. is becoming more of a ``closed shop.'' He suggests that this,
combined with enormously constraining regulations about technology
transfer has led to a rapid decline in collaboration opportunities. One
specific example involved limitations on the selection of lead
scientists for a NASA project that suggested to him an environment that
``diminishes greatly the reach of U.S. scientific enterprises.''
Visa challenges at the national level are now combined with
additional complex requirements from other government agencies relating
to drivers' licenses from state Departments of Motor Vehicles, social
security numbers, and even tax information. Because of this, our
international students and scholars are forced to divert increasing
amounts time, attention, and emotional energy into issues of daily life
and away from their studies and research. All of these factors in the
long run seriously affect the efficiency with which they contribute to
our collective progress. As they report back to their countrymen on
these issues, the United States will may well continue to lose market
share in the multi-billion-dollar international education business to
Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom which have become
increasingly competitive in attracting the best and brightest young
minds worldwide.
As an example, a recent article by Janice Spaskey in the Chronicle
of Higher Education reports on a Canadian program to speed visa
processing for students wishing to study in Alberta, to increase that
province's competitive advantage relative to Australia and the U.S. The
provincial Minister of Learning developed this idea after a trip to
Asia during which he became convinced that visa-related matters were
important when students were deciding where to study. These potential
foreign students were clearly seen as a resource worth competing for,
and the current visa processing time of 3 to 9 months an important
deterrent to success in that competition.
Case Histories
I'd like to give some of these general statements a human face by
providing a few stories that underlie them. Anecdotes are dangerous
because in a system as large as this there are bound to be occasional
mistakes and individual delays for acceptable reasons. But these
stories do exemplify how real people are being seriously impacted, and
their important scholarly efforts delayed, by the current operation of
the visa system. Identifying information has been removed from these
case studies, but all are verifiable through direct communications.
Personnel at NASULGC have been very helpful in drawing some of these
stories together.
Case 1:
A Chinese graduate student in Physics from returned to China for
family business in December, 2002. When he left for China, he did so
with all of the appropriate documentation and maintained all
immigration regulations while there. He initially interviewed for his
return visa in early January, providing the follow-up information on
his research area, which was requested by the visa officer. With no
news on the visa after 6 weeks, the student visited to embassy to
inquire about the status of his application. The student was informed
that his application needed a security advisory opinion (SAO) from
Washington and that he must wait. In the middle of February, a
Congressional office inquired about the student's application with the
State Department and learned that it was still under review. The
approval for a return visa was finally granted in June and the student
returned to campus almost immediately thereafter. The long delay had a
number of negative consequences for the student and the university. The
student was expected to graduate in August, 2003. Now, because of the
delay, his graduation date has been pushed back by a year to August,
2004. A multi-million dollar federally-backed multiuniversity research
project, of which he was a critical member, and the activities
associated with it were delayed, including publications. The student
was involved in another multi-million dollar federally-funded equipment
simulation project, which was also delayed.
Case 2:
A third-year Chinese Biochemistry Ph.D. student visited her family
during the holiday break in 2002. Upon attempting to renew her visa to
return to the U.S. to continue her studies on January 3, 2003, she was
told she would have to wait for the security clearance on her visa
application. Her application was not cleared for the return visa until
early August, 2003. She missed an entire semester.
Case 3:
A second-year graduate student from China in Naval Architecture &
Marine Engineering visited China in September, 2002, with her academic
advisor to participate in a conference and present a paper at a major
Chinese university. Upon applying for her renewal visa to reenter the
U.S to continue her studies, she has been delayed by the security
check. She is still waiting for clearance and has to arrange make up
courses in order to set the proper time for your Ph.D. qualifying
exams.
Case 4:
A student from Turkey in the last semester of his Master's program
in Economics was scheduled to begin his Ph.D. program Fall 2003.
Although his student visa is valid until December 2003, he decided to
apply for a new visa during the summer while visiting his family. His
visa appointment was on July 24th; apparently there was a ``hit'' on
the name check. His fingerprints have already been taken twice and as
we understand it, the visa clearance process is still not resolved. He
was forced to defer his Ph.D. program to Spring 2004 and the department
had to reassign his assistantship at the last minute.
Case 5:
An undergraduate student from Canada who graduated last May applied
for Optional Practical Training (OPT) in March 2003 for employment
beginning 07/22/2003 and ending 07/21/2004 (F-1 students are allowed 12
months of employment in their field of study). The OISS entered all the
necessary information in SEVIS, as required. She received a job offer
with a begin date of 06/01/2003. Unfortunately, ``data fixes'' in SEVIS
can only be done through the SEVIS Help Desk but instead of changing
the dates as the OISS requested, her OPT data was inadvertently
canceled (apparently a miscommunication among Help Desk
``counselors''). It took multiple phone calls to the Help Desk and the
Vermont Service Center, with the help of Sen. Judd Gregg's office to
finally resolve her case. Her OPT was finally approved on July 8. She
was unable to leave the country while her case was pending for fear
that she will not be able to return.
Case 6:
Due to an error in the SEVIS system, a J-visa nursing scholar could
not reenter the United States for nearly four weeks after going to a
border city in Canada for lunch. She is one of the coordinators of the
university's Healthy Asian Americans Project. Due to her delay in
returning to the U.S., alternate staffing had to be arranged to
coordinate a major outreach program.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Estorino, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOSE ESTORINO, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING,
ORLANDO/ORANGE COUNTY CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU, INC.,
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Mr. Estorino. Thank you.
Chairman Sununu, Ranking Member Nelson, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today on U.S. visa policy and
related matters impacting international travel to the United
States. It's a matter of serious and continuing concern for
individual companies in the U.S. travel industry, as well as
cities and states that depend on international travel for their
economic livelihood.
The Orlando Convention and Visitors Bureau represents
nearly 1500 private businesses that make up the tourism
industry in the area. The travel industry is critical to the
economic health of Orlando and the entire state of Florida.
While domestic travel to Central Florida and the U.S. overall
is much larger, international visitors typically stay longer
and spend a great deal more than U.S. travelers. This is why
the industry is so concerned about federal policies that are
designed to protect the homeland, but may have the unintended
consequence of deterring legitimate international travelers
visiting Orlando and so many other destinations.
Today, I'm testifying on behalf of the Travel Industry
Association of American, of which we are a long-time and active
member. TIA is the national nonprofit organization representing
all components of the $525 billion U.S. travel and tourism
industry. TIA's mission is to represent the whole of the travel
industry to promote and facilitate increased travel to and
within the United States.
International business and leisure travel to the U.S. is a
vital component of the national economy. In 2002, over 41
million international visitors generated 88 billion in
expenditures, 12 billion in federal, state, and local revenue,
and accounted for one million jobs nationwide. The continuing
decline in international visitation over the past two years,
though, has cost our economy $15.3 billion in expenditures.
The decline in travel is due to a variety of reasons,
including fear of terrorism, a downturn in the global economy,
and confusion over the new U.S. visa and border security
procedures. While some of the causes are beyond the reach of
any single government, actions by the U.S. Government can
either enhance or harm our nation's ability to attract more
international visitors and create more economic opportunity for
all states and cities.
There are a number of federal policy decisions that have
been made in recent years or are currently being contemplated
that have resulted in actual or perceived barriers that deter
visitors from traveling to the United States. Rightly or
wrongly, the international traveling public increasingly
perceives the myriad of security rules is creating a fortress
America. By and large, these rules and requirements make sense
for a homeland security perspective. And TIA and the U.S.
travel industry support efforts to enhance national security.
But for many international visitors, wave after wave of new
travel requirements paint a big picture that the United States
is becoming a destination that is too difficult to enter, too
expensive to visit, and simply not worth the effort.
In their opinion, the welcome mat has seemingly been
pulled. Perception has become the new reality, and even in
countries where there are relatively few barriers for travel to
the United States, this negative perception has resulted in
lost business for the United States.
I'd like to share with you comments and concerns from the
field and other industry members that I have received in
preparation for this hearing.
Since everyone in the family between the ages of 16 and 60
must come for a personal interview to a consulate or embassy,
the cost to these individuals, in some cases, is 50 percent of
what an actual trip to the U.S. would cost. This is the case in
Brazil, a country the size of the United States, with only four
places to conduct interviews.
Secondly, the rumored or perceived denial rate for these
visas is reported to be 25 to 35 percent. And, in some cases,
one family member is denied, while others are approved,
basically preventing many from traveling.
Thirdly, due to the length of the process in acquiring a
visa and the reality that people are planning trips shorter,
and this creates additional barriers.
Fourth, the competition has taken advantage of our
situation by heavily promoting other destination. And, in some
cases, foreign carriers are adding greater flight frequency to
their destinations.
Fifth, the tour operators and travel agents are selling
these other destinations because of the visa barriers to the
United States and have begun to develop new products to Europe
and other destinations that don't have visa requirements.
And, sixth, the international media has reported on the
visa barriers and is creating fear and dislike for travel to
America. I was told that the consumer now perceives us as
arrogant and elitist. This is damaging America's image.
Just last year, as Congressman Nelson mentioned, Congress
appropriated 50 million to promote the U.S. internationally as
the premier visitation destination in the world. The travel
industry is grateful to Congress for recognizing the need to
tell the world that we are not only open for business, but also
eager to welcome international visitors to our cities and rural
areas to experience our natural beauty, culture, and exciting
attractions.
But even before government and industry have decided how
best to invest this 50 million to attract increased numbers of
international visitors, there is great concern, particularly
overseas, that all of this new visa, passport, and entry
procedures could potentially drown out efforts to invite the
world to see America.
In conclusion, let me repeat that the U.S. travel industry
strongly supports efforts by the Federal Government to protect
our homeland. We realize these are challenging times for our
government officials, who seek to prevent acts of terror while
working to facilitate legitimate international travel and
trade. We stand ready to work with Congress and the
Administration on the creation of common-sense policies that
prevent the entry of terrorists while truly facilitating the
entry of tens of millions of legitimate business and leisure
visitors who provide a great economic, social, and political
benefit to our country.
Thank you very much, and I'll be glad to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Estorino follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jose Estorino
Chairman Sununu, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on
U.S. visa policy and related matters impacting international travel to
the United States. This is a matter of serious and continuing concern
for individual companies in the U.S. travel industry, as well as cities
and states that depend on international travel for their economic
livelihood.
I am Jose Estorino, Senior Vice President of Marketing for the
Orlando/Orange County Convention and Visitors Bureau. I am responsible
for all global marketing, domestic and international, and oversee seven
international sales offices in Europe, Latin America and Japan. We
represent nearly 1,500 private businesses that make up the tourism
industry in our area. The travel industry is critical to the economic
health of Orlando and the entire state of Florida. While domestic
travel to central Florida and the U.S. overall is much larger,
international visitors typically stay longer and spend a great deal
more than U.S. travelers. This is why the industry is so concerned
about federal policies that are designed to protect the homeland, but
may have the unintended consequence of deterring legitimate
international travelers from visiting Orlando and so many other
destinations.
Today I am testifying on behalf of the Travel Industry Association
of America (TIA), of which the Orlando/Orange County Convention and
Visitors Bureau is a long-time and active member. TIA is the national,
non-profit organization representing all components of the $525 billion
U.S. travel and tourism industry. TIA's mission is to represent the
whole of the travel industry to promote and facilitate increased travel
to and within the United States. Its more than 2,000 member
organizations represent every segment of the industry throughout the
country.
The travel industry remains concerned about several federal policy
decisions and programs that have created actual barriers to inbound
international travel, or created a perception of barriers, that serve
to discourage international visitors from traveling to the U.S. We
continue to urge the federal government to work with us to find ways
both to protect the homeland and ensure the economic vitality of the
U.S. travel industry. This is not an ``either or'' proposition. This
nation should and must have both.
OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL TO THE U.S.
International business and leisure travel to the U.S. is a vital
component of our national economy. In 2002, over 41 million
international visitors generated $88 billion in expenditures, $12
billion in federal, state and local tax revenue, and accounted for one
million jobs nationwide. International travel and tourism to the U.S.
is a service export, and in 2002, the U.S. had a positive balance of
trade of $8 billion.
The continuing decline in international visitation over the past
two years, though, has drastically reduced the flow of tax revenue to
all levels of government and reduced our international balance of
trade. Since 2000, the loss of international travel to the U.S. has
cost our economy $15.3 billion in expenditures. Below is a review of
key international market performance since 2000, based on 2002 and 2001
arrivals figures:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in 2002 Change in 2002
Arrivals in U.S. (2000 Ranking) from 2001 from 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada (1)........................ -4.0% -11.1%
Mexico (2)........................ -0.5% -4.8%
Total arrivals.................. -7.0% -19.5%
========================================================================
U.K. (3).......................... -6.8% -18.8%
Japan (4)......................... -11.2% -28.3%
Germany (5)....................... -9.4% -33.3%
Brazil (6)........................ -26.5% -45.1%
Total Overseas.................. -12.4% -26.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Japan and the U.K. are in the Visa Waiver Program, which only
requires a valid passport for entry. Travel from Brazil requires a
valid passport and U.S. issued visa. Different rules apply to Canada.
Data Source: Dept. of Commerce, Ofc. of Travel and Tourism Industries.
The decline in travel is due to a variety of reasons, including
fear of travel because of terrorism, a downturn in the global economy
and confusion over new U.S. visa and border security procedures. While
some of the causes are beyond the reach of any single government,
actions by the U.S. government can either enhance or harm our nation's
ability to attract increased international travel to the U.S. and
create more jobs and economic opportunity for states and cities in
every corner of our country.
FEDERAL POLICIES IMPACTING INBOUND INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL
There are a number of federal policy decisions that have been made
in recent years, or are currently being contemplated, that either
create actual barriers to travel for prospective international
visitors, or lead to a perception of great difficulty for those
intending to visit the U.S. for business or pleasure. Recent decisions
on visa policy and new requirements for applicants, new rules
concerning Visa Waiver traveler passports, and new entry-exit
procedures taken as a whole have led to serious confusion and concern
on the part of the international traveling public and those businesses
that sell travel to the U.S.
INCREASED INTERVIEWS FOR VISA APPLICANTS
As security has become a paramount concern in visa processing, it
now takes longer to process non-immigrant visa applications at numerous
consulates. The State Department is taking more time to review
applications and requiring more documentation. In addition to these
changes, starting August 1, 2003, U.S. embassies and consulates have
been required to personally interview virtually all non-immigrant visa
applicants.
While the travel industry supports more vigorous screening of visa
applicants, we were disappointed to learn these new requirements would
not be accompanied by any increases in personnel or additional
facilities in which to carry out this new mandate. In fact, the State
Department fully admitted that increasing interview rates to
approximately ninety percent would likely worsen delays in visa
processing.
We appreciate the State Department's intentions to possibly shift
resources to high-volume, visa-issuing posts abroad or add new consular
positions to meet the dramatically expanded workload in some countries.
That said, we argued this past summer, and still believe now, this
policy should have been delayed until the State Department requested
and received from Congress the requisite resources to avoid even
greater delays in visa processing and issuance. Longer waits for visas
will only cause international visitors to choose other destinations for
travel where the actual or perceived barriers are less, and where they
perceive their business is welcome.
VISA POLICIES AND COSTS DETER INTERNATIONAL VISITORS
New visa policies and related costs are having a detrimental impact
on international travel to the U.S., and the following are real-world
examples from the two largest non-Visa Waiver markets for travel to our
country, Brazil and Korea.
Brazil is the largest market for travel to the U.S. from Latin
America, and a major source of overseas visitors in Orlando, and
Florida as a whole. Unfortunately, over the last two years Brazilian
travel to the U.S. has declined by 45%. According to recent survey
research by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the top concern for
Brazilian tour producers wanting to send clients to the U.S. is the
issue of travel barriers as a result of changes in U.S. visa policy.
For example, the visa interview rule has drastically increased the
cost of visiting the U.S. for many Brazilians. Currently, there are
only four locations in Brazil where an individual can go to apply in
person for a U.S. visa. Brazil is almost as large as the continental
U.S. This means many Brazilians will have to travel a significant
distance to reach the U.S. Embassy or one of the consulates. For many
visa applicants the trip will be long enough to warrant purchasing an
airline ticket and possibly a hotel room. When you add these travel
costs on to the $100 visa application fee, the total cost for obtaining
a U.S. visa can be as much as $450 (U.S.) per person, or $1,800 for a
family of four, in cases when all family members must appear in person.
Please bear in mind this is simply the cost for the trip within
their own country to apply for a visa with the hope of reaching their
ultimate destination--the United States. Further compounding the
situation is the fact that one-third of Brazilian visa applicants are
refused. Is it any wonder that while outbound travel from Brazil is
growing in recent months, Brazilian travelers are choosing to travel to
Europe where visas are not required?
As further evidence of the impact these visa policies are having on
inbound travel from Brazil, we respectfully request that a letter from
the Association of Brazilian Travel Producers (BRASTOA) on this matter
be included in the official hearing record.
The Asian market has also been negatively affected. Last year,
638,000 Koreans traveled to the U.S. for business or leisure. In 2002,
the U.S. embassy in Seoul issued 337,000 new visas, of which 273,800
were B-1 or B-2 visas for business and leisure travel. For 2002, only
27% of all B-1/B-2 visa applicants were interviewed in person.
If a 100% visa interview policy were implemented for the U.S.
Embassy in Seoul with no additional resources, personnel and facilities
limitations would restrict the embassy to issuing a maximum of 200,000
visas of all types per year. TIA estimates this would result in a loss
of approximately 114,000 travelers (one of every six Korean visitors)
and a loss of $205 million in expenditures for the South Korean travel
market alone. Expand this to other travel markets, and it is easy to
see how U.S. visa policies would cost industry and government hundreds
of millions of dollars and thousands of lost jobs.
In spring of 2003, prior to implementation of the new visa
interview requirements, a South Korean would only have to wait two to
five days before receiving a U.S. visa. At that time only about 35% of
applicants were interviewed. The U.S. Embassy in Seoul moved to the new
interview policy on July 18. Recent reports indicate Koreans must now
wait eight weeks for an interview for B-1 or B-2 visas. This is
unacceptable, and will undoubtedly cause many Korean travelers to
choose other destinations for leisure trips.
VISA POLICIES RESULT IN CANCELED BUSINESS
According to reports from the Visit USA Committee in Korea, an
8,000-person group from Amway Korea was planning a 2004 conference in
the U.S. As a result of increased delays in visa processing, they are
now looking at alternative ``visa-free'' sites in Asia. The lost
business from this one group is estimated to be over $15 million in
travel expenditures.
Another example of business lost as a result of either actual
barriers, or perceived barriers, involves New York City, which was one
of three finalists for hosting the 2004 World Masters-Athletics Indoor
Track & Field Championships. Although New York City out-scored
Stuttgart and Stockholm in all host city judging categories, the World
Association of Masters Athletes chose Germany over the U.S.
specifically because it was believed that stringent U.S. visa policies
would deter competitors and their families from coming to the meet. It
was perceived that Germany would be more ``open'' to allowing athletes
and their families to visit, even making special visa allowances for
the athletes. The result of this decision is that New York City lost
anywhere from 4,000 to 8,000 international visitors (athletes,
trainers, and family members) with an economic price tag of $5.75 to
$11.5 million.
POSSIBLE INCREASE IN VISA APPLICATION FEE
In Congressional testimony this year, State Department officials
have publicly mentioned the possibility of increasing the non-
refundable fee it charges for non-immigrant visa applicants. The fee
was raised in November of 2002 from $65 to $100 U.S. This fee is paid
regardless of whether or not the visa application is approved. While we
acknowledge that the State Department has fixed costs related to
adjudication of visa applications, increasing the fee again would only
serve to further discourage legitimate international travel to the U.S.
NEGATIVE PERCEPTION OF U.S. POLICIES
The international traveling public increasingly perceives that the
myriad of new security rules is creating a ``Fortress America.''
International travelers do not just consider the impact of individual
rules, but view all rules and programs in total. They have noted the
increase in visa fees, new visa interview requirements and growing visa
denials. They are also aware of machine-readable passport deadlines,
the future use of biometric identifiers in U.S. visas and Visa Waiver
passports, collection and use of advance passenger information, or API,
along with the soon to be implemented US VISIT (U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology), or entry-exit system, which is
scheduled to begin at U.S. airports and seaports in 2004.
By and large, these new rules and requirements make sense from a
homeland security perspective, and TIA and the U.S. travel industry
support efforts to enhance national security. But for many prospective
international visitors, wave after wave of new travel requirements
paints a ``big picture'' that the United States is becoming a
destination that is too difficult to enter, too expensive to visit and
simply not worth the effort. In their opinion, the ``welcome mat'' has
seemingly been pulled. Perception has become the new reality, and even
in countries where there are relatively few barriers for travel to the
U.S., this negative perception has resulted in lost business for the
United States.
CONGRESS FUNDS INTERNATIONAL TOURISM PROMOTION
Just last year Congress appropriated $50 million to promote the
U.S. internationally as the premier visitor destination in the world.
This U.S. promotion campaign is being led by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, with advice and counsel from the U.S. Travel and Tourism
Promotion Advisory Board, which is composed of leaders in the U.S.
travel industry. The travel industry is grateful to Congress for
recognizing the need to tell the world that we are not only open for
business, but also eager to welcome international visitors to our
cities and rural areas to experience our natural beauty, culture and
exciting attractions.
But even before government and industry have decided how best to
invest this $50 million to attract increased numbers of international
visitors, there is great concern that all of these new visa, passport
and entry procedures could potentially drown out any efforts to invite
the world to ``See America.'' Our overseas business partners who sell
travel to the U.S. are worried this investment in promotion will do
little to increase inbound international travel because of widespread
negative perceptions. We share their concerns, but sincerely hope this
will not be the case. We are committed to working closely with the
Department of Commerce to ensure this $50 million investment results in
more international visitors, increased U.S. jobs and growing revenues
for all levels of government.
CONCLUSION
TIA and the U.S. travel industry strongly support efforts by the
federal government to protect our homeland from attack by those who
would seek to harm our citizens, residents, and international guests.
We stand ready to work with Congress and the Administration on the
creation of policies that prevent the entry of terrorists while truly
facilitating the entry of tens of millions of legitimate business and
leisure visitors who provide a great economic, social and political
benefit for this country.
We realize these are challenging times for government officials who
seek to prevent acts of terror while working to facilitate legitimate
international travel and trade. TIA and the entire travel industry, for
example, applaud the Administration for its recent decision that
extended the machine-readable passport deadline by one year for twenty-
one Visa Waiver Program countries. This decision will help to prevent
the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in lost business
from key markets, and is viewed by travel industry leaders as a hopeful
sign the federal government is increasingly aware of the ``economic
security'' needs of the U.S. travel industry.
Again, we must have enhanced U.S. national security as well as
growth in travel and tourism and the overall U.S. economy. Protecting
America and providing jobs must remain priorities for Congress and the
Administration. These goals are not mutually exclusive, and we can and
must have both.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Estorino.
We'll begin the questioning with Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Estorino, welcome. I think you have
underscored the case most articulately, what I was trying to
get across in my questioning of the previous panel, that we've
got to make it easier in the minds of the foreign guests to be
able to come, and, at the same time, of course, protect our own
borders.
Why don't you, for the record, tell about the travel
business from Brazil and how it is so dramatically dropped?
Mr. Estorino. Travel has dropped significantly, about 45
percent, just recently. The issue that I'm hearing from the
field is primarily the cost of acquiring a visa. You can
imagine--I'll put it in a different perspective--imagine if
American citizens had to get a visa to travel to the United
Kingdom and we only had consulates in New York, Miami, and San
Francisco. If every American had to go to one of these places
in order to get a visa to travel to the U.K., how many people
do you think would be traveling to the United Kingdom? I would
suggest that it's not many.
So picture that case in Brazil. You have a situation where
we're forcing a very large country--there are many other areas
of population that do travel to the United States and are
having to go to a selected number of cities.
I asked the question, because I wanted to know how many
people outside of Sao Paulo, Brasilia, and Rio de Janeiro were
traveling to the United States. The number that I received was
approximately 45 to 50 percent of the travelers to the United
States are coming from outside those major cities.
So it's a huge cost, as we all indicated earlier, when you
have to pay a fee per applicant, as well as pay for travel
arrangements, in the case of Brazil, in many cases, air travel,
and then you have to spend the night, and then you have to get,
you know, meals, et cetera, to then only find out that a third
of these applicants are being denied. I believe it creates a
huge barrier in interest and is really hurting the image of our
country in welcoming these folks to the United States.
Senator Nelson. What about the other countries in South
America?
Mr. Estorino. Well, there's a couple of countries that
would have a similar scenario, that would have to travel long
distances.
The issue of delays is the other question. All around the
world, people are traveling--deciding to travel with a lot less
lead time. So having to wait a long time for a visa does not
incentivize people to want to come. Again, the denial rate is
significant. So it just creates additional barriers. The media
is not helping us in any way in these countries, obviously,
presenting these stories and cases and so on.
So we have an image problem. We have to repair it through a
public-relations effort, and we have to welcome our guests. And
I'm not suggesting that we give each passenger a pina colada as
they board the plane, but I am suggesting that we treat them,
you know, respectfully. Most of these people are legitimate
people that want to come to our country, and we should be
welcoming them.
Senator Nelson. Of all of your inbound tourism traffic
into the Orlando area, is Brazil the largest percentage of
that?
Mr. Estorino. The United Kingdom represents our largest
source of visitation, with over a million visitors. We saw that
market decline last year. As an example, we saw our U.K.
visitation drop approximately 17 percent, while we saw
Brazilian visitation to Orlando drop 50 percent. So we've been
hit across the board. Our Asian markets, although the number is
much smaller, has also declined by 53 percent.
In total, Orlando was hit particularly hard, Senator, with
an overall decline last year of 22 percent, compared to a U.S.
overall decline of approximately 7 percent. So Orlando was hit
particularly hard with international visitation.
Senator Nelson. And the Florida figures are not just
Orlando. That's Miami, as well.
Mr. Estorino. Actually, sir, I was stating Orlando
figures. Orlando had dropped over 22 percent, the state of
Florida dropped nearly 16 percent, and the overall United
States dropped, international passengers, was a drop of 7
percent. So Florida was hit harder than the nation, and Orlando
was hit harder than both.
Senator Nelson. I, of course, bring up Miami because it,
as well as Orlando, is one of the major international
destination points, particularly with regard to commerce, a lot
of banking, and so forth. It's interesting why we have our
United States military Southern Command in Miami. It's because
that is the point of greatest contact for all the governments
of Central and South America. You think of the one point where
they travel most frequently, interestingly, it's Miami.
With the United Kingdom being first--do you have that list?
Go on down the list. Who's second into Orlando?
Mr. Estorino. Into Orlando, would be Germany. Then the
South American nations, Brazil--I'm sorry, Canada would be
second. It would be the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany,
Brazil. And Mexico--I don't have exact numbers, but Mexico
would be pretty high.
Senator Nelson. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Estorino, do you have any other
suggestions, specific suggestions, for dealing with that
reduction in travel? Like you mentioned the costs. Obviously,
we could try to deal with the costs to the application process.
Mr. Estorino. I think, in the case of a country like
Brazil, I've been told that organizations in Brazil, such as
the Organization of Brazilian Travel Agents, BRAZTOA, the
Association of Brazilian Tour Operators, is more than willing
to work with the government, the U.S. Government, in
facilitating anything that they could do to bring consulars to
the other major cities to help facilitate visa processing. I'd
say take them up on it somehow. We need to reduce the process,
we need to make it more economical for people to obtain a visa,
and we need to do some outreaching to them.
Chairman Sununu, the other concern that I have is that if
these barriers don't get resolved quickly, part of what may
happen is American travel companies that are interested in
generating visitation from these countries may abandon their
marketing effort in these countries. There have been situations
already; I'll give you an example: Walt Disney World has
already closed their office in Brazil. While we, as the Orlando
Convention and Visitors Bureau, have maintained our offices.
That's a matter of prioritizing. But I can tell you it's very
difficult to continue to dedicate resources to stimulate these
markets when we know that there are some significant barriers
that there's little we can do about.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Oberlin, does the embassy in Seoul
have any sort of a mechanism for regular discussion with the
business community or the academic community there on visa-
related issues?
Mr. Oberlin. Yes, as I mentioned in my comments, we
applaud the efforts of the consular section, the leadership of
Ambassador Hubbard. They have been working with the travel
industry in Korea. They've been working with the American
Chamber of Commerce in Korea and trying to find ways so that
the problems can be lessened, to whatever degree possible.
A lot of what we think are some of the innovative ways in
which we can go forward, that has been--that is through
collaboration essentially with the experts, because there you
have the experts right there on the ground.
Senator Sununu. Has the embassy been proactive in trying
to communicate with the Korean people, generally, on these
issues?
Mr. Oberlin. I would say, yes, they have; but,
unfortunately, I would also probably add that they're limited
in resources in being able to do that. That's one of the things
that we believe is critical. And I think one of my colleagues
has already pointed it out, too. Communication. We know that we
have to do--we know we have to do this. These policies are
something that are necessary for our national security.
However, at the same time, we have to make sure that our
friends and potential visitors to the United States understand
why we're doing what we're doing, because they have a different
perception than what we have.
Senator Sununu. Do you have a specific goal in mind for a
reasonable visa processing time?
Mr. Oberlin. Well, we would like to take it back to where
it was, and where it was--that was two to five days. We don't
know whether that's possible in the near-term, but that should
definitely be the objective. In other words, if you had to come
up with a metric, the simplest metric would to take it before
the implementation of the policy and try to achieve that in as
short a period of time as possible.
Senator Sununu. And where is it now?
Mr. Oberlin. Depending upon the season, it's between 30 to
60 to 70 days. I might comment--going back to your question
about working with the embassy--we were very, very concerned
initially, before the policy was implemented, that this was
going to be far worse than what it is. I think everybody has
pulled together quite well to bring it down to the level that
we see now. Unfortunately, for all the reasons that also have
been discussed as far as how people make decisions on
traveling, et cetera, it's still unacceptable./
Senator Sununu. Dr. Aber, on the student visa tracking
system, do you believe that a centralized system would work
more effectively or would be less costly, or should our goal be
focused on making the current distributed system work even
better?
Dr. Aber. I would think the distributed system has the
advantage of having the people who are in contact with the
students having access to the technology to do that processing.
Certainly that leads to centralized review, as it should, but I
would imagine that if there was a barrier between the people
dealing with the students and a centralized data-entry system
of some kind, it would probably increase the processing time
rather than decrease it. There are certainly the costs of doing
business this way, which are higher. But, again, as I said, at
UNH, at least, you know, we're happy to do that, to the extent
we can, in order to provide the best possible service and make
it as easy as possible for these visitors to come.
Senator Sununu. Are you aware of any problems with
tampering or unauthorized disclosure of information in the
system?
Dr. Aber. I'm not. One thing that the people in our office
said they do is go over and over this information several
times, because they know once it's into an automated system, if
it's inaccurate in any way, it might be very difficult to
reclaim that information or restart the process. I haven't
heard directly of any kind of tampering with the system.
Although the concern is around if there is a charge for SEVIS,
how that will be administered, and there was discussion of
doing it with some kind of paper transaction which was thought
to--would be thought to really increase the processing time.
Given that this is centralized and electronic, there should be
an electronic way of making the payment, as well.
Senator Sununu. When was the first time that you heard
about a potential fee for SEVIS?
Dr. Aber. It was in that letter that was written by the
American Association of Universities, which would have been in
the spring of this year.
Senator Sununu. What has been your experience with any
government officials or offices that you've had to contact with
regard to the program?
Dr. Aber. I haven't heard any complaints along that line
for UNH. We're, of course, a relatively small university. I
have about 800 of these applicants in a year, and we have about
four or so turned down per year, which I guess is about the
national average.
So I didn't hear any egregious problems in our contact.
Most of the problems that we encountered had to do with the
reentry problems for students, and I've got some examples here,
also reentry problems for people with immigrant statuses of one
kind or another. And also, in terms of perceptions, the way
that the visa status has been linked to things like driver's
license renewals and tax information and things which tend to
add, at the state level, to the number of headaches that our
international visitors have to deal with, and add to this
general notion that it may be easier to go somewhere else.
Senator Sununu. And you say you have submitted those case
studies for the record, is that correct?
Dr. Aber. Yes.
Senator Sununu. Excellent.
Well, I thank all of our panelists very much for their
testimony, for their willingness to stay and answer questions.
And I offer you the opportunity to submit additional
information for the record, if you would like.
And in order for Senators that weren't here today to submit
questions, I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for three more business days. It will be done so, without
objection.
Thank you each again. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Additional Information Submitted for the Record by Janice L. Jacobs
CHANGES TO THE VISA APPLICATION PROCESS SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
The Department of State has made significant changes to the visa
process and entry screening requirements since September 11, 2001, to
provide better security in light of the revised threat assessment to
our national security. The steps outlined below are some of our more
important efforts to improve the security of U.S. borders, which also
include our ongoing participation in interagency efforts to implement
the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Enhanced Border Security and
Visa Entry Reform Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the National
Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS).
Improvements Made in Visa Processing
Application Processing
Greatly increased the percentage of non-immigrant applicants
interviewed worldwide and set a written standard on interviews
to achieve consistency around the world. On August 1, 2003 new
regulations were implemented which limit waiver of personal
appearance for non-immigrant visa applicants to only a few
categories of exceptions, such as diplomats, children, and the
elderly.
In coordination with the Departments of Justice and Homeland
Security, added more interagency security checks for counter--
terrorism purposes for certain groups of visa applicants from
certain countries.
Provided access to the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD)
to DHS inspectors at ports of entry. The CCD provides detailed
information on all visas issued, including photographs of
noniminigrant visa applicants. (The CCD had earlier been made
available to consular officers worldwide in May 2001.)
Expanded intranet resources for consular adjudicators to
assist them in reading and verifying entry/exit cachets in
Arabic or Persian script.
Concurred with the Department of Justice in the removal of
Argentina (February 2002) and Uruguay (April 2003) from the
Visa Waiver Program and imposition of limitations on Belgium's
participation (May 2003).
In March 2003, Centralized the flow of fiancee visa
petitions from BCIS to the National Visa Center (NVC) in New
Hampshire. NVC will compile FBI and security advisory checks
before sending the files to overseas posts.
Developed Internet site that allows applicants to complete
NIV application on-line. Resultant application form includes a
2-D bar enabling quick scanning of data into the NIV system.
Namechecks
By June, 2002, incorporated approximately eight million
records from the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
into our Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) namecheck
database. This more than doubled the records on file. (This was
authorized by the USA Patriot Act.)
Received into CLASS a threefold increase in namecheck
records from the intelligence community (through TIPOFF, a
clearinghouse for sensitive intelligence and watchlist
entries).
Started automated cross-checking of new derogatory
information concerning terrorists or suspected terrorists
(including TIPOFF entries) against records of previously issued
visas in order to revoke existing valid visas in the hands of
those who may be a threat.
In May 2003, implemented the Alternate Processing Center
(APC) for the CLASS namecheck system. Located in the Kentucky
Consular Center, several hundred miles from Washington, DC, the
APC provides additional namecheck production resources and load
sharing capability with the primary computer complex in the
Washington area. APC also improves CLASS survivability.
Effective November 2002, discontinued the use of a CD-ROM based
back-up namecheck system. No visa is now issued without a CLASS
check which provides real-time lookout information.
Implemented the Hispanic algorithm in all Western Hemisphere
post; additional posts are gradually being phased in.
Joined with DOJ and others in establishing a new Terrorist
Screening Center (TSC) that will integrate watchlists,
including TIPOFF. Visa applicants will be checked against TSC
data.
Enhanced Data Collection
Began worldwide deployment of biometric NIV software, with
Brussels, our first pilot post, going live with fingerprint
collection on September 22, 2003. All visa posts will have this
capability by October 26, 2004.
Included 25 additional data elements in the automated non-
immigrant visa processing system beginning in September 2002.
These fields are viewable worldwide through the Consular
Consolidated Database. This data includes information on the
U.S. sponsors and U.S. destination of the visa applicant.
Created two new forms for nonimrnigrant visa applicants:the
DS-157 (November 2001), required of all men aged 16 to 45 from
every country in the world; and the DS-158 (July 2002),
required of all applicants for student visas. The DS-157 is
used to identify applicants who require a security advisory
opinion from Washington agencies.
In the spring of 2002, provided all posts with software and
scanners to allow scanning of supporting evidence in serious
refusals. This evidence is thus available in its electronic
format to all consular operations and DHS border inspection
offices. This is part of the effort to replace paper files with
image-storage and retrieval and to improve the access to
information by consular officers making adjudication decisions.
In April 2002, began requiring photo-capture for refused
noniinmigrant visa applicants.
Revised photo standards for non-immigrant applicants to
improve the quality of data for facial recognition and other
purposes.
Included several additional data elements in the automated
immigrant visa processing system to support datasharing with
the Social Security Administration.
Expanded Information Sharing
Created a new staff office, VO/I, in the Visa Office in
August 2002 to coordinate information management and liaison
activities. We expect this office to continue to grow and to
play a key role in interagency discussions.
The Border Biometric Program office in the Visa Office has
been reorganized as the Office of Border and International
Programs to allow for expanded efforts at information sharing
and coordination with like-minded nations and multilateral
organizations.
Piloted datashare with the Social Security Administration to
facilitate enumeration of new immigrants.
In the fall of 2001, began storing serious refusal files for
posts at risk (or with space problems) at the Kentucky Consular
Center (KCC). KCC has begun scanning old files, making these
files available to all CCD users. This process will be expanded
to include serious refusal files from all posts worldwide,
thereby making them available to all posts worldwide and to
domestic offices.
Expanded distribution of electronic Intelligence Alerts on
lost/stolen blank documents, making them available to federal,
state, and local agencies and to foreign governments.
Implemented technology support in the visa lookout system to
support DHS's National Security Entry Exit Registration System
(NSEERS).
Successfully launched the Interim Student and Exchange
Authentication System (ISEAS) (September 2002), which provided
electronic verification of the acceptance of foreign students
and exchange visitors who apply to enter the United States on
student (``F,'' ``M'') and exchange visitor (``J'') visas.
ISEAS was created to satisfy the mandates of Section 501(c) of
the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002
and remained active until February 2003 when DHS's Student and
Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was implemented.
Worked with DHS on the implementation of the SEVIS student
tracking system. All student visas are now verified and
registered in SEVIS. Over one million records from SEVIS have
been downloaded to CA's Consular Consolidated Database where
the information is available for the electronic verification,
adjudication, and reporting of student and exchange visitor
visas.
Internal Controls
Removed direct Foreign Service National access to detailed
namecheck information in consular automated systems.
Reviewed the visa referral system and reminded post/consular
managers of the controls needed. The referral form was revised
and its use was made mandatory worldwide. The form now requires
written certification by the referring officer that the visa
applicant is personally known to the referring officer and does
not pose a threat to the United States.
In July 2002, installed new management tools to monitor user
accounts on consular automated systems.
Mandated a special worldwide review of management controls
in September 2002 and again in August 2003. This is now being
made a required annual report from all consular sections.
Implemented a system of Consular Management Assistance Teams
to visit posts to review management controls and procedures.
The first such visits were made in February 2003.
Began the process of formalizing and disseminating Standard
Operating Procedures for visa processing, including the
creation of online processing manuals to better index operating
instructions.
Fraud Prevention Efforts
In March 2002, pilot tested the new, tamper-resistant
Lincoln non-immigrant visa foil with worldwide deployment
completed in September 2003.
Developed a more secure way of canceling machine-readable
visas to deter malefactors from ``washing'' the cancellation
stamp from the visa. The system was made available to posts in
March of 2003.
In April 2003, established a Vulnerability Assessment Unit
(VAU) staffed by personnel from Consular Affairs and Diplomatic
Security. VAU personnel employ data-mining and other techniques
to identify baseline trends and patterns and detect variations
which could indicate possible malfeasance. The unit analyzes
data anomalies and makes recommendations for action. The unit
also participates in State Department training efforts to
ensure consular employees are well informed about issues
related to malfeasance.
Provided information to the field on lessons learned from
cases of consular malfeasance.
In August 2003, established a fraud prevention unit at the
National Visa Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (NVC). The
unit focuses initially on data validation/fraud screening for
employment--based cases using automated search tools. After
experience has been gained at NVC, we will expand the program
to the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC).
Based on success with the Diversity Visa lottery (DV)
program, anti-fraud efforts using Facial Recognition technology
have been expanded on a test basis to thirteen NIV applicant
pools, with a focus on countering both visa fraud and
terrorism.
Created an e-form for easy reporting of lost/stolen/missing
visaed passports, with automatic forwarding to DHS.
Continue to update our database of foreign lost and stolen
passports. We currently have over 680,000 entries of blank and
individually issued lost and stolen passports in the database.
Training
In March 2002, initiated an Advanced Namechecking Techniques
course at the Foreign Service Institute. Hundreds of consular
officers have now received this training.
Lengthened the Basic Consular Course, also known as ConGen,
from 26 to 31 days. This change is the result of the added
emphasis that we are giving to visa security, counter-terrorism
awareness and interviewing techniques. Among the new modules is
a two-day interviewing ``minicourse'' that will focus students
on ways to identify lying/deception by applicants. The new
curriculum also includes a half-day program on counter-
terrorism at the CIA Headquarters in Langley. The new, longer
ConGen training schedule began October 17, 2003.
Increased training for Ambassadors, Deputy Chiefs of Mission
and Principal Officers on their supervisory role in the visa
function.
Incorporated CIA module on terrorist travel patterns into
the basic consular course, which was expanded in October 2003.
Security Improvements
Proposed elimination of crew list visas and establishment of
a requirement that seamen obtain individual visas. (Crew list
visas do not allow for the same verification of identity and
bona fides as do individual applications.) A proposed
regulation was published for public comment in December 2002;
the final rule in the final stages of interagency clearance.
In February 2003, eliminated the waiver of visas for
permanent residents of Canada and Bermuda.
In March 2002, amended regulations to close a loophole and
limit the ability of persons with expired visas to reenter the
U.S. from contiguous territory (i.e. Mexico, Canada, the
Caribbean). The change removed from the automatic revalidation
provision those persons who apply for a new visa and are
refused in Canada or Mexico and all nationals of countries
designated as state sponsors of terrorism regardless of whether
they apply for a visa.
Supported implementation of the Aviation Security Bill.
Reiterated standing guidance on interview requirements for
applicants subject to security advisory opinion requirements.
Started discussions with Mexico and Canada about greater
cooperation on immigration, security, and visa issues.
Approved an Entry-Exit Project Charter (now the ``U.S.
Visit'' (United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology program), drafted jointly with INS, Customs, and
DOT, which sets the parameters for an automated system to
record the arrivals, departures, and stay activities of
individuals coming to and leaving the U.S. Continue to work
closely with DHS on development of U.S. Visit.
Future Improvements to the Visa Process and Timetables
The Department continues to implement requirements set forth in the
USA PATRIOT Act, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform
Act, and the Homeland Security Act. Major initiatives not outlined
above that are currently planned include:
Application Processing
Initiate investigation of ``rules based process'' as a tool
for visa screening.
Implement an internet-based NIV application form that allows
the applicant to fill in the form, which when printed contains
a bar code readable at post for automatic input into our visa
system.
Revamp the visa processing sections of the Foreign Affairs
Manuals, including a complete reexamination of all existing
guidance to overseas posts. Existing standard operating
procedures are being redrafted and reissued, and new standard
operating procedures SOPs are being developed.
Re-engineering the Interagency Visa clearance process to
allow stronger accountability and quicker processing.
Namechecks
Improve capacity of CLASS to handle additional information
such as Interpol and deportation lookout information, the
Hispanic algorithm, and lost and stolen passport data.
Develop and implement an algorithm to improve performance on
namechecking of Asian names. This algorithm will be piloted in
FY 2004, with worldwide rollout projected for FY 2005.
Continue to load data from the FBI, in a priority order.
Upgrade the central namecheck processing facility to
increase computer power and provide system scalability.
Enhanced Data Collection
The Patriot Act requires that U.S. visas use biometric
identifiers by October 26, 2004. The Department began phased
implementation of biometric (fingerprint) collection in
September 2003, with the first post ``going live'' on September
22, 2003. We anticipate that all posts will be collecting
biometrics by October 2004.
The Department will work with countries that are eligible
for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and with ICAO to meet the
requirement that those countries incorporate biometric
identifiers in their passports by October 2004, as required by
the Patriot Act.
Software improvements to help consular officers make all
case notes online. This would support a legislative mandate to
require electronic notes providing rationale for all visa
refusals and for any subsequent issuance to a previously
refused applicant.
Expanded Information Sharing
Continue to expand datashare opportunities with federal
agencies, maximizing the value of consular data to the USG
while developing procedures to ensure proper use of this
information.
Make consular data available via the interagency OSIS (Open
Sources Information System) network. Work with agencies
concerned with Border Security (DHS, FBI, etc.) to develop an
MOU that will allow this access.
Continue working on a number of programs with Canada and
Mexico as part of our U.S.-Canada Smart Border Action Plan (30
point plan) and U.S.-Mexico Border Partnership (22 point plan).
As concerns the movement of people, we are working on
agreements that would allow us to share Advance Passenger
Information/Passenger Name Records for airline passengers
entering the U.S., Canada, or Mexico. We are also working with
both these countries (NEXUS with Canada and SENTRI with Mexico)
to expand frequent travelers programs to allow faster crossings
for bona fide travelers.
Training
The Foreign Service Institute has lengthened the Basic
Consular Course, also known as ConGen, from 26 to 31 days. This
change is the result of the added emphasis that we are giving
to visa security, counter-terrorism awareness and interviewing
techniques. Among the new modules is a two-day interviewing
``mini--course'' that will focus students on ways to identify
lying/deception by applicants. The new, longer ConGen training
schedule began in October 2003.
Internal Controls
Restrict further the access of Foreign Service National
employees to namecheck information.
Provide additional guidance to the field on supervisory
officer review of visa issuances and refusals.
Maintain a robust schedule of visits by consular management
assistance teams to posts to review management controls and
procedures.
Provide written guidance to chiefs of mission and their
deputies to assist them in their oversight of consular
sections.
Fraud Prevention Programs
Review facial recognition results from initial test
deployment at visa posts to determine how it may benefit
screening in the operational environment.
Introduce new, tamper-resistant and machine readable
immigrant visa foil. This new machine-readable immigrant visa
process will include digitized photo and fingerprints.
Security Improvements
Move to on-line electronic registration for the Diversity
visa program. Registration for the DV-2005 ``lottery'' will be
conducted exclusively through a dedicated web site. This will
enable us to better identify duplicate entries, including,
through extensive use of facial recognition technology, those
submitted under fraudulent identities.
Re-engineer the interagency visa clearance process with
other agencies.
Eliminate crew-list visas and require all seamen to obtain
individual visas.
__________
Additional Questions Submitted by the Committee
for the Record
Questions for the Record Submitted to Consular Affairs Deputy Assistant
Secretary Janice Jacobs by Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. In today's Hearing, it was mentioned that Brazil and
Russia charge $100 for US citizens to apply for visas to their
countries. Are these charges only for Americans? Please provide a list
of the fifteen most expensive B1/B2-type visas for American citizens
and note if these charges apply to other nationalities applying in
those countries?
Answer. Yes, these charges are only for Americans. Brazil and
Russia's visa fees are based on the principle of reciprocity.
Given the nature of many countries' visa regimes it is difficult to
identify a list of the fifteen most expensive B1/B2-type visas charged
American citizens. Some countries, for example, charge American
citizens fees ranging from $30 to $500 depending on the length of the
visa and how many entries the visa is valid for. The fees also vary
greatly for countries that permit American citizens to enter visa free
for up to 90 days, but require a B1/B2-type visa for more extended
stays.
Of those countries that maintain a visa requirement for American
citizens even for short-term visits, Brazil, Russia, Chile, Turkey,
Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus charge
American citizens a minimum of $100 for a visa. Almost all of these
countries base their visa fees on the principle of reciprocity. They
generally charge American citizens more than nationals of other
countries in order to match our $100 Machine Readable Visa fee.
Question. At today's hearing it was mentioned that of all the Visa
Condor inquiries, not one resulted in refusal. Please provide for the
Committee the number of cases of Visa Mantis, Eagle, Condor, Donkey,
Bear, 212(f), Pegasus and Horse clearance cases and the number and
percentage refused for the CY 2000-2002.
Answer. The Visa Office does not at present have an automated
processing system that could produce overall statistics regarding the
number of security advisory opinion (SAO) cases. The Visa Office uses
an electronic filing system to receive and send responses to SAO
cables. We were able to estimate the number of all SAO cables received
in CY 2002. During that year, consular officers included multiple
applicants in some cables. Consequently, the numbers below reflect the
total number of cables, not the total number of applicants. The Visa
Office is developing an improved electronic SAO system that will
connect SAO requests with the Consolidated Consular Database which will
allow us to obtain more accurate statistics on SAOs. The new system is
scheduled for introduction in the field in early 2004.
Number of SAO Cables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type CY 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bear....................................................... 2,013
Condor..................................................... 39,220
Donkey [includes 212(f)]................................... 21,848
Eagle...................................................... 24,728
Horse...................................................... 43
Mantis..................................................... 4,464
Pegasus.................................................... 56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Visa Office electronic filing system for SAOs also does not
keep statistics on denials. Such statistics are available from a
separate system, the automated non-immigrant visa system in use
overseas by consular officers.
The rate of denial is extremely low. The consular officer submits
the case to Washington for a national security review only if the
applicant is otherwise eligible. In other words, if a consular officer
has cause to deny the visa for such reasons as failure to establish
entitlement to non-immigrant status, violation of immigration law
during prior visits to the U.S., or prior criminal activity, the
officer denies the visa and does not send the case to Washington.
The chart below lists the total number of refusals recorded by
consular officers in the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) under the
following sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act:
1. 212(a)(3)(A)(i) relating to espionage and sabotage;
2. 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) relating to any other unlawful activity;
3. 212(a)(3)(A)(iii) relating to opposition to, control or overthrow
of the U.S. Government by force, violence or other unlawful
means;
4. 212(a)(3)(B) relating to terrorism;
5. 212(a)(3)(C) relating to aliens whose entry into the U.S. would
have potentially serious foreign policy consequences for
the U.S.; and
6. 212(f) presidential relating to any class of aliens whose entry
into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the
U.S. Currently there are 212(f) proclamations in effect for
certain aliens from Angola, the Western Balkans, Burma,
Cuba, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
Visa Refusals: CY 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section of INA Refusals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
212(a)(3)(A)(i)............................................ 12
212(a)(3)(A)(ii)........................................... 107
212(a)(3)(A)(iii).......................................... 1
212(a)(3)(B)............................................... 0
212(a)(3)(C)............................................... 1
212(f)..................................................... 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Refusals: CY 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section of INA Refusals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
212(a)(3)(A)(i)............................................ 23
212(a)(3)(A)(ii)........................................... 79
212(a)(3)(A)(iii).......................................... 0
212(a)(3)(B)............................................... 0
212(a)(3)(C)............................................... 0
212(f)..................................................... 52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Refusals: CY 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section of INA Refusals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
212(a)(3)(A)(i)............................................ 42
212(a)(3)(A)(ii)........................................... 55
212(a)(3)(A)(iii).......................................... 0
212(a)(3)(B)............................................... 44
212(a)(3)(C)............................................... 0
212(f)..................................................... 107
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a quarterly reporting requirement to Congress on visa
denials under 212(a)(3)(B), terrorism grounds. The visa applicants
noted in the reports for CY 2000-2002 were, we believe, watchlisted and
were reported to Washington by consular officers through the Visas
Donkey process. They were not reported through the Visas Condor process
for which, as Deputy Assistant Secretary Jacobs stated in her
testimony, there have been no denials on terrorism grounds to date.
Question. Please provide for the Committee the 19 posts mentioned
at today's Hearing where the processing time of an NIV is in excess of
30 days. Please include the number of American and FSN staff working at
each of those posts as well as the number of interview windows.
Answer. Fluctuations in wait times occur and cause changes on a
weekly basis among posts that report workload statistics on the
Consular Affairs database (CCD) meeting the 30 day or less wait time
limit, and other posts that exceed 30 day limits. The 15 posts listed
below reflect the number of posts that reported exceeding the 30 day
wait time limit as of November 12, 2003. However, all overseas posts,
including the 15 listed here, have standing instructions to prioritize
student and medical or other emergency visa cases.
Post Wait Times in Excess of 30 Days
(as of November 12, 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Appt. Wait
Average Time for Number of Number of Number of
Post Date Appt. Wait Student, NIV NIV FSNs at Interview
Time (# Exchange Officers at Post Windows at
Days) Visitors (# Post Post
Days)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abidjan..................... 12 Nov 70 10 2 2 3
Accra....................... 10 Nov 105 1 2.5 4 3
Addis Ababa................. 10 Nov 43 1 3 7 *
Caracas..................... 10 Nov 73 10 6 11 8
Conakry..................... 9 Nov 90 1 1 4 *
Osaka-Kobe.................. 12 Nov 56 10 1 6 5
Lagos....................... 28 Oct 140 1 8 23 *
Manila...................... 9 Nov 95 3 12 68 *
Mexico City................. 10 Nov 40 3 19 43 15
Monterrey................... 31 Oct 77 28 12 22 10
Santo Domingo............... 4 Nov 92 1 6 14 6
San Salvador................ 10 Nov 32 1 6 8 6
Shanghai.................... 2 Nov 35 1 4 14 *
Tegucigalpa................. 3 Nov 32 2 3 3 3
Ulaanbaatar................. 3 Nov 60 20 1 3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*: Information not yet received by Department of State from respective post as of November 12, 2003)
Question. The current Budget in Brief (p. 21) estimates
$676,245,000 from MRV fees and $850,000 from FBI fingerprint fees for
FY 04. Please provide for the Committee the FY 03 estimates and actual
intakes for these two funds. How much of the current Iraq Supplemental
is needed to cover unanticipated MRV shortfalls for FY 03?
Answer. We estimated that net MRV collections would be $582 million
in FY 2003. Actual net MRV collections totaled $536.778 million.
Revenues collected from the fingerprint fee were estimated to be $1.2
million; actual FY 2003 collections totaled $2.704 million.
The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for
the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108-106)
provides $109.5 million in the Diplomatic & Consular Programs
appropriation to cover anticipated FY 2004 shortfalls. The FY 2003 MRV
shortfall was covered through a combination of reductions in program
spending and $46.0 million in supplemental appropriations provided in
the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11).
__________
Questions for the Record Submitted to Consular Affairs Deputy Assistant
Secretary Janice Jacobs by Senator John E. Sununu
Question. Please provide a list of the Security Advisory Opinion
request categories such as ``Condor'' with a brief description of the
function of each category and the process by which they are reviewed in
Washington. Include a flow chart. How many requests were sent to
Washington in each category in FY2002? In FY 2003 to date?
How many resulted in recommendations to deny a visa?
Answer. There are six types of Security Advisory Opinions (SAO) for
which the Department acts as an interagency clearinghouse: Visas Bear,
Condor, Donkey, Eagle, Mantis and Merlin. Posts send SAO cables to the
Department and clearing agencies.
1. Bear: For non-immigrant visa applicants for A, C-3 or G
diplomatic visas. There are currently 33 countries that
this requirement applies: These include Armenia, Belarus,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, Central African Republic,
China, Croatia, Cuba, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova,
Mongolia, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Rwanda, Serbia and
Montenegro, Slovenia, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Zimbabwe. These
cases require interagency clearance.
2. Condor: For non-immigrant visa applicants from certain countries
who fit special criteria and from countries that are
designated state sponsors of terrorism. The list of
countries and related list of criteria are classified.
These cases are reviewed by the FBI.
3. Donkey: For applicants from any country for whom there is a hit
in the Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) or who
are nationals of certain countries with special processing
requirements. The latter is based on classified criteria.
Requires interagency clearance.
4. Eagle: For certain immigrant and non-immigrant applicants from
China, Cuba, Iran, Russia and Vietnam. These cases are
reviewed by the FBI.
5. Mantis: For non-immigrant applicants from any country whose
activities in the U.S. might involve the illegal transfer
of sensitive technology. Requires an interagency clearance
as well as input from the Department's Bureau of Non-
Proliferation.
6. Merlin: For refugees from any country with a hit in the Consular
Lookout and Support System (CLASS), Cuban parolees under
the Migration Accord, and following-to-join asylees.
Requires interagency clearance.
All SAO telegrams are transmitted simultaneously by the consular
officer overseas to all appropriate agencies in Washington. The Visa
Office acts as the clearinghouse. It receives the incoming cable,
records the responses of appropriate agencies, reviews derogatory
information as needed, and transmits guidance to the consular officer
in each case.
All SAO cases require FBI clearance and the FBI responds
specifically to each case. Other clearing agencies respond when they
have pertinent information. They have 15 working days (45 in the case
of Merlins) to do so. Once the FBI has cleared and 15 days have passed,
the Department informs the post that there is no objection to issuance
of the visa.
If an agency has provided derogatory information on a specific
case, the Visa Office will discuss with immigration experts in DOJ and
DHS as appropriate as to whether the information is sufficient to
warrant visa denial. No visa is issued if a clearing agency has filed
an objection with the Visa Office until the appropriate derogatory
information is reviewed in an interagency context.
Until March 21, 2003 consular officers included multiple applicants
in some SAO cables. Thus, the numbers below reflect the total number of
cables received, not the total number of applicants.
Number of Cables Submitted to the Department by Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type FY 2002 FY 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bear.......................................... 1,774 2,616
Condor........................................ 17,177 85,288
Donkey........................................ 19,253 27,287
Eagle......................................... 16,625 45,616
Mantis........................................ 3,252 13,728
Merlin........................................ 0 7360
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denial Rate for SAOs
The Visa Office electronic filing system for SAOs does not keep
statistics on denials. Such statistics are available through the
automated visa system in use overseas by consular officers.
The rate of denial is extremely low. The consular officer submits
visa cases to Washington for a national security review according to
criteria pertinent to an SAO category only if the applicant is
otherwise eligible. In other words, if a consular officer has cause to
deny the visa for such reasons as failure to establish entitlement to
non-immigrant status, violation of immigration law during prior visits
to the U.S., or prior criminal activity, the officer denies the visa
and does not send the case to Washington for an interagency review.
The chart below lists the total number of refusals recorded by
posts in the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) under the following
sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):
1. 212(a)(3)(A)(i) relating to espionage and sabotage;
2. 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) relating to any other unlawful activity;
3. 212(a)(3)(A)(iii) relating to opposition to, control or overthrow
of the U.S. Government by force, violence or other unlawful
means;
4. 212(a)(3)(B) relating to terrorism;
5. 212(a)(3)(C) relating to aliens whose entry into the U.S. would
have potentially serious foreign policy consequences for
the U.S.;
6. 212(f) presidential proclamation relating to any class of aliens
whose entry into the U.S. would be detrimental to the
interests of the U.S. Currently there are 212(f)
proclamations in effect for certain aliens from Angola, the
Western Balkans, Burma, Cuba, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan
and Zimbabwe.
The denial statistics under sections 212(a)(3) and 212(f) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act for FY 2002-2003 are as follows:
Visa Refusal Statistics: FY 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section of INA Refusals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
212(a)(3)(A)(i)............................................ 45
212(a)(3)(A)(ii)........................................... 63
212(a)(3)(A)(iii).......................................... 0
212(a)(3)(B)............................................... 47
212(a)(3)(C)............................................... 0
212(f)..................................................... 93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Refusal Statistics: FY 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section of INA Refusals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
212(a)(3)(A)(i)............................................ 60
212(a)(3)(A)(ii)........................................... 43
212(a)(3)(A)(iii).......................................... 0
212(a)(3)(B)............................................... 98
212(a)(3)(C)............................................... 0
212(f)..................................................... 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a quarterly reporting requirement to Congress on visa
denials under 212(a)(3)(B), terrorism grounds. The visa applicants
noted in the reports for CY 2000-2002 were, we believe, watchlisted and
were reported to Washington by consular officers through the Visas
Donkey process. They were not reported through the Visas Condor
process.
Question. Private-sector witnesses in Panel 2 argued that the
August 1 policy increasing non-immigrant visa interviews has increased
the time an applicant must wait to be interviewed dramatically and has
thus increased significantly the cost of a visa in time and money.
Witnesses also said that the problem was compounded by high refusal
rates. As a result, the U.S. tourism industry is said to be
increasingly disadvantaged in its competition with other destinations,
particularly those, such as the EU in the case of Brazilians, that
require no visas for short visits.
Please provide a list of the wait-times at each visa-issuing post
(the time a non-immigrant-visa applicant must wait between requesting
an interview and being interviewed) for FY 2000, FY 2001, FY 2002 and
August and September 2003, following the increase in required
interviews.
Please also provide for all posts the number of applications by
visa category (B1/B2, F-1, etc.) number of issuances and refusals, and
the rates of refusal.
Answer. The Department of State began collecting statistical
workload information on wait times for NIV appointments in July 2003.
Therefore, of those months for which data was requested, the Department
of State is only able to provide information for the months of August
and September 2003. All overseas posts have standing instructions to
prioritize student and medical or other emergency visa cases.
Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post
(for August & September 2003 only)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Average Average Appointment Wait
Post Entry Date Appointment Processing Time Student,
Wait Time Time Exchange
Visitors Only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Dhabi................................. 5-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Abu Dhabi................................. 12-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days
Abu Dhabi................................. 19-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days
Abu Dhabi................................. 25-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days
Abu Dhabi................................. 1-Sep-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days
Abu Dhabi................................. 9-Sep-03 1.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Abu Dhabi................................. 14-Sep-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days
Abu Dhabi................................. 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Abu Dhabi................................. 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Abidjan................................... 1-Aug-03 120.00 Days .00 days Unavailable
Abidjan................................... 18-Aug-03 120.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Abidjan................................... 26-Aug-03 120.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Abidjan................................... 16-Sep-03 120.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Abidjan................................... 29-Sep-03 120.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Accra..................................... 7-Aug-03 128.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Accra..................................... 13-Aug-03 126.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Accra..................................... 18-Aug-03 126.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Accra..................................... 26-Aug-03 125.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Accra..................................... 8-Sep-03 130.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Accra..................................... 22-Sep-03 127.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Auckland.................................. 6-Aug-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days
Auckland.................................. 16-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Auckland.................................. 30-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Adana..................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 Days .00 days
Adana..................................... 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Adana..................................... 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Addis Ababa............................... 1-Aug-03 89.00 Days .00 days Unavailable
Addis Ababa............................... 27-Aug-03 78.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Addis Ababa............................... 2-Sep-03 70.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Addis Ababa............................... 9-Sep-03 69.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Addis Ababa............................... 25-Sep-03 63.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Addis Ababa............................... 30-Sep-03 63.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Ashgabat.................................. 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Ashgabat.................................. 18-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Algiers................................... 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days 14.00 Days 1.00 Days
Algiers................................... 11-Aug-03 1.00 Days 14.00 Days 1.00 Days
Algiers................................... 25-Aug-03 1.00 Days 10.00 Days 1.00 Days
Algiers................................... 1-Sep-03 1.00 Days 10.00 Days 1.00 Days
Amsterdam................................. 30-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Ankara.................................... 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Ankara.................................... 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Ankara.................................... 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Ankara.................................... 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Ankara.................................... 2-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Ankara.................................... 8-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Ankara.................................... 15-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Ankara.................................... 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Antananarivo.............................. 1-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days Unavailable
Antananarivo.............................. 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Antananarivo.............................. 29-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Asmara.................................... 1-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days Unavailable
Asuncion.................................. 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Asuncion.................................. 12-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Asuncion.................................. 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Asuncion.................................. 25-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Asuncion.................................. 4-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Asuncion.................................. 22-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Almaty.................................... 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Almaty.................................... 11-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Almaty.................................... 18-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Almaty.................................... 25-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Almaty.................................... 2-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Almaty.................................... 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Almaty.................................... 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Almaty.................................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Almaty.................................... 30-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Athens.................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Athens.................................... 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Athens.................................... 21-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Athens.................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Athens.................................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Athens.................................... 8-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Athens.................................... 15-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Athens.................................... 22-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Athens.................................... 29-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Bamako.................................... 5-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Bamako.................................... 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Bamako.................................... 18-Aug-03 11.00 Days .00 days 11.00 Days
Bamako.................................... 25-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Bamako.................................... 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bamako.................................... 15-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days
Bamako.................................... 30-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Banjul.................................... 1-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days Unavailable
Banjul.................................... 13-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Bucharest................................. -Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Bucharest................................. 4-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 Days 7.00 Days
Bucharest................................. 11-Aug-03 8.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Bucharest................................. 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Bucharest................................. 25-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Bucharest................................. 2-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Bucharest................................. 8-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Bucharest................................. 16-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days
Bucharest................................. 23-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Bucharest................................. 30-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Budapest.................................. 4-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days 22.00 Days
Budapest.................................. 18-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Budapest.................................. 25-Aug-03 25.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Budapest.................................. 2-Sep-03 22.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Budapest.................................. 8-Sep-03 16.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Budapest.................................. 15-Sep-03 16.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Budapest.................................. 22-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Budapest.................................. 29-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Beijing................................... 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Beijing................................... 18-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Beijing................................... 26-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Beijing................................... 3-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Beijing................................... 9-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Beijing................................... 14-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Beijing................................... 22-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Bern...................................... 20-Aug-03 60.00 Days .00 days 60.00 Days
Bern...................................... 30-Sep-03 60.00 Days .00 days 60.00 Days
Bridgetown................................ 6-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Bridgetown................................ 11-Aug-03 11.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Bridgetown................................ 18-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Bridgetown................................ 25-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Bridgetown................................ 2-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Bridgetown................................ 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bridgetown................................ 12-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bridgetown................................ 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bogota.................................... 4-Aug-03 127.00 Days 5.00 Days 4.00 Days
Bogota.................................... 11-Aug-03 121.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days
Bogota.................................... 18-Aug-03 121.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days
Bogota.................................... 26-Aug-03 114.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days
Bogota.................................... 2-Sep-03 126.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days
Bogota.................................... 9-Sep-03 121.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days
Bogota.................................... 15-Sep-03 120.00 Days 8.00 Days 1.00 Days
Bogota.................................... 22-Sep-03 120.00 Days 6.00 Days 1.00 Days
Bishkek................................... 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bishkek................................... 13-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bishkek................................... 18-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bishkek................................... 28-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bishkek................................... 18-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bishkek................................... 23-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bishkek................................... 29-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Baku...................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days
Baku...................................... 29-Sep-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days
Belfast................................... 22-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days
Belfast................................... 29-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Belgrade.................................. 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Belgrade.................................. 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Belgrade.................................. 16-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Belgrade.................................. 26-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Belgrade.................................. 3-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Belgrade.................................. 9-Sep-03 .00 days .00 Days .00 days
Belgrade.................................. 15-Sep-03 .00 days .00 Days .00 days
Belgrade.................................. 23-Sep-03 .00 days .00 Days .00 days
Belgrade.................................. 29-Sep-03 .00 days .00 Days .00 days
Mumbai (Bombay)........................... 3-Aug-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Mumbai (Bombay)........................... 10-Aug-03 11.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Mumbai (Bombay)........................... 17-Aug-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Mumbai (Bombay)........................... 24-Aug-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Mumbai (Bombay)........................... 31-Aug-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Mumbai (Bombay)........................... 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Mumbai (Bombay)........................... 14-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Mumbai (Bombay)........................... 21-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Mumbai (Bombay)........................... 28-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Bangkok................................... 11-Aug-03 11.00 Days .00 days 11.00 Days
Bangkok................................... 18-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days
Bangkok................................... 24-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days
Bangkok................................... 1-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Bangkok................................... 7-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days
Bangkok................................... 14-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days
Bangkok................................... 21-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Bangkok................................... 28-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Buenos Aires.............................. 4-Aug-03 8.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days
Buenos Aires.............................. 4-Aug-03 8.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days
Buenos Aires.............................. 12-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Buenos Aires.............................. 21-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Buenos Aires.............................. 8-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Buenos Aires.............................. 15-Sep-03 11.00 Days .00 days 11.00 Days
Buenos Aires.............................. 22-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days
Buenos Aires.............................. 29-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days
Brasilia.................................. 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Brasilia.................................. 5-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Brasilia.................................. 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Berlin.................................... 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Berlin.................................... 14-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Berlin.................................... 18-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Berlin.................................... 25-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Berlin.................................... 2-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Berlin.................................... 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Berlin.................................... 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Berlin.................................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Berlin.................................... 30-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Brussels.................................. 1-Aug-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days Unavailable
Brussels.................................. 7-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Brussels.................................. 21-Aug-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Brussels.................................. 29-Aug-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Brussels.................................. 18-Sep-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Brussels.................................. 23-Sep-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Beirut.................................... 4-Aug-03 21.00 Days 28.00 Days 3.00 Days
Beirut.................................... 11-Aug-03 28.00 Days 28.00 Days 3.00 Days
Beirut.................................... 2-Sep-03 28.00 Days 28.00 Days 3.00 Days
Beirut.................................... 17-Sep-03 28.00 Days 28.00 Days 3.00 Days
Bandar Seri Begawan....................... 11-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Bratislava................................ 1-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days Unavailable
Bratislava................................ 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Bratislava................................ 12-Aug-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days
Bratislava................................ 15-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Bratislava................................ 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Bratislava................................ 19-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bratislava................................ 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Bratislava................................ 3-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Bratislava................................ 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Bratislava................................ 12-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Bratislava................................ 23-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Bratislava................................ 29-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Bujumbura................................. 15-Sep-03 .00 days 1.00 Days 4.00 Days
Ciudad Juarez Tpf......................... 4-Aug-03 8.00 Days 30.00 Days Unavailable
Ciudad Juarez Tpf......................... 11-Aug-03 4.00 Days 30.00 Days Unavailable
Ciudad Juarez Tpf......................... 18-Aug-03 4.00 Days 30.00 Days Unavailable
Ciudad Juarez Tpf......................... 25-Aug-03 4.00 Days 30.00 Days Unavailable
Ciudad Juarez Tpf......................... 2-Sep-03 32.00 Days 30.00 Days Unavailable
Chengdu................................... 4-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Chengdu................................... 11-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Chengdu................................... 17-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Chengdu................................... 27-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Chengdu................................... 3-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Chengdu................................... 7-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Chengdu................................... 15-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Chengdu................................... 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Chiang Mai................................ 3-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Chiang Mai................................ 1-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Chisinau.................................. 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Calcutta.................................. 3-Aug-03 13.00 Days .00 days 13.00 Days
Calcutta.................................. 11-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days
Calcutta.................................. 19-Aug-03 8.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days
Calcutta.................................. 25-Aug-03 6.00 Days .00 days 6.00 Days
Calcutta.................................. 1-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Calcutta.................................. 7-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Calcutta.................................. 15-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Calcutta.................................. 21-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Calcutta.................................. 28-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Calgary................................... 1-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days Unavailable
Calgary................................... 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Calgary................................... 18-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Calgary................................... 25-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Calgary................................... 2-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Calgary................................... 17-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Calgary................................... 29-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Colombo................................... 10-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Colombo................................... 17-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days
Canberra.................................. 4-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 Days .00 Days
Canberra.................................. 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 Days
Canberra.................................. 18-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Canberra.................................. 25-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Canberra.................................. 3-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Canberra.................................. 8-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Canberra.................................. 22-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Canberra.................................. 28-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Cotonou................................... 6-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Copenhagen................................ 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Copenhagen................................ 12-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Copenhagen................................ 18-Aug-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Copenhagen................................ 25-Aug-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Copenhagen................................ 3-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Copenhagen................................ 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Copenhagen................................ 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Copenhagen................................ 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Copenhagen................................ 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Cape Town................................. 6-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Cape Town................................. 12-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Cape Town................................. 19-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Cape Town................................. 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Cape Town................................. 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Cape Town................................. 22-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Cairo..................................... 3-Aug-03 45.00 Days 50.00 Days 15.00 Days
Cairo..................................... 10-Aug-03 39.00 Days 50.00 Days 15.00 Days
Cairo..................................... 17-Aug-03 45.00 Days 60.00 Days 20.00 Days
Cairo..................................... 24-Aug-03 47.00 Days 60.00 Days 20.00 Days
Cairo..................................... 1-Sep-03 44.00 Days 60.00 Days 20.00 Days
Cairo..................................... 7-Sep-03 45.00 Days 60.00 Days 20.00 Days
Cairo..................................... 14-Sep-03 35.00 Days 60.00 Days 20.00 Days
Cairo..................................... 21-Sep-03 17.00 Days 60.00 Days 17.00 Days
Cairo..................................... 28-Sep-03 24.00 Days 60.00 Days 24.00 Days
Caracas................................... 5-Aug-03 51.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Caracas................................... 11-Aug-03 53.00 Days .00 days 53.00 Days
Caracas................................... 18-Aug-03 53.00 Days .00 days 53.00 Days
Caracas................................... 26-Aug-03 58.00 Days .00 days 58.00 Days
Caracas................................... 2-Sep-03 24.00 Days .00 days 24.00 Days
Caracas................................... 8-Sep-03 65.00 Days .00 days 65.00 Days
Caracas................................... 16-Sep-03 52.00 Days .00 days 52.00 Days
Caracas................................... 23-Sep-03 63.00 Days .00 days 63.00 Days
Caracas................................... 29-Sep-03 57.00 Days .00 days 57.00 Days
Conakry................................... 10-Aug-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Conakry................................... 17-Aug-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Conakry................................... 25-Aug-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Conakry................................... 31-Aug-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Conakry................................... 7-Sep-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Conakry................................... 14-Sep-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Conakry................................... 21-Sep-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Conakry................................... 28-Sep-03 80.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Casablanca................................ 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Casablanca................................ 13-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Casablanca................................ 25-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Casablanca................................ 2-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Casablanca................................ 8-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Casablanca................................ 16-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Casablanca................................ 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Casablanca................................ 29-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Dublin.................................... 6-Aug-03 13.00 Days .00 days 13.00 Days
Dublin.................................... 18-Aug-03 11.00 Days .00 days 11.00 Days
Dublin.................................... 15-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days
Dublin.................................... 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Dublin.................................... 29-Sep-03 4.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Dhaka..................................... 4-Aug-03 30.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days
Dakar..................................... 26-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days
Dakar..................................... 1-Sep-03 15.00 Days .00 days 15.00 Days
Dakar..................................... 15-Sep-03 15.00 Days .00 days 15.00 Days
Dakar..................................... 22-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
Dakar..................................... 29-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Damascus.................................. 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days 26.00 Days 1.00 Days
Damascus.................................. 11-Aug-03 1.00 Days 26.00 Days 1.00 Days
Damascus.................................. 18-Aug-03 4.00 Days 27.00 Days 4.00 Days
Damascus.................................. 25-Aug-03 5.00 Days 26.00 Days 5.00 Days
Damascus.................................. 1-Sep-03 9.00 Days 27.00 Days 9.00 Days
Damascus.................................. 7-Sep-03 6.00 Days 28.00 Days 6.00 Days
Damascus.................................. 15-Sep-03 6.00 Days 27.00 Days 6.00 Days
Damascus.................................. 22-Sep-03 5.00 Days 28.00 Days 5.00 Days
Damascus.................................. 29-Sep-03 5.00 Days 28.00 Days 5.00 Days
Dubai..................................... 5-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days
Dubai..................................... 12-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days
Dubai..................................... 19-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days
Dubai..................................... 1-Sep-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days
Dubai..................................... 14-Sep-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days
Frankfurt................................. 11-Aug-03 35.00 Days 21.00 Days .00 Days
Frankfurt................................. 18-Aug-03 30.00 Days 10.00 Days .00 Days
Frankfurt................................. 15-Sep-03 19.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 Days
Frankfurt................................. 22-Sep-03 17.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 Days
Frankfurt................................. 29-Sep-03 17.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 Days
Gaborone.................................. 1-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days Unavailable
Gaborone.................................. 5-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Gaborone.................................. 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Gaborone.................................. 18-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Gaborone.................................. 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Gaborone.................................. 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Guadalajara............................... 5-Aug-03 9.00 Days 25.00 Days 2.00 Days
Guadalajara............................... 11-Aug-03 4.00 Days 25.00 Days 3.00 Days
Guadalajara............................... 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 25.00 Days 2.00 Days
Guadalajara............................... 26-Aug-03 8.00 Days 22.00 Days 1.00 Days
Guadalajara............................... 2-Sep-03 6.00 Days 22.00 Days 1.00 Days
Guadalajara............................... 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days 22.00 Days 1.00 Days
Guadalajara............................... 15-Sep-03 2.00 Days 18.00 Days 1.00 Days
Guadalajara............................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days 18.00 Days 1.00 Days
Guadalajara............................... 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days 18.00 Days 1.00 Days
Georgetown................................ 4-Aug-03 37.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
Georgetown................................ 2-Sep-03 35.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
Guatemala City............................ 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Guatemala City............................ 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Guatemala City............................ 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Guatemala City............................ 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Guatemala City............................ 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Guatemala City............................ 8-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Guatemala City............................ 16-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Guatemala City............................ 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Guatemala City............................ 29-Sep-03 4.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days
Guangzhou................................. 3-Aug-03 11.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Guangzhou................................. 3-Aug-03 11.00 Days 1.00 Days 11.00 Days
Guangzhou................................. 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days
Guangzhou................................. 20-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days
Guangzhou................................. 24-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days
Guangzhou................................. 1-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days
Guangzhou................................. 7-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days
Guangzhou................................. 12-Sep-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days
Guangzhou................................. 29-Sep-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days
Guayaquil................................. 4-Aug-03 20.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Guayaquil................................. 11-Aug-03 18.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Guayaquil................................. 20-Aug-03 22.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Guayaquil................................. 25-Aug-03 22.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Guayaquil................................. 2-Sep-03 16.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Guayaquil................................. 8-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Guayaquil................................. 15-Sep-03 11.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Guayaquil................................. 23-Sep-03 11.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Guayaquil................................. 29-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Havana.................................... 5-Aug-03 .00 days 90.00 Days .00 days
Havana.................................... 18-Aug-03 .00 days 90.00 Days .00 days
Havana.................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days 80.00 Days .00 days
Havana.................................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days 80.00 Days .00 days
Havana.................................... 9-Sep-03 .00 days 80.00 Days .00 days
Havana.................................... 30-Sep-03 .00 days 75.00 Days .00 days
Ho Chi Minh City.......................... 5-Aug-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Ho Chi Minh City.......................... 10-Aug-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 9.00 Days
Ho Chi Minh City.......................... 18-Aug-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 8.00 Days
Ho Chi Minh City.......................... 2-Sep-03 6.00 Days 1.00 Days 6.00 Days
Ho Chi Minh City.......................... 7-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days
Hermosillo................................ 4-Aug-03 15.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Hermosillo................................ 11-Aug-03 13.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Hermosillo................................ 18-Aug-03 15.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Hermosillo................................ 2-Sep-03 19.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Hermosillo................................ 6-Sep-03 17.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Hermosillo................................ 13-Sep-03 17.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Hermosillo................................ 23-Sep-03 16.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Hermosillo................................ 29-Sep-03 18.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Halifax................................... 5-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Halifax................................... 13-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Halifax................................... 18-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Halifax................................... 26-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Halifax................................... 3-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Halifax................................... 8-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Halifax................................... 22-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Halifax................................... 30-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Helsinki.................................. 11-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days 5.00 Days
Helsinki.................................. 21-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days 5.00 Days
Helsinki.................................. 10-Sep-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days 5.00 Days
Hong Kong................................. 4-Aug-03 17.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Hong Kong................................. 10-Aug-03 17.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Hong Kong................................. 18-Aug-03 16.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Hong Kong................................. 25-Aug-03 13.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Hong Kong................................. 1-Sep-03 13.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Hong Kong................................. 8-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Hong Kong................................. 14-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Hong Kong................................. 21-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Hong Kong................................. 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Harare.................................... 27-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Islamabad................................. 25-Aug-03 59.00 Days 4.00 Days .00 days
Istanbul.................................. 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Istanbul.................................. 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Istanbul.................................. 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Istanbul.................................. 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Istanbul.................................. 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Istanbul.................................. 2-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Istanbul.................................. 8-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Istanbul.................................. 18-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Istanbul.................................. 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Istanbul.................................. 29-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Jakarta................................... 10-Sep-03 42.00 Days 7.00 Days 1.00 Days
Jeddah.................................... 7-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Jerusalem................................. 7-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Jerusalem................................. 11-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Jerusalem................................. 18-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Jerusalem................................. 25-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Jerusalem................................. 3-Sep-03 9.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Jerusalem................................. 23-Sep-03 7.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Osaka/Kobe................................ 3-Aug-03 10.00 Days 10.00 Days 10.00 Days
Osaka/Kobe................................ 11-Aug-03 10.00 Days 10.00 Days 10.00 Days
Kathmandu................................. 4-Aug-03 12.00 Days .00 days 12.00 Days
Kathmandu................................. 11-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days
Kathmandu................................. 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Kathmandu................................. 25-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Kathmandu................................. 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Kathmandu................................. 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Kathmandu................................. 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Kathmandu................................. 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Kathmandu................................. 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Kiev...................................... 5-Aug-03 32.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days
Kiev...................................... 12-Aug-03 28.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days
Kiev...................................... 20-Aug-03 28.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days
Kiev...................................... 27-Aug-03 25.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days
Kiev...................................... 9-Sep-03 21.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
Kiev...................................... 15-Sep-03 21.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
Kinshasa.................................. 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days
Kinshasa.................................. 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days
Kinshasa.................................. 19-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days
Kinshasa.................................. 25-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days
Kinshasa.................................. 8-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days
Kinshasa.................................. 15-Sep-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days
Kinshasa.................................. 29-Sep-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days
Kuala Lumpur.............................. 4-Aug-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Kuala Lumpur.............................. 11-Aug-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Kuala Lumpur.............................. 18-Aug-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Kuala Lumpur.............................. 25-Aug-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Kuala Lumpur.............................. 1-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Kuala Lumpur.............................. 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Kuala Lumpur.............................. 15-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Kingston.................................. 5-Aug-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days
Kingston.................................. 5-Aug-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days
Kingston.................................. 12-Aug-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days
Kingston.................................. 19-Aug-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days
Kingston.................................. 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days
Kingston.................................. 4-Sep-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days
Kolonia................................... 3-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Kolonia................................... 31-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Koror..................................... 1-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Krakow.................................... 6-Aug-03 16.00 Days 10.00 Days 16.00 Days
Krakow.................................... 29-Aug-03 7.00 Days 10.00 Days 7.00 Days
Krakow.................................... 11-Sep-03 4.00 Days 10.00 Days 4.00 Days
Krakow.................................... 19-Sep-03 2.00 Days 10.00 Days 2.00 Days
Krakow.................................... 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 10.00 Days 2.00 Days
Krakow.................................... 25-Sep-03 5.00 Days 10.00 Days 5.00 Days
Krakow.................................... 30-Sep-03 2.00 Days 10.00 Days 2.00 Days
Kuwait.................................... 1-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days Unavailable
Kuwait.................................... 12-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Kuwait.................................... 18-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Kuwait.................................... 29-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Lagos..................................... 25-Aug-03 90.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Lagos..................................... 15-Sep-03 65.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Lagos..................................... 23-Sep-03 77.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Lagos..................................... 30-Sep-03 78.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Libreville................................ 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Lilongwe.................................. 5-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Lilongwe.................................. 1-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Lima...................................... 11-Aug-03 25.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days
Lima...................................... 18-Aug-03 25.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days
Lima...................................... 26-Aug-03 22.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Lima...................................... 9-Sep-03 17.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Lima...................................... 15-Sep-03 15.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Lima...................................... 23-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Lima...................................... 29-Sep-03 15.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
London.................................... 12-Aug-03 42.00 Days 5.00 Days 8.00 Days
London.................................... 26-Aug-03 32.00 Days 5.00 Days 8.00 Days
London.................................... 12-Sep-03 22.00 Days 5.00 Days 22.00 Days
London.................................... 22-Sep-03 19.00 Days 7.00 Days 19.00 Days
La Paz.................................... 4-Aug-03 30.00 Days 3.00 Days 7.00 Days
La Paz.................................... 11-Aug-03 30.00 Days 3.00 Days 7.00 Days
La Paz.................................... 18-Aug-03 30.00 Days 3.00 Days 7.00 Days
La Paz.................................... 25-Aug-03 21.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days
La Paz.................................... 2-Sep-03 17.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days
La Paz.................................... 8-Sep-03 16.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days
La Paz.................................... 15-Sep-03 17.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days
La Paz.................................... 22-Sep-03 14.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days
La Paz.................................... 29-Sep-03 11.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days
Lisbon.................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Lisbon.................................... 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Lisbon.................................... 18-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Lisbon.................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Lisbon.................................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Lisbon.................................... 17-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Lisbon.................................... 22-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Lisbon.................................... 29-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Luanda.................................... 1-Aug-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days Unavailable
Luanda.................................... 2-Sep-03 4.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Lusaka.................................... 14-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Luxembourg................................ 1-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days Unavailable
Luxembourg................................ 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Maseru.................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Maseru.................................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Madrid.................................... 4-Aug-03 58.00 Days 1.00 Days 22.00 Days
Madrid.................................... 11-Aug-03 15.00 Days 1.00 Days 15.00 Days
Madrid.................................... 19-Aug-03 15.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days
Madrid.................................... 25-Aug-03 22.00 Days 1.00 Days 18.00 Days
Madrid.................................... 2-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days
Madrid.................................... 15-Sep-03 19.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days
Chennai ( Madras)......................... 6-Aug-03 34.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Chennai ( Madras)......................... 6-Aug-03 34.00 Days 1.00 Days 23.00 Days
Chennai ( Madras)......................... 11-Aug-03 30.00 Days 1.00 Days 25.00 Days
Chennai (Madras).......................... 27-Aug-03 23.00 Days 1.00 Days 16.00 Days
Chennai (Madras).......................... 10-Sep-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days
Mexico City............................... 4-Aug-03 46.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days
Mexico City............................... 11-Aug-03 48.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days
Mexico City............................... 18-Aug-03 46.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days
Mexico City............................... 25-Aug-03 46.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days
Mexico City............................... 2-Sep-03 49.00 Days 30.00 Days 5.00 Days
Mexico City............................... 8-Sep-03 48.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days
Mexico City............................... 15-Sep-03 47.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days
Mexico City............................... 22-Sep-03 45.00 Days 30.00 Days 1.00 Days
Mexico City............................... 29-Sep-03 39.00 Days 30.00 Days 1.00 Days
Melbourne................................. 4-Aug-03 4.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Melbourne................................. 11-Aug-03 8.00 Days 2.00 Days 3.00 Days
Melbourne................................. 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Melbourne................................. 25-Aug-03 8.00 Days 2.00 Days 3.00 Days
Melbourne................................. 3-Sep-03 8.00 Days 2.00 Days 3.00 Days
Melbourne................................. 8-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Melbourne................................. 22-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 4.00 Days
Melbourne................................. 28-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Milan..................................... 4-Aug-03 19.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days
Managua................................... 4-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Managua................................... 11-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Managua................................... 2-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days
Managua................................... 9-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days
Managua................................... 17-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days
Managua................................... 23-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days
Managua................................... 30-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days
Manila.................................... 4-Aug-03 67.00 Days 4.00 Days 11.00 Days
Manila.................................... 19-Aug-03 80.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days
Manila.................................... 25-Aug-03 74.00 Days 3.00 Days 1.00 Days
Manila.................................... 2-Sep-03 72.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days
Manila.................................... 8-Sep-03 73.00 Days 4.00 Days 2.00 Days
Manila.................................... 15-Sep-03 70.00 Days 4.00 Days .00 Days
Manila.................................... 22-Sep-03 73.00 Days 4.00 Days .00 Days
Manila.................................... 28-Sep-03 88.00 Days 4.00 Days .00 Days
Moscow.................................... 13-Aug-03 13.00 Days 3.00 Days 7.00 Days
Moscow.................................... 19-Aug-03 8.00 Days 2.00 Days 7.00 Days
Moscow.................................... 25-Aug-03 4.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days
Moscow.................................... 3-Sep-03 6.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days
Moscow.................................... 16-Sep-03 6.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days
Moscow.................................... 24-Sep-03 6.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days
Moscow.................................... 29-Sep-03 5.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days
Minsk..................................... 1-Aug-03 23.00 Days .00 days Unavailable
Minsk..................................... 3-Sep-03 13.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
Muscat.................................... 2-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Montreal.................................. 4-Aug-03 31.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Montreal.................................. 11-Aug-03 38.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Montreal.................................. 18-Aug-03 37.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Montreal.................................. 27-Aug-03 37.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Montreal.................................. 2-Sep-03 36.00 Days .00 days 36.00 Days
Montreal.................................. 11-Sep-03 24.00 Days .00 days 24.00 Days
Montreal.................................. 17-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Montreal.................................. 23-Sep-03 35.00 Days .00 days 35.00 Days
Monterrey................................. 4-Aug-03 59.00 Days 28.00 Days .00 days
Monterrey................................. 3-Sep-03 55.00 Days 28.00 Days .00 days
Monterrey................................. 30-Sep-03 55.00 Days 28.00 Days .00 days
Montevideo................................ 19-Aug-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days 3.00 Days
Montevideo................................ 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Nicosia................................... 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Nicosia................................... 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Nicosia................................... 18-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Nicosia................................... 25-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Nicosia................................... 2-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Nicosia................................... 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Nicosia................................... 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Nicosia................................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Nicosia................................... 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Nogales................................... 25-Aug-03 3.00 Days 25.00 Days .00 days
Nogales................................... 27-Aug-03 1.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Nogales................................... 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Nogales................................... 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Nogales................................... 15-Sep-03 4.00 Days 28.00 Days .00 days
Nogales................................... 19-Sep-03 2.00 Days 28.00 Days .00 days
Nogales................................... 26-Sep-03 1.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days
Naha...................................... 10-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Naha...................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Naha...................................... 7-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Naha...................................... 18-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Naha...................................... 28-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Naples.................................... 4-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Naples.................................... 12-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Naples.................................... 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Naples.................................... 25-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Naples.................................... 3-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Naples.................................... 16-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days
Naples.................................... 23-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days
Naples.................................... 29-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days
Nassau.................................... 9-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Nouakchott................................ 13-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
New Delhi................................. 4-Aug-03 29.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days
New Delhi................................. 11-Aug-03 28.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days
New Delhi................................. 18-Aug-03 22.00 Days 3.00 Days 10.00 Days
New Delhi................................. 25-Aug-03 17.00 Days 3.00 Days 10.00 Days
New Delhi................................. 2-Sep-03 15.00 Days 3.00 Days 7.00 Days
New Delhi................................. 10-Sep-03 10.00 Days 3.00 Days 10.00 Days
New Delhi................................. 24-Sep-03 .00 days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Oslo...................................... 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days
Oslo...................................... 13-Aug-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Oslo...................................... 19-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Oslo...................................... 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Oslo...................................... 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Oslo...................................... 15-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Oslo...................................... 22-Sep-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days
Ottawa.................................... 4-Aug-03 8.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Ottawa.................................... 11-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Ottawa.................................... 18-Aug-03 12.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Ottawa.................................... 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Ottawa.................................... 2-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Ottawa.................................... 8-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Ottawa.................................... 14-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Ottawa.................................... 22-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Phnom Penh................................ 7-Sep-03 38.00 Days 1.00 Days 38.00 Days
Phnom Penh................................ 29-Sep-03 30.00 Days 1.00 Days 30.00 Days
Panama City............................... 6-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Panama City............................... 11-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Panama City............................... 25-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Panama City............................... 11-Sep-03 21.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Panama City............................... 22-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Prague.................................... 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Prague.................................... 11-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Prague.................................... 18-Aug-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Prague.................................... 26-Aug-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Prague.................................... 5-Sep-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Prague.................................... 9-Sep-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 9.00 Days
Prague.................................... 15-Sep-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 9.00 Days
Prague.................................... 30-Sep-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 8.00 Days
Paris..................................... 11-Aug-03 23.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Paris..................................... 18-Aug-03 23.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Paris..................................... 21-Aug-03 26.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Paris..................................... 2-Sep-03 22.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Paris..................................... 10-Sep-03 21.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Paris..................................... 12-Sep-03 20.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Paris..................................... 15-Sep-03 17.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Paris..................................... 23-Sep-03 15.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Perth..................................... 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Perth..................................... 11-Aug-03 .00 days 2.00 Days .00 days
Perth..................................... 18-Aug-03 .00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Perth..................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Perth..................................... 3-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Perth..................................... 8-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Perth..................................... 22-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Perth..................................... 28-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days
Port Moresby.............................. 1-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Port Moresby.............................. 30-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Port Au Prince............................ 29-Aug-03 15.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Port Of Spain............................. 4-Aug-03 21.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days
Port Of Spain............................. 11-Aug-03 21.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days
Port Of Spain............................. 19-Aug-03 21.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days
Port Of Spain............................. 25-Aug-03 21.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days
Port Of Spain............................. 10-Sep-03 14.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Port Of Spain............................. 25-Sep-03 6.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Quebec.................................... 8-Sep-03 6.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Quito..................................... 4-Aug-03 17.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Quito..................................... 12-Aug-03 13.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Quito..................................... 18-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Quito..................................... 26-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Quito..................................... 8-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Quito..................................... 15-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Quito..................................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Quito..................................... 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Recife.................................... 3-Aug-03 27.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Recife.................................... 2-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Rio De Janeiro............................ 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 5.00 Days 2.00 Days
Rio De Janeiro............................ 27-Aug-03 5.00 Days 5.00 Days 5.00 Days
Rio De Janeiro............................ 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days 5.00 Days 7.00 Days
Riga...................................... 13-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
Riga...................................... 18-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
Riga...................................... 25-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Reykjavik................................. 10-Sep-03 .00 days 3.00 Days .00 days
Rome...................................... 4-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Rome...................................... 11-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Rome...................................... 20-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Rome...................................... 26-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Rome...................................... 2-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Rome...................................... 15-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Rome...................................... 23-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Rome...................................... 30-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Rangoon................................... 4-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Rangoon................................... 10-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days 20.00 Days
Rangoon................................... 18-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days 20.00 Days
Rangoon................................... 26-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days 25.00 Days
Rangoon................................... 2-Sep-03 30.00 Days .00 days 25.00 Days
Rangoon................................... 7-Sep-03 30.00 Days .00 days 25.00 Days
Rangoon................................... 14-Sep-03 30.00 Days .00 days 25.00 Days
Santo Domingo............................. 4-Aug-03 87.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Santo Domingo............................. 12-Aug-03 87.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Santo Domingo............................. 18-Aug-03 88.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Santo Domingo............................. 25-Aug-03 87.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Santo Domingo............................. 8-Sep-03 87.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Santo Domingo............................. 15-Sep-03 86.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Santo Domingo............................. 22-Sep-03 86.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Seoul..................................... 28-Aug-03 20.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Seoul..................................... 9-Sep-03 35.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Seoul..................................... 21-Sep-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Seoul..................................... 29-Sep-03 31.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Singapore................................. 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Singapore................................. 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Singapore................................. 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Singapore................................. 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Singapore................................. 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Singapore................................. 7-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Singapore................................. 15-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Singapore................................. 21-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Singapore................................. 30-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days
Shanghai.................................. 3-Aug-03 38.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Shanghai.................................. 3-Aug-03 38.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Shanghai.................................. 11-Aug-03 42.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Shanghai.................................. 17-Aug-03 18.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Shanghai.................................. 27-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Shanghai.................................. 9-Sep-03 35.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Shanghai.................................. 14-Sep-03 35.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Shanghai.................................. 22-Sep-03 43.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Skopje.................................... 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Skopje.................................... 18-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Skopje.................................... 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Skopje.................................... 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Skopje.................................... 9-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Skopje.................................... 15-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Skopje.................................... 22-Sep-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
Skopje.................................... 29-Sep-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days
San Jose.................................. 4-Aug-03 17.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
San Jose.................................. 11-Aug-03 19.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
San Jose.................................. 18-Aug-03 18.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
San Jose.................................. 25-Aug-03 20.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
San Jose.................................. 2-Sep-03 19.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
San Jose.................................. 8-Sep-03 19.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
San Jose.................................. 15-Sep-03 18.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
San Jose.................................. 22-Sep-03 17.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
San Jose.................................. 29-Sep-03 17.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
San Salvador.............................. 12-Aug-03 15.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
San Salvador.............................. 18-Aug-03 17.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
San Salvador.............................. 25-Aug-03 17.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
San Salvador.............................. 8-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
San Salvador.............................. 16-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
San Salvador.............................. 22-Sep-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
San Salvador.............................. 29-Sep-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Santiago.................................. 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Santiago.................................. 11-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Santiago.................................. 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Santiago.................................. 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Santiago.................................. 2-Sep-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 8.00 Days
Santiago.................................. 9-Sep-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Santiago.................................. 15-Sep-03 6.00 Days 1.00 Days 6.00 Days
Santiago.................................. 22-Sep-03 6.00 Days 1.00 Days 6.00 Days
Santiago.................................. 29-Sep-03 4.00 Days 1.00 Days 4.00 Days
Shenyang.................................. 11-Aug-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days
Shenyang.................................. 17-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Shenyang.................................. 2-Sep-03 12.00 Days .00 days 12.00 Days
Shenyang.................................. 7-Sep-03 28.00 Days .00 days 28.00 Days
Shenyang.................................. 15-Sep-03 30.00 Days .00 days 30.00 Days
Shenyang.................................. 29-Sep-03 32.00 Days .00 days 32.00 Days
Sofia..................................... 11-Aug-03 44.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
Sofia..................................... 8-Sep-03 36.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days
Sofia..................................... 29-Sep-03 25.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Sao Paulo................................. 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Sao Paulo................................. 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Sao Paulo................................. 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Sao Paulo................................. 11-Aug-03 4.00 Days 1.00 Days 4.00 Days
Sao Paulo................................. 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Sao Paulo................................. 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Sao Paulo................................. 2-Sep-03 4.00 Days 1.00 Days 4.00 Days
Sao Paulo................................. 8-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Sao Paulo................................. 15-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Sao Paulo................................. 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
Sao Paulo................................. 29-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days
St Petersburg............................. 25-Aug-03 18.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
St Petersburg............................. 15-Sep-03 15.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days
St Petersburg............................. 23-Sep-03 17.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days
St Petersburg............................. 30-Sep-03 15.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days
Surabaya.................................. 3-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Surabaya.................................. 10-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Surabaya.................................. 20-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Surabaya.................................. 24-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Surabaya.................................. 26-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Surabaya.................................. 2-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Surabaya.................................. 7-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Surabaya.................................. 14-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Surabaya.................................. 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Surabaya.................................. 28-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Stockholm................................. 4-Aug-03 28.00 Days 1.00 Days 25.00 Days
Stockholm................................. 29-Aug-03 21.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days
Stockholm................................. 11-Sep-03 21.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days
Stockholm................................. 16-Sep-03 21.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days
Suva...................................... 2-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Sydney.................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days 1.00 Days
Sydney.................................... 11-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Sydney.................................... 18-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Sydney.................................... 25-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Sydney.................................... 3-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Sydney.................................... 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Sydney.................................... 22-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days
Sydney.................................... 28-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Taipei.................................... 3-Aug-03 9.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days
Taipei.................................... 10-Aug-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Taipei.................................... 17-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Taipei.................................... 24-Aug-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days
Tallinn................................... 5-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Tallinn................................... 12-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Tallinn................................... 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Tbilisi................................... 15-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Tbilisi................................... 19-Aug-03 24.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Tbilisi................................... 22-Sep-03 21.00 Days .00 days .00 days
Tegucigalpa............................... 4-Aug-03 29.00 Days 5.00 Days 3.50 Days
Tegucigalpa............................... 11-Aug-03 24.00 Days 4.00 Days 3.50 Days
Tegucigalpa............................... 18-Aug-03 28.00 Days 5.00 Days 3.50 Days
Tegucigalpa............................... 25-Aug-03 25.00 Days 5.00 Days 3.50 Days
Tegucigalpa............................... 2-Sep-03 34.00 Days 5.00 Days 3.50 Days
Tegucigalpa............................... 8-Sep-03 20.00 Days 4.00 Days 2.00 Days
Tegucigalpa............................... 16-Sep-03 25.00 Days 4.00 Days 2.00 Days
Tegucigalpa............................... 23-Sep-03 22.00 Days 5.00 Days 2.00 Days
Tegucigalpa............................... 29-Sep-03 25.00 Days 5.00 Days 2.00 Days
Tijuana................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Tijuana................................... 4-Aug-03 15.00 Days 30.00 Days 15.00 Days
Tijuana................................... 11-Aug-03 16.00 Days 30.00 Days 16.00 Days
Tijuana................................... 2-Sep-03 6.00 Days 30.00 Days 6.00 Days
Tijuana................................... 8-Sep-03 5.00 Days 30.00 Days 5.00 Days
Tijuana................................... 29-Sep-03 2.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days
Tijuana Tpf............................... 5-Aug-03 21.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days
Tijuana Tpf............................... 19-Aug-03 15.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days
Tijuana Tpf............................... 22-Aug-03 15.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days
Tijuana Tpf............................... 3-Sep-03 12.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days
Tijuana Tpf............................... 8-Sep-03 14.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days
Tijuana Tpf............................... 22-Sep-03 8.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days
Tokyo..................................... 3-Aug-03 10.00 Days 14.00 Days 7.00 Days
Tokyo..................................... 5-Sep-03 7.00 Days 14.00 Days 7.00 Days
Tel Aviv.................................. 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days 2.00 Days 7.00 Days
Tel Aviv.................................. 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days 2.00 Days 7.00 Days
Tunis..................................... 18-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Tunis..................................... 28-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Tunis..................................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Tunis..................................... 8-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Ulaanbaatar............................... 4-Aug-03 43.00 Days 2.00 Days 30.00 Days
Ulaanbaatar............................... 27-Aug-03 46.00 Days 2.00 Days 30.00 Days
Ulaanbaatar............................... 8-Sep-03 46.00 Days 2.00 Days 21.00 Days
Vancouver................................. 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Vancouver................................. 29-Sep-03 15.00 Days .00 days 15.00 Days
Vilnius................................... 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Vilnius................................... 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Vilnius................................... 19-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days
Vilnius................................... 25-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days
Vilnius................................... 3-Sep-03 13.00 Days .00 days 13.00 Days
Vilnius................................... 8-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Vilnius................................... 15-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Vilnius................................... 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Vilnius................................... 29-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days
Valletta.................................. 1-Aug-03 .00 days 2.00 Days Unavailable
Valletta.................................. 4-Sep-03 .00 days 2.00 Days .00 days
Vienna.................................... 5-Aug-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days
Vienna.................................... 20-Aug-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days
Vienna.................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days
Warsaw.................................... 5-Aug-03 26.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Warsaw.................................... 11-Aug-03 20.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days
Warsaw.................................... 18-Aug-03 20.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Warsaw.................................... 25-Aug-03 17.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Warsaw.................................... 2-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Warsaw.................................... 8-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Warsaw.................................... 15-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Warsaw.................................... 22-Sep-03 6.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days
Yerevan................................... 4-Aug-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days
Yerevan................................... 11-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Yerevan................................... 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Yerevan................................... 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Yerevan................................... 2-Sep-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Yerevan................................... 8-Sep-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days
Yerevan................................... 15-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days
Yerevan................................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Yerevan................................... 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days
Zagreb.................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Zagreb.................................... 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Zagreb.................................... 18-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Zagreb.................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Zagreb.................................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Zagreb.................................... 8-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Zagreb.................................... 15-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
Zagreb.................................... 22-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note: Statistics designated as ``00 days'' reflect ``same day processing'')
FY 2003 Worldwide NIV Workload
(by Visa Category)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overcome/ Adj. Refusal
Category Issuances Refusals Waivers Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A........................................... 183,504 5,159 3,461 1.99%
B1.......................................... 61,195 19,628 8,437 15.46%
B1/B2....................................... 2,223,166 1,507,689 317,703 34.86%
B1/B2/BCC................................... 836,378 375,010 27,470 29.36%
B2.......................................... 271,990 156,007 34,710 30.84%
C........................................... 40,839 4,524 1,465 6.97%
C1/D........................................ 210,648 24,074 15,563 3.88%
D........................................... 16,120 1,976 1,314 3.94%
DCREW....................................... 4,631 1 0 0.02%
E........................................... 32,096 6,934 5,138 5.30%
F........................................... 235,579 129,269 51,149 24.90%
G........................................... 31,103 3,082 2,162 2.87%
H........................................... 286,930 66,924 41,919 8.02%
I........................................... 12,329 1,467 777 5.30%
J........................................... 283,660 55,170 32,170 7.50%
K........................................... 44,633 17,951 10,091 14.97%
L........................................... 110,816 19,454 15,207 3.69%
M........................................... 4,301 1,769 1,155 12.49%
N........................................... 18 0 0 0.00%
NAFTA....................................... 1,219 158 122 2.87%
NATO........................................ 5,702 100 70 0.52%
O........................................... 10,150 1,406 1,004 3.81%
P........................................... 34,358 6,894 3,106 9.93%
Q........................................... 1,970 417 194 10.17%
R........................................... 11,798 6,062 2,680 22.28%
T........................................... 58 15 9 9.38%
V........................................... 43,203 11,365 6,958 9.26%
================================================================================================================
Total..................................... 4,898,394 2,422,505 584,034 27.29%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. According to private-sector witnesses, the significant
costs for applicants' travel to visa interviews, particularly in large
countries like Brazil, is already having an adverse impact on U.S.
interests, including business, tourism, scientific, technological and
public diplomacy interests. Is the Department considering new programs
such as opening permanent or temporary visa-interview offices in more
locations to enable applicants to be interviewed closer to home?
Answer. The Department of State is not considering opening more
consular facilities at this time. Our priority is to focus first on
strengthening the skills of existing personnel through better training,
adding more consular officers to existing overseas posts, upgrading
existing overseas facilities, and meeting biometric requirements for
travel documents set forth by Congress. Once these challenges are met,
we will be in a position to evaluate further the possible need for
additional facilities.
Let me note that consular facilities are extremely costly given the
need to have permanent funding strategies to maintain security,
communications, personnel, and resources to support consular activities
and related internal controls. Such facilities cannot be adequately
maintained based on the MRV fee alone as a funding strategy. Decisions
as to whether to open additional offices overseas must also take into
account foreign policy issues.
Questions for the Record Submitted to DHS Assistant Secretary C.
Stewart Verdery, Jr. and Consular Affairs Deputy Assistant Secretary
Janice Jacobs by Senator John E. Sununu
Question. In its report of July 15 (GA)-03-1013T), the General
Accounting Office (GAO) found ``that the Departments of State, Homeland
Security and Justice could more effectively manage the visa process if
they had clear and comprehensive policies and procedures and increased
agency coordination and information sharing.''
GAO said that ``State and Justice disagreed on the evidence needed
to deny a visa on terrorism grounds.''
Further, the visa revocation process was not being used
aggressively to alert homeland security and law enforcement agencies
that individuals who are security risks might have entered the country
before their visas were revoked. ``The process broke down when
information on revocations was not being shared between State and
appropriate immigration and law enforcement officials.''
GAO concluded that these ``weaknesses diminish the effectiveness of
the visa process in keeping potential terrorists out of the United
States.''
What steps have the Department of State, Homeland Security, and
Justice taken to remedy these deficiencies?
Specifically, what is now the guidance to consular and DHS officers
on the evidence needed to deny a visa on terrorism grounds?
Response from Janice L. Jacobs (DOS)
Answer. The Patriot Act of October 26, 2001 made changes to the
language of Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, which describes the grounds of visa ineligibility for terrorism.
The Act had the effect of broadening and strengthening the provisions
of Section 212(a)(3)(B). The Department of State communicated the new
provisions to all consular officers shortly after enactment of the Act.
The Department has also established a special segment of the training
program that consular officers receive before they go abroad to help
them identify potential terrorists who may apply for visas. As a
procedural matter, all consular officers must consult the Visa Office
when they have reason to think that a case may involve terrorism. The
Visa Office provides guidance to the consular officer in each specific
case that reflects the consensus of appropriate agencies once such
agencies have reviewed the derogatory evidence that exists relevant to
that case. We have no outstanding cases for which there is a difference
of opinion with DHS concerning the relevance of case specific
information and the terrorism grounds of ineligibility of the INA. The
Department of State does not authorize the issuance of any visa over
the objections of either DHS or the FBI.
Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)
Answer. Prior to January 2003, legacy agencies and then DHS did
experience problems with receiving notice of visa revocations from the
Department of State (DOS), in part due to a miscommunication about
which codes should be accepted as revocation codes and to an incorrect
interface between IBIS and CLASS. These problems have been corrected
and since the June 2003 report, DOS has worked with Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) to put procedures into place that strengthen the visa revocation
process. Both CBP and DOS agree that the optimal solution for ensuring
revoked visa information is transmitted timely is the automated
interface that links the Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS)
with the Treasury Enforcement Communication System (TECS) and the
Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS). CBP and DOS have
established a single code for posting of visa revocations into TECS/
IBIS. In addition, ICE has requested and received immediate
notification from DOS of all visa revocations, including revocations
based on national security grounds.
Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
provides guidance, and some specific definitions, to consular and DHS
officers on the evidence needed to deny a visa on terrorism grounds and
specifically renders an alien ineligible to receive a visa when:
The alien has engaged in terrorist activity;
A consular or DHS officer knows, or has reasonable grounds to
believe, the alien is engaged in or is likely to engage after
entry in any terrorist activity as defined in part (iv) of that
section;
The alien has, under circumstances indicating an intention to
cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
The alien is a representative of a foreign terrorist
organization as designated by the Secretary of State, or of a
political, social or other similar group whose public
endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of
State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce
or eliminate terrorist activity;
The alien is a member of a foreign terrorist organization, as
designated by the Secretary of State or which the alien knows
or should have known is a terrorist organization (an alien who
is an officer, official, representative or spokesman of the
Palestine Liberation Organization is considered to be engaged
in terrorist activity);
The alien has used the alien's position of prominence within
any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to
persuade others to support terrorist activity, or to persuade
others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist
organization, in a way that the Secretary of State determines
United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist
activities; orThe alien is the spouse or child of an alien who
is inadmissible under this section, if the activity causing the
alien to be inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years
(exceptions to this clause are specified).
If a consular post believes that an individual may be ineligible
for a visa based on terrorism grounds outstanding instructions require
that the application be forwarded to DOS's bureau of consular affairs
for decision. The decision to deny a visa based on terrorism grounds
cannot be made by an individual officer at a consular post.
Question. What is the process the Department of State now uses to
notify Homeland Security and law enforcement agencies that a visa has
been revoked? Does the Department of Homeland Security then check entry
records to see if the individual is in the United States? What steps
are then taken to apprehend the individual?
Response from Janice L. Jacobs (DOS)
Answer. The Department of State notifies the Department of Homeland
Security of revoked visas in three ways. A copy of the signed
Certificate of Revocation is faxed to the Intelligence Division of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP is also a recipient of
outgoing cables sent by the Department to overseas Posts, which inform
Posts of revocations and instruct them to take appropriate action.
Third, the Department enters hits in its CLASS lookout system under the
code ``VRVK'' (Visa Revoked). These hits are shared electronically, on
a real-time basis, with the Interagency Border Inspection System
(IBIS), which is used by CBP inspectors at ports-of-entry and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in their capacity as the law
enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security.
The additional questions concerning internal procedures of DHS fall
within the competence of DHS to respond.
Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)
Answer. CBP and DOS have established a single code for posting of
visa revocations into TECS/IBIS. This code is used to flag cases in the
lookout databases, thereby notifying inspectors at the port-of-entry
that an alien seeking admission has had his or her visa revoked. The
revocation code and the current language on the visa revocation
certificate are adequate for the CBP to take action to prevent the
holder of a revoke visa from entering the United States.
ICE also now receives immediate notification from DOS of all visa
revocations, including revocations based on national security grounds.
As a result, ICE is kept up-to-date on all visa revocations on
terrorism grounds. When ICE is notified of a visa revocation the
Intelligence Unit conducts records checks, obtains all derogatory
information relating to the subject of the visa revocation, and
forwards it to the appropriate ICE Investigations Division for a full
field investigation. ICE, upon receipt of notification of a visa
revocation, always queries ICE databases to determine if any of the
individuals who have had their visas revoked have entered the U.S. and
still have not departed. Upon confirmation that individuals who have
had their visas revoked for national security grounds have entered the
U.S. and not departed, ICE Office of Investigations in coordination
with the FBI will make every attempt to locate the individual and
investigate all possible avenues to remove the individual from the U.S.
thereby minimizing the threat they may pose to the homeland. ICE also
investigates all immigration violations that would make the person
subject to removal proceedings (violations such as unauthorized
employment, failure to depart the United States as required, etc.). ICE
conducts a full field investigation of any foreign national that is
believed to be in the United States and whose visa was revoked on
national security grounds.
Question for the Record Submitted to DHS Assistant Secretary C. Stewart
Verdery, Jr. and Consular Affairs Deputy Assistant Secretary Janice
Jacobs by Senator Bill Nelson
Question. There doesn't seem to be anyway for a person applying
for a non-immigrant visa to know when she can expect to have her
application either approved or denied. In addition, there are reports
that some people are required to wait months for a decision on their
application. This uncertainty coupled with the sometimes unreasonably
lengthy wait times can create a great deal of hardship for travelers
trying to come to the US to the extent that many may choose not to come
at all.
How long does it currently take to process non-immigrant visa
applications at consulates or embassies? How long should the process
take? Do the wait times for processing applications vary significantly
from country to country? If so, what are the reasons for the
discrepancies? And when can we expect those discrepancies to be
eliminated? Are, and if so, how are applicants notified when their visa
applications require more thorough background checks? Will the
automation of biometric data significantly reduce the wait time for
applicants? If so, by how much? Does the State Department and
Department of Homeland Security have a timeframe under which they
intend to improve the process to address all these concerns?
Response from Janice L. Jacobs (DOS)
Answer. The overwhelming majority of all non-immigrant visa
applicants receive a definitive decision from the consular officer
regarding the merits of their case upon conclusion of the visa
interview. Only 2%-2.5% of all non-immigrant visa cases worldwide on
average are submitted by consular officers to Washington for
interagency screening.
Interagency screening currently takes less than 30 days to process
for most cases. Whenever the consular officer has reason to submit a
case to Washington for interagency screening, the consular officer
normally advises the visa applicant that additional administrative
processing is required.
In other instances, the complexity of a respective applicant's case
may require the applicant to return with additional supporting
evidence, or the consular officer may wish to take investigative
measures to determine the veracity of the applicant's statements. Such
issues generally add a few days to visa processing.
Wait time processing of applications does vary from country to
country based on availability of staffing and local political,
economic, or social conditions. For example, most student visa
applications are submitted during the summer due to the U.S. academic
calendar. Staffing gaps often occur to some degree during the summer
because most Foreign Service change of assignments occur during this
period. In only 15 U.S. posts overseas have appointment wait times in
excess of 30 days for NIV applicants as of November 12, 2003.
We do not expect that these discrepancies will be eliminated
altogether because variances that arise are post-specific. However, the
majority of US posts do currently have a wait time under 30 days.
The automation of biometric data is not expected to significantly
reduce the wait time for applicants. The use of biometric data will
help establish identity but consular officers will still need to
perform their adjudication responsibility, i.e. determine whether the
applicant intends to visit the US for legitimate purposes as specified
in immigration law.
In order to improve the visa issuance process and address all the
above concerns, the Department of State intends to create 80 additional
MRV-funded consular officer positions in FY 04 in order to assist with
the additional workload demand. These positions will be designated for
posts worldwide with significant workload increases in order to improve
the efficiency of the visa process while not compromising the need to
meet security requirements.
Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)
Answer. DHS' ultimate goal is to adopt visa policies and procedures
that will emphasize security as well as efficiency. DHS, working in
cooperation with DOS and other agencies, is exploring ways to improve
or modify the visa process in order to support this goal. While DHS has
not set a particular timeframe for action, the visa process and DHS's
new role in that process, is a priority for the Department. DHS is also
well aware of the significance of visa policy to other government
entities as well as the private sector and will keep their concerns in
mind when evaluating the visa process. Currently, DHS has a visa policy
working group that is developing short and long-term policy initiatives
related to DHS' responsibilities under the section 428 visa MOU. This
working group will make recommendations to Secretary Ridge on how DHS
should alter or improve visa policy to increase security as well as
efficiency in visa processing. We will gladly update the committee on
these initiatives as the Department moves forward on these issues.
In the meantime, DHS made a policy decision to suspend the NSEERS
30-day and annual interviews in December 2003 to better utilize
immigration enforcement resources. DHS has also decided that Border
Crossing Card holders will not be subject to US-VISIT, initially, to
prevent additional wait times at land ports of entry primary inspection
lanes while the US-VISIT office determines the best manner to implement
US-VISIT at the land borders. DHS, along with DOS and other relevant
agencies, is currently finalizing its plan to review the Visa Waiver
Program countries, which is required every two years under the Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. Also, DHS is currently
examining the Visa Condor and Mantis programs with the goal of
streamlining the visa process and reducing the application period.
Question for the Record Submitted to DHS Assistant Secretary C. Stewart
Verdery, Jr. and Consular Affairs Deputy Assistant Secretary Janice
Jacobs by Senator George Allen
Question. There are reports that some of our major international
gateway airports are facing substantial delays in processing in-bound
passengers. At Dulles, for example, wait times have increased for
arriving international passengers.
Recognizing that the government has legitimate security concerns in
processing passengers, I would like to know what can be done to speed
things up. Is it a question of manpower and other resources?
Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)
Answer. Arriving international passengers are not experiencing
substantial delays in CBP processing. Since developing a strategic plan
to monitor and measure average wait times at the top 20 airports (83%
of all arriving passengers), average wait times nationwide have
decreased from 59 minutes to 34 minutes. At Dulles, the average wait
time decreased from 70 minutes as of an August 2003 baseline to 45
minutes as measured in a recent 7-day period (12/28/03 through 1/3/04).
Since implementation of US-VISIT, average wait times nationwide and
at Dulles have remained relatively stable. Nationwide wait times
decreased slightly from 36 minutes to 34 minutes; at Dulles, the
average wait time is now 45 minutes, relatively unchanged from 43
minutes as measured in the last full week prior to US-VISIT.
CBP continues to monitor and measure airport primary wait times at
the top 20 airports on a daily basis. Field Offices with airport
location(s) exceeding the wait time threshold of 60 minutes are
required to provide an explanation and corrective action plan to
Headquarters.
Question. Recent changes in the transit-without-visa rules and the
international-to-international transfer rules are likely to compound
the problem for major gateway airports. As you can appreciate, these
programs will continue to have a significant adverse affect on
concessionaires and others connected with our international gateway
airports. What, if anything, is being done to address the potential
negative impact of these rules?
Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)
Answer. DHS and CBP have been working on revising a security-
enhanced transit program since August 7, 2003, when the Secretary of
Homeland Security and the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular
Affairs published regulations suspending the TWOV and ITI transit
programs based on credible intelligence concerning a specific threat of
exploitation of the TWOV program by terrorist organizations.
In August and September 2003, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)conducted field visits and held meetings with airline industry and
theDepartments of Homeland Security (DHS), State (DOS), and
Transportation(DOT) on the possible reinstatement (or revision) of a
security-enhanced transit program. On September 22, 2003, the public
comment period concerning the suspension of the TWOV and ITI programs
expired. CBP reviewed the 17 comments submitted by the air and sea
industry in response to the regulation published in the Federal
Register on August 7, 2003. These comments, along with concerns raised
during CBP field visits and meetings held with the industry,
contributed to the formulation of a proposed plan to reinstate a
transit without visa program. In mid-January 2004,special transit
procedures were initiated at Miami International Airport for certain
groups of international passengers, including passengers holding Visa
Waiver Program (VWP) country passports, passengers in possession of a
visa to enter the U.S., and Canadian citizens. Presently, special
transit procedures have taken place at several U.S. ports of entry
including Los Angeles, Orlando, and San Juan. Meetings with the DOS and
the Department of Commerce (DOC) concerning a revised transit plan were
held in January 2004.
Question for the Record Submitted to DHS Assistant Secretary C. Stewart
Verdery, Jr. and Consular Affairs Deputy Assistant Secretary Janice
Jacobs by Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. How realistic is the October 24 [sic], 2004 requirement
for biometric data to be encrypted in the passports of current Visa
Waiver Program Countries? Which countries have already requested
waivers for this provision, which have told us that they will be able
to meet this requirement? When will U.S. Passports have such biometric
features? What biometric feature(s) will be encrypted in our passports?
Response from Janice L. Jacobs (DOS)
Answer. Most countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program
(VWP) will be unable to comply with section 303(c) of the Enhanced
Border Security Act.
Of the 27 countries currently participating in the VWP program,
only five (Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand)
have indicated that they may be able to include biometrics per the ICAO
standard by the mandated deadline. Budgetary difficulties may delay
their plans.
Most governments cited as the main reason for being unable to
comply with the October 26, 2004 deadline the fact that the ICAO did
not establish a biometric standard (facial recognition technology)
until May 2003. Most governments say there is insufficient time before
October 26, 2004 to identify and contract for new technology that would
bring a new passport with biometrics into production. All have said
they will be able to comply with the ICAO standard at some point,
possibly in late 2005/early 2006, but not prior to the October 2004
deadline stipulated in US law.
No waiver of the biometric requirement stipulated in section 303(c)
concerning the passports of VWP countries exists in U.S. law.
The Department of State (DOS) plans to implement a new version of
the United States passport that will meet the ICAO standard for the use
of biometrics. The new U.S. passport will contain an embedded
Integrated Circuit (IC) contactless chip. The chip will be used to
store the information currently displayed on the passport (i.e. name,
date and place of birth, date of issuance, etc.) along with a full
digital image of the portrait of the passport bearer. The new
technology will enhance the security of the passport and will
facilitate the movement of travelers at ports of entry. The new
passport initially will be issued on a limited scale by October 2004.
All newly issued full-validity United States passports will have
embedded chips by the end of calendar 2005.
Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)
Answer. While most VWP program countries will be able to certify
that they have a program in place to issue biometric passports by the
October deadline, very few, if any, VWP countries will actually be able
to begin issuing biometric passports by that date. The result is that
millions of visitors from VWP countries who are issued non-ICAO
compliant passports after October 26, 2004, will be required to obtain
visas prior to traveling to the United States. The issue is not lack of
will or commitment to achieving the standard by these countries, but
rather challenging scientific and technical issues.
According to the Department of State, most of the Visa Waiver
Program governments have indicated that they will be able to comply
with the ICAO standard (facial recognition) in late 2005 to early 2006.
Secretaries Ridge and Powell have testified before the House Judiciary
Committee, requesting an extension of the deadline. In addition,
Senator Chambliss has introduced a bill to extend the deadline.
There are two congressionally mandated deadlines that affect
foreign travelers seeking admission under the Visa Waiver Program
(VWP):
October 1, 2003--machine readable passport (MRP) deadline
required by section 417 of the USA Patriot Act
October 26, 2004--biometric deadline required by section 303
of the Border Security Act.
Section 417 of the USA Patriot Act requires any alien seeking
admission to the United States under the VWP, on or after October 1,
2003, to possess a machine-readable passport unless the Secretary of
State waives the requirement. The October 1, 2003, MRP deadline is
distinct from the October 26, 2004, deadline for biometrics in MRPs.
Under section 303 of the Border Security Act, by October 26, 2004, VWP
countries are required to certify that they have a program to issue
passports that contain biometrics as a condition of continued
participation in the VWP. Also, on or after October 26, 2004, any alien
seeking admission under the VWP must present an MRP that contains ICAO
compliant biometrics, unless the passport was issued prior to that
date.
Unlike the October 1, 2003 MRP, the October 26, 2004 biometrics
deadline does not have a waiver provision.
On the October 1, 2003, MRP deadline, DOS, in consultation with
DHS, agreed to permit individual VWP countries to apply for a one-time
waiver of the October 1, 2003 MRP deadline. Exercising his
legislatively-authorized prerogative, the Secretary of State granted a
waiver until October 26, 2004 to 21 countries currently participating
in the VWP based on their having met certain requirements. Those
countries are: Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
and the United Kingdom. Each country granted a waiver was required to
make a formal request, via diplomatic note, acknowledging that the
waiver would be a one-time opportunity and only valid until October 26,
2004, the date by which nationals of VWP countries must present a
machine-readable passport. Countries also had to certify that they were
making progress towards ensuring that machine-readable passports are
available to their nationals and that they are taking appropriate steps
to protect against the misuse of their non-machine readable passports.
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has already issued
field guidance for inspectors at the ports of entry for handling
foreign nationals who are affected by the waiver. CBP procedures
require inspectors to notify travelers from VWP countries of this new
requirement with handout material indicating that the non-MRP will no
longer be accepted for travel to the United States after October 26,
2004. In addition, CBP inspectors are instructed to handwrite "MRP
notified" adjacent to the admission stamp in non-machine readable
passports.
Regarding the October 26, 2004 MRP biometric deadline, most VWP
program countries will be able to certify that they have a program in
place to issue biometric passports by the October deadline, but very
few, if any, VWP countries will actually be able to begin issuing
biometric passports by that date. The result is that millions of
visitors from VWP countries who are issued non-ICAO compliant passports
after October 26, 2004, will be required to obtain visas prior to
traveling to the United States. The issue is not lack of will or
commitment to achieving the standard by these countries, but rather
challenging scientific and technical issues. According to the
Department of State, most of the Visa Waiver Program governments have
indicated that they will be able to comply with the ICAO standard
(facial recognition) in late 2005 to early 2006. Secretaries Ridge and
Powell have testified before the House Judiciary Committee, requesting
an extension of the deadline. In addition, Senator Chambliss has
introduced a bill to extend the deadline.
Question. Given the testimony of the second panel at today's
Hearing regarding the situation confronting foreign students, and the
remarks by the first panel on the need to collect SEVIS, what are the
current plans to collect the $100 SEVIS processing fee?
Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)
Answer. On October 27, 2003, DHS published a regulation in the
Federal Register that will require every foreign student who registers
in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) to pay a
one-time fee of $100. The SEVIS fee is mandated by Section 641 of P.L.
104-208 IIRIRA, published 30 September 1996. To date, the SEVIS program
has been unfunded. In the FY 2002 supplemental (P.L. 107-206 2002
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response
To Terrorist Attacks on the United States), legacy INS received $36.8
million in appropriated counter-terrorism funds to expedite the
development of SEVIS However, while the funding covered the program
development, it did not include funds for enforcement or maintenance of
the program. The $100 fee is estimated to generate over forty million
dollars that will be used for program operations, system maintenance,
personnel to work with the schools, and for compliance efforts. This
fee also will allow DHS to continue to closely monitor students coming
into the United States while ensuring that this close scrutiny is not
burdensome on the students or the educational communities that they
seek to join.
The proposed rule, currently in its comment period, states that the
$100 SEVIS student fee will be collected in two ways:
1. The student or exchange visitor (hereafter, student), or a
family member or other third party including schools or
exchange visitor programs if they so desire, may complete the
Form I-901 online and submit the $100 in an online credit card
transaction. Once the transaction processes (usually less than
one minute), the payor will be able to print out a receipt. A
receipt will be mailed, or sent via courier for an additional
cost, to the student within three days of the fee payment being
processed; or
2. The student may obtain a hardcopy I-901 form or complete
the internet I-901 form and send it in with a check, money
order, or foreign draft drawn on a U.S. bank, in U.S. dollars.
The fee receipt will be printed and mailed, or sent via courier
for an additional cost, to the student within three days of the
fee payment being processed.
In either case, the Department of State consular officers will be
able to check electronically to confirm that the fee was paid in cases
where the receipt does not arrive or subsequently is lost.
Questions for the Record Submitted to DHS Assistant Secretary C.
Stewart Verdery, Jr. by Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. What is the level of DHS funding for equipment needed to
handle the information now being sent over by the State Department?
What are the levels budgeted for FY 2004? Please provide the committee
with an example of the age and types of computers and bandwidth that
you are using at border points of entry and describe your replacement/
upgrade cycle.
Answer. The costs to establish and maintain section 428
responsibilities are being funded by the components within the
Directorate of Border and Transportation Security.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has a variety of computers at
the ports of entry that are primarily Dell Pentium 3 or Pentium 4
workstations. Typically, workstations are replaced every three to four
years, contingent upon the availability of funding. The land border
primary workstation is a ruggedized laptop PC with a special keyboard
layout and glare resistant screen that is four years old and will be
replaced when the US-VISIT Project incorporates new functionality into
the vehicle primary booths. The CBP network uses frame relay protocol
with T1 circuits to each Port of Entry.
Question. As the committee currently understands the situation,
visa application information, including the applicant's photo, captured
by the Department of State is available to DHS officials at ports of
entry, but that DHS is only able to access the data in ``secondary,''
that is, not during the initial interview. The committee understands
that DHS is in the process of upgrading its systems to remedy this.
Is the above scenario correct? If so, what upgrade mechanisms are
required--new software and/or hardware? Please provide the per-unit
cost of the upgrade and the total cost. Has this cost been requested in
the FY 2004 appropriations, if not will it be funded from within
existing DHS resources or will this have to wait until FY 2005?
Answer. Visa information is already available at primary (initial
interview) locations. As part of the US-VISIT Increment 1
implementation at 115 airports and 14 seaports on January 5, 2004,
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented the display of non-
immigrant visa (NIV) data at all primary inspection locations in these
ports. In response to the CBP Officer ``swiping'' a visa through the
integrated document reader at primary, a query is made against the
central IBIS (Interagency Border Inspection System) database, which
includes NIV data supplied by the State Department. Available NIV data
matching the query is displayed to the CBP Officer, including the
digital visa photo. This allows the CBP Officer to perform an immediate
match between the traveler, the traveler's document, and the data/photo
supplied by the State Department. This match supplements the
fingerprint matching process also implemented as part of US-VISIT. CBP
currently has NIV data dating back to July 2001. The State Department
has provided additional NIV data going back to the beginning of 2000
and this data is currently being loaded for access by the CBP Officers
at primary. Plans for implementing the US-VISIT capability, including
NIV data, at land-border ports is still under discussion at the US-
VISIT Program Management Office.
The NIV data and process for continuous updates were already
available in IBIS prior to the US-VISIT implementation. Integration of
this data into the US-VISIT process at primary was funded as part of
the US-VISIT FY03 funding. No additional funding is required to
complete the loading of the older NIV data.
Question. In order to have a better understanding of the workload
at our borders, please provide for the committee a staffing pattern of
Custom and Border Protection Officers/INS Legacy Officers, by fiscal
year from FY 1999 to FY 2003, by port of entry. Please indentify any
officers that are contractors. For each post, for each year, please
provide the number of visitors processed.
Answer. Please find attached on-board staffing data, which we are
able to provide as a total for the Legacy United States Customs Service
(USCS) and the Legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for
FY 1999 and for Legacy USCS, Legacy INS, and the Legacy Agricultural
Quarantine Inspectional Service for FY 2000 (attachment 1). We are also
able to provide Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on-board staffing
data by port of entry for FY 2003 (Attachment 2). Also, please find
attached the workload figures at ports of entry for FY 1999-FY 2003
(Attachment 3).
Attachment #1.--Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations (as of the end of FY 2003)
Inspectional Staff for All Locations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 (9/22/ FY 2002 (9/21/ FY 2003 (10/
01) 02) 04/03)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legacy Customs.................................................. 8,184 9,008 10,538
Legacy Immigration.............................................. 4,717 5,422 6,741
Legacy Agriculture.............................................. \1\0 \1\0 1,485
Totals........................................................ 12,901 14,430 18,764
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Historical totals are unavailable.
Attachment #2.--FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of
Entry, and Legacy Agency
[As of End of FY 2003]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field Legacy
Field Office & Port of State Office Legacy INS Customs On Legacy AGI Total On Total
Entry Authorized On Board Board On Board Board Vacancies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta (1317)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta GA -- 98 99 38 235 --
Brunswick GA -- -- 2 1 3 --
Savannah GA -- 4 41 8 53 --
Bullock NC -- 1 -- 1 -- --
Charlotte NC -- 11 16 4 31 --
Fayetteville NC -- -- 1 1 -- --
Greensboro NC -- 2 -- 2 -- --
Morehead City NC -- 2 1 3 -- --
Raleigh-Durham NC -- 3 8 4 15 --
Wilmington NC -- 2 10 3 15 --
Winston Salem NC -- 1 -- 1 -- --
Bethune SC -- 1 -- 1 -- --
Charleston SC -- 6 70 9 85 --
Columbia SC -- 1 -- 1 -- --
Greenleyville SC -- 1 -- 1 -- --
Greenville SC -- 4 1 5 -- --
Myrtle Beach SC -- 1 -- 1 -- --
Dublin VA -- 1 -- 1 -- --
Newport News VA -- 3 -- 3 -- --
Norfolk VA -- 47 6 53 -- --
Richmond VA -- 5 -- 5 -- --
Charleston WV -- 1 -- 1 -- --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: -- 495 124 317 76 517 -22
Atlanta
================================================================================================================
Baltimore (1313)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dover AFB DE -- 3 3 2 8 --
New Castle DE -- -- 3 -- 3 --
Wilmington DE -- -- 5 1 6 --
Baltimore MD -- 21 75 10 106 --
Atlantic City NJ -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Trenton NJ -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Avoca PA -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Erie PA -- 1 -- -- 1 --
Harrisburg PA -- -- 3 -- 3 --
Philadelphia PA -- 62 109 17 188 --
Pittsburgh PA -- 11 12 2 25 --
Alexandria VA -- -- 2 -- 2 --
District Office: VA -- 1 -- -- 1 --
Wash., DC
Dulles VA -- 96 86 18 200 --
Norfolk VA -- 6 -- -- 6 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 541 201 301 50 552 -11
Baltimore
================================================================================================================
Boston (1304)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgeport CT -- -- 3 -- 3 --
Hartford CT -- 5 7 -- 12 --
New Haven CT -- -- 3 -- 3 --
Wallingford CT -- -- -- 1 1 --
Windsor Locks CT -- -- -- 1 1 --
Boston MA -- 65 118 20 203 --
Gloucester MA -- -- 1 -- 1 --
New Bedford MA -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Springfield MA -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Worcester MA -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Bangor ME -- 4 6 -- 10 --
Belfast ME -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Bridgewater ME -- 6 3 -- 9 --
Calais ME -- 25 41 -- 66 --
Coburn Gore ME -- 4 3 -- 7 --
Eastport ME -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Forest City ME -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Fort Fairfield ME -- 8 8 -- 16 --
Fort Kent ME -- 8 10 -- 18 --
Houlton ME -- 16 45 4 65 --
Jackman ME -- 10 22 -- 32 --
Limestone ME -- 7 -- -- 7 --
Lubec ME -- 5 4 -- 9 --
Madawaska ME -- 13 8 -- 21 --
Orient ME -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Van Buren ME -- 11 9 -- 20 --
Vanceboro ME -- 6 5 -- 11 --
Portland ME -- 4 4 1 9 --
Manchester NH -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Pittsburg NH -- 4 -- -- 4 --
Portsmouth NH -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Providence RI -- 4 5 -- 9 --
Warwick RI -- -- -- 1 1 --
Alburg VT -- 5 -- -- 5 --
Beebe Plains VT -- 4 -- -- 4 --
Beecher Falls VT -- 7 10 -- 17 --
Burlington VT -- -- 4 -- 4 --
Derby Line VT -- 25 48 1 74 --
Highgate VT -- 22 53 3 78 --
Springs
North Troy VT -- 6 1 -- 7 --
Norton VT -- 11 16 -- 27 --
Richford VT -- 19 21 -- 40 --
St Albans VT -- 1 2 -- 3 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: Boston 814 305 474 32 811 3 --
================================================================================================================
Buffalo (1309)
================================================================================================================
Albany NY -- 1 6 1 8 --
Alexandria Bay NY -- -- 51 1 52 --
Champlain NY -- 57 130 -- 187 --
District Office: NY -- 2 285 8 295 --
Buffalo
Johnson City NY -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Massena NY -- 19 30 -- 49 --
New York NY -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Niagara Falls NY -- 93 -- -- 93 --
Ogdensburg NY -- 13 23 -- 36 --
Peace Bridge NY -- 56 -- -- 56 --
Rochester NY -- -- 6 -- 6 --
Rouses Point NY -- -- -- 1 1 --
Syracuse NY -- -- 3 -- 3 --
Thousand NY -- 28 -- -- 28 --
Islands
Trout River NY -- 14 34 -- 48 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 808 283 570 11 864 -56
Buffalo
================================================================================================================
Chicago (1339)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Des Moines IA -- 1 1 -- 2 --
Chicago IL -- 162 185 51 398 --
Decatur IL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Des Plains IL -- -- -- 1 1 --
Milan IL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Peoria IL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Rockford IL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Rosemont IL -- -- -- 4 4 --
Waukegan IL -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Wheeling IL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Evansville IN -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Fort Wayne IN -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Indianapolis IN -- 2 14 2 18 --
Wichita KS -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Erlanger KY -- -- -- 6 6 --
Hebron KY -- -- 32 -- 32 --
Lexington KY -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Louisville KY -- -- 19 -- 19 --
Lowmansville KY -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Duluth MN -- 2 -- 1 3 --
Minneapolis/ MN -- 37 29 7 73 --
St. Paul
Rochester MN -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Chesterfield MO -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Gladstone MO -- -- -- 1 1 --
Kansas City MO -- -- 5 -- 5 --
North Kansas MO -- -- 1 -- 1 --
City
Springfield MO -- -- 1 -- 1 --
St. Ann MO -- -- -- 4 4 --
St. Louis MO -- 12 -- -- 12 --
Woodson Terr. MO -- -- 11 -- 11 --
Akron OH -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Ashtabula OH -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Cincinnati OH -- 13 -- -- 13 --
Cleveland OH -- 8 1 -- 9 --
Columbus OH -- 1 5 -- 6 --
Dayton OH -- -- 9 -- 9 --
Hebron OH -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Middleburg OH -- -- 15 1 16 --
Heights
OIC/Cincinnati OH -- 2 -- -- 2 --
Sandusky OH -- 2 2 -- 4 --
Swanton OH -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Toledo OH -- 2 2 -- 4 --
Vandalia OH -- -- 1 -- 1 --
West Chester OH -- -- -- 1 1 --
Wilmington OH -- -- 4 -- 4 --
Erie PA -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Sioux Falls SD -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Milwaukee WI -- 2 9 -- 11 --
Racine WI -- -- 1 -- 1 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 709 246 372 79 697 12
Chicago
================================================================================================================
Detroit (1338)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Office: MI -- 2 -- -- 2 --
Detroit
Algonac Ferry MI -- 3 -- -- 3 --
Battle Creek MI -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Bay City MI -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Cascade MI -- -- 3 -- 3 --
Detroit MI -- -- -- 5 5 --
Detroit Int'l MI -- 58 -- -- 58 --
Bridge
Detroit Tunnel MI -- 48 -- -- 48 --
Detroit, Metro MI -- 91 287 -- 378 --
Airport
Marine City MI -- 2 -- -- 2 --
Ferry
Marine Unit MI -- 8 -- -- 8 --
Pontiac MI -- -- 3 -- 3 --
Port Huron MI -- 52 107 5 164 --
Romulus MI -- -- 69 13 82 --
Saginaw MI -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Sault Ste. MI -- 27 35 1 63 --
Marie
Ypsilanti MI -- -- 1 -- 1 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 816 291 509 24 824 -8
Detroit
================================================================================================================
El Paso (1324)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus NM -- 15 35 1 51 --
Santa Teresa NM -- 8 40 -- 48 --
Albuquerque NM -- -- 4 -- 4 --
Antelope Wells NM -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Conchiti NM -- -- 1 -- 1 --
District Office: TX -- 2 -- -- 2 --
El Paso
El Paso TX -- 271 457 26 754 --
Fabens TX -- 22 35 1 58 --
Fort Hancock TX -- 6 3 -- 9 --
Harlingen TX 1 -- -- 1 --
Presidio TX -- 12 34 1 47 --
Progresso TX -- -- 1 -- 1 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: El Paso 957 337 612 29 978 -21
================================================================================================================
Houston (1353)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma City OK -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Tulsa OK -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Corpus Christi TX -- 4 5 2 11 --
Dallas TX -- 86 106 35 227 --
Galveston TX -- 5 -- 2 7 --
Houston TX -- 83 226 52 361 --
Houston Seaport TX -- 10 -- -- 10 --
Port Arthur TX -- 1 3 2 6 --
Amarillo TX -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Freeport TX -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Lubbock TX -- -- 1 -- 1 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 617 189 347 93 629 -12
Houston
================================================================================================================
Laredo (1323)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Austin TX -- 1 5 2 8 --
Brownsville TX -- 122 227 29 378 --
Del Rio TX -- 43 61 2 106 --
District Office: TX -- 1 -- -- 1 --
San Antonio
Eagle Pass TX -- 81 105 11 197 --
Hidalgo TX -- 97 138 -- 235 --
Laredo TX -- 153 381 25 559 --
Pantex TX -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Pharr TX -- -- 64 22 86 --
Progresso TX -- 39 36 1 76 --
Rio Grande City TX -- -- 25 -- 25 --
Roma TX -- 44 54 4 102 --
San Antonio TX -- 15 15 4 34 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 1824 596 1112 100 1808 16
Laredo
================================================================================================================
Long Beach (1327)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawthorne CA -- -- -- 94 94 --
LA Deferred CA -- 3 -- -- 3 --
Inspection
Ontario CA -- -- -- 2 2 --
Palm Springs CA -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Port Hueneme CA -- -- 1 2 3 --
Terminal Island CA -- -- 76 -- 76 --
Ventura County CA -- 1 -- -- 1 --
Suboffice
Victorville CA -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Long Beach CA -- 15 205 34 254 --
Marine
Los Angeles CA -- 361 349 6 716 --
Airport
Las Vegas NV -- 15 7 2 24 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: Long Beach 1199 395 640 140 1175 24
================================================================================================================
Miami (1352)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Office: FL -- 2 719 196 917 --
Miami
Ft Ldl/Prt FL -- 40 127 18 185 --
Evrglds
Key West FL -- 6 6 1 13 --
Miami Airport FL -- 332 -- -- 332 --
Miami Marine FL -- 59 -- -- 59 --
Unit
West Palm FL -- 7 27 4 38 --
Beach
Ft. Pierce FL -- -- 3 1 4 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: Miami 1527 446 882 220 1548 -21
================================================================================================================
New Orleans (1320)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Little Rock AK -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Mobile AL -- 2 14 5 21 --
Alabaster AL -- -- -- 1 1 --
Birmingham AL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Huntsville AL -- -- 4 3 7 --
Baton Rouge LA -- 3 2 -- 5 --
Lake Charles LA -- 3 3 -- 6 --
New Orleans LA -- 28 55 20 103 --
Gramercy LA -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Morgan City LA -- -- 5 -- 5 --
Shreveport LA -- -- 3 -- 3 --
Gulfport MS -- 3 19 4 26 --
Pascagoula MS -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Vicksburg MS -- -- 3 -- 3 --
Memphis TN -- 5 42 7 54 --
Nashville TN -- 2 4 -- 6 --
Blountville TN -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Chattanooga TN -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Knoxville TN -- -- 3 -- 3 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: New Orleans 260 46 167 40 253 7
================================================================================================================
New York (1310)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cherry Hill NJ -- 4 -- -- 4 --
Newark NJ -- 186 164 27 377 --
Elizabeth NJ -- 278 37 315 -- --
Secaucus NJ -- -- 1 1 2 --
New York NY -- 488 10 121 619 --
Newburgh NY -- -- -- 2 2 --
Queens NY -- -- 620 -- 620 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 1932 678 1073 188 1939 -7
New York
================================================================================================================
Portland (1329)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcan AK -- 7 -- -- 7 --
Anchorage AK -- 16 38 7 61 --
Border AK -- -- 3 -- 3 --
Dalton's Cache AK -- 4 -- -- 4 --
Dutch Harbor AK -- 1 -- -- 1 --
Eagle AK -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Fairbanks AK -- 1 1 -- 2 --
Haines AK -- -- 7 -- 7 --
Juneau AK -- 1 1 -- 2 --
Ketchikan AK -- 6 3 -- 9 --
Nome AK -- 0 -- -- 0 --
Sitka AK -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Skagway AK -- 6 7 -- 13 --
Wrangell AK -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Aurora CO -- -- -- 2 2 --
Broomfield CO -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Colorado Springs CO -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Denver CO -- 16 20 -- 36 --
Englewood CO -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Fort Collins CO -- -- -- 2 2 --
Boise ID -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Astoria OR -- 2 1 -- 3 --
Coos Bay OR -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Portland OR -- 17 24 6 47 --
Longview WA -- 1 1 -- 2 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 223 78 114 17 209 14
Portland
================================================================================================================
Preclearance (1354)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport BAH -- 7 10 -- 17 --
Nassau BAH -- 19 17 -- 36 --
Hamilton BER -- 10 8 -- 18 --
Calgary CAN -- 25 11 -- 36 --
Edmonton CAN -- 9 7 -- 16 --
Montreal CAN -- 40 19 1 60 --
Ottawa CAN -- 13 7 -- 20 --
Toronto CAN -- 119 49 1 169 --
Vancouver CAN -- 59 21 1 81 --
Victoria CAN -- 8 -- 0 8 --
Winnipeg CAN -- 6 7 -- 13 --
Dublin IRE -- 2 -- -- 2 --
Shannon IRE -- 4 -- -- 4 --
Aruba NA -- 3 11 1 15 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 628 324 167 4 495 133
Preclearance
================================================================================================================
San Diego (1325)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrade CA -- 12 22 -- 34 --
Calexico CA -- 166 204 16 386 --
Calexico East CA -- 1 -- -- 1 --
Otay Mesa CA -- 29 94 -- 123 --
San Ysidro/San CA -- 406 365 39 810 --
Diego
Tecate CA -- -- 39 -- 39 --
Bonnyville CA -- -- 1 -- 1 --
San Jose CA -- -- 1 -- 1 --
District Office: CA -- 2 -- -- 2 --
San Diego
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: San 1528 616 726 55 1397 131
Diego
================================================================================================================
San Francisco (1328)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento CA -- 2 5 1 8 --
Suboffice
San Francisco CA -- 222 241 50 513 --
San Jose CA -- -- 4 4 8 --
Suboffice
Fresno CA -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Oakland CA -- -- 5 11 16 --
Agana GUA -- 66 -- -- 66 --
Honolulu HI -- 164 109 53 326 --
Hilo HI -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Kahului HI -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Kailua Kona HI -- 5 4 2 11 --
Reno NV -- 1 2 -- 3 --
Salt Lake City UT -- 2 3 -- 5 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 1013 462 376 121 959 54
San Francisco
================================================================================================================
San Juan (1349)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayaguez PR -- 8 12 3 23 --
Ponce PR -- 3 7 4 14 --
Roosevelt Roads PR -- 2 -- -- 2 --
San Juan PR -- 115 155 57 327 --
Arecibo PR -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Coloso PR -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Culebra PR -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Fajardo PR -- -- 5 -- 5 --
Penuelas PR -- -- -- 1 1 --
Rio Piedras PR -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Salinas PR -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Vieques PR -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Charlotte Amalie VI -- 36 9 -- 45 --
Christiansted VI -- 12 6 -- 18 --
Cruz Bay VI -- 3 2 -- 5 --
St. John Is VI -- -- 2 -- 2 --
St. Croix VI -- -- 10 5 15 --
St. Thomas VI -- -- 18 7 25 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 492 179 233 77 489 3
San Juan
================================================================================================================
Seattle (1330)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastport ID -- 11 20 -- 31 --
Porthill ID -- 10 7 -- 17 --
Baudette MN -- 6 11 -- 17 --
Crane Lake MN -- -- 1 -- 1 --
District Office: MN -- 3 -- -- 3 --
St. Paul
Duluth MN -- -- 3 1 4 --
Grand Portage MN -- 7 18 -- 25 --
Intl. Falls MN -- 22 43 1 66 --
Lancaster MN -- 4 4 -- 8 --
Noyes MN -- 2 -- -- 2 --
OIC-Suboffice MN -- 1 -- -- 1 --
SPO
Pinecreek MN -- 4 -- -- 4 --
Roseau MN -- 3 11 -- 14 --
Warroad MN -- 7 14 -- 21 --
Babb MT -- -- 9 -- 9 --
Butte MT -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Cut Bank MT -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Del Bonita MT -- 4 -- -- 4 --
District Office: MT -- 4 -- -- 4 --
Helena
Eureka MT -- -- 12 -- 12 --
Great Falls MT -- -- 3 -- 3 --
Havre MT -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Kalispell MT -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Morgan MT -- 5 -- -- 5 --
Opheim MT -- 5 -- -- 5 --
Piegan MT -- 8 -- -- 8 --
Raymond MT -- 12 17 -- 29 --
Roosville MT -- 10 -- -- 10 --
Scobey MT -- 4 1 -- 5 --
Sweetgrass MT -- 17 46 3 66 --
Turner MT -- 4 1 -- 5 --
Whitetail MT -- 1 1 -- 2 --
Whitlash MT -- 0 -- -- 0 --
Wild Horse MT -- 5 -- -- 5 --
Willow Creek MT -- 4 -- -- 4 --
Ambrose ND -- 2 -- -- 2 --
Antler ND -- 3 1 -- 4 --
Carbury ND -- 5 1 -- 6 --
Dunseith ND -- 6 20 -- 26 --
Fargo ND -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Fortuna ND -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Hannah ND -- 4 1 -- 5 --
Hansboro ND -- 5 1 -- 6 --
Maida ND -- 4 1 -- 5 --
Neche ND -- 5 5 -- 10 --
Noonan ND -- 5 1 -- 6 --
Northgate ND -- 4 1 -- 5 --
Pembina ND -- 23 71 1 95 --
Portal ND -- 10 39 -- 49 --
Sarles ND -- 1 1 -- 2 --
Sherwood ND -- 3 1 -- 4 --
St. John ND -- 4 1 -- 5 --
Walhalla ND -- 5 1 -- 6 --
Westhope ND -- 3 1 -- 4 --
Anacortes WA -- -- 5 -- 5 --
Bellingham WA -- 3 5 -- 8 --
Blaine WA -- -- 149 22 171 --
Boundary WA -- 4 -- -- 4 --
Danville WA -- 4 4 -- 8 --
District Office: WA 2 -- -- 2 --
Seattle
Ferry WA -- 1 -- 2 3 --
Friday Harbor WA -- 1 3 -- 4 --
Frontier WA -- 11 -- -- 11 --
Laurier WA -- 5 3 -- 8 --
Lynden WA -- 15 19 -- 34 --
Metaline Falls WA -- 3 4 -- 7 --
Moses Lake WA -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Northport WA -- -- 6 -- 6 --
Oroville WA -- 19 22 1 42 --
Pacific Highway WA -- 36 -- -- 36 --
Peace Arch WA -- 44 -- -- 44 --
Point Roberts WA -- 12 2 -- 14 --
Port Angeles WA -- 1 4 -- 5 --
Port Townsend WA -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Seattle/Seaport WA -- 7 -- 24 31 --
Seattle/Tacoma WA -- 37 122 -- 159 --
Airport
Spokane WA -- 0 3 -- 3 --
Sumas WA -- 20 50 -- 70 --
Tacoma WA -- 4 24 -- 28 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: Seattle 1402 484 802 55 1341 61
================================================================================================================
Tampa (1318)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Canaveral FL -- 16 15 3 34 --
Daytona Beach FL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Fernandina FL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Beach
Fort Myers FL -- 4 4 1 9 --
Jacksonville FL -- 4 41 2 47 --
Melbourne FL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Ocala FL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Orlando FL -- 60 42 20 122 --
Panama City FL -- 0 1 1 2 --
Pensacola FL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
Sanford FL -- 21 7 2 30 --
Sarasota FL -- -- 1 -- 1 --
St. Petersburg FL -- -- 2 -- 2 --
Tampa FL -- 29 36 4 69 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: Tampa 321 134 154 33 321 0
================================================================================================================
Tucson (1326)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas AZ -- 42 72 2 116 --
Lukeville AZ -- 15 14 -- 29 --
Naco AZ -- 16 20 -- 36 --
Nogales AZ -- 107 214 25 346 --
Phoenix AZ -- 22 18 7 47 --
San Luis AZ -- 63 91 5 159 --
Sasabe AZ -- 4 11 -- 15 --
Tucson AZ -- 4 9 2 15 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal: 790 273 449 41 763 27
Tucson
================================================================================================================
Regional Offices 42 14 -- -- 14 28
================================================================================================================
Training -- 0 -- -- 0 0
Academy
================================================================================================================
Headquarters 224 40 141 -- 181 43
================================================================================================================
Grand Total 19,162 6,741 10,538 1,485 18,764 398
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #3.--Workload Figures at Ports of Entry for FY 1999 to FY 2003
Total Passengers and Pedestrians
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Totals.......................................... 479,904,115 493,251,056 471,666,097 415,193,122 412,948,956
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic CMC--Boston............................... 15,271,379 15,270,045 14,465,950 12,401,346 12,516,430
Port of Portland, ME..................................... 97,218 139,873 132,078 161,212 134,104
Port of Jackman, ME...................................... 586,910 678,539 747,119 560,263 493,264
Port of Bangor, ME....................................... 31,973 31,853 25,597 37,448 41,595
Port of Bath, ME.........................................
Port of Bar Harbor, ME................................... 55,582 119,738
Port of Rockland, ME.....................................
Port of Portsmouth, NH................................... 5,196 7,891 6,918 5,949 7,439
Port of Belfast, ME...................................... 127,940 115,050 125,524 43,021 2,559
Manchester User Fee Airport, NH.......................... 248 730 1,018 730 932
Port of Houlton, ME...................................... 1,092,072 1,023,928 888,357 941,339 832,134
Port of Van Buren, ME.................................... 617,359 571,418 572,290 528,447 533,809
Port of Madawaska, ME.................................... 1,529,163 1,502,028 1,298,667 1,188,158 1,228,153
Port of Fort Kent, ME.................................... 699,485 678,094 589,589 527,264 523,523
Port of Fort Fairfield, ME............................... 523,009 465,910 422,582 383,078 387,229
Port of Limestone, ME.................................... 116,414 110,897 118,556 137,468 125,820
Port of Bridgewater, ME.................................. 265,817 192,800 167,144 146,895 144,372
Port of Calais, ME....................................... 3,366,209 3,400,087 3,161,446 2,083,870 2,549,868
Port of Eastport, ME..................................... 560,199 574,989 532,641 454,162 447,857
Port of Vanceboro, ME.................................... 95,105 147,447 144,681 122,837 133,913
Port of Jonesport, ME....................................
Port of St. Albans, VT................................... 14,933 12,182
Port of Highgate Springs/Alburg, VT...................... 1,168,806 1,220,791 1,247,205 1,203,572 1,213,613
Port of Richford, VT..................................... 297,673 295,728 278,518 257,333 222,485
Port of Burlington, VT................................... 5,256 6,220 5,335 5,105 4,636
Port of Derby Line, VT................................... 1,863,366 1,759,129 1,723,816 1,536,398 1,452,441
Port of Norton, VT....................................... 197,345 234,863 183,244 180,068 177,428
Port of Beecher Falls, VT................................ 228,779 214,382 191,006 209,775 156,871
Lebanon User Fee Airport, NH............................. 465 26 21
Port of North Troy, VT...................................
Port of Boston, MA....................................... 47,685 73,299 86,794 74,541 56,223
Logan Airport, MA........................................ 1,722,012 1,794,628 1,773,563 1,527,044 1,527,520
Port of Springfield, MA.................................. 220 161 17 51
Port of Worcester, MA.................................... 250 232 397 293 158
Port of Gloucester, MA................................... 1,716 2,109 1,991 2,626 2,176
Port of New Bedford, MA.................................. 2,549 2,967 3,591 3,602 2,833
Port of Plymouth, MA..................................... 144 750 270 195 350
Port of Fall River, MA................................... 66 163 37 93 252
Port of Salem, MA........................................ 303 125 220
Port of Lawrence, MA..................................... 62 136 97 100 191
Port of Provincetown, MA.................................
Port of Hartford, CT..................................... 16,032 17,678 12,056 14,664 12,855
Port of Bridgeport, CT................................... 340 316 296 162 214
Port of New Haven, CT.................................... 369 336 588 417 419
Port of New London, CT................................... 1,067 411 957 350 236
Port of Providence, RI................................... 1,498 1,267 3,898 6,215 8,580
Port of Newport, RI...................................... 1,044 2,794 2,893 1,019 781
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAST GREAT LAKES CMC--Buffalo............................ 30,515,499 30,939,591 30,094,389 29,777,568 26,688,585
Port of Buffalo, NY...................................... 20,168,171 20,141,564 20,683,033 19,838,233 17,154,961
Port of Rochester, NY.................................... 5,048 5,677 4,833 2,144 3,091
TNT Skypak, Buffalo, NY..................................
Port of Oswego, NY....................................... 2,444 2,460 2,547 1,923 1,719
Port of Syracuse, NY..................................... 5,791 4,071 3,762 3,326 2,782
Port of Utica, NY........................................
Binghampton User Fee Airport, Syracuse, NY............... 806 738 485 462
Port of Champlain-Rouses Point, NY....................... 3,564,928 3,700,556 3,558,376 4,423,403 4,262,769
Port of Trout River, Champlain, NY....................... 475,756 593,841 396,940 377,130 383,914
Port of Albany, NY....................................... 2,631 2,246 2,415 2,780 2,352
Port of Ogdensburg, NY................................... 723,988 795,573 560,626 639,028 618,945
Port of Massena, NY...................................... 3,290,566 3,301,420 2,614,673 2,387,370 2,388,014
Port of Alexandria Bay, NY............................... 2,275,725 2,391,377 2,266,446 2,101,746 1,869,576
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MID-ATLANTIC CMC--Baltimore.............................. 3,433,843 3,682,557 3,987,844 3,742,790 4,029,533
Port of Philadelphia, PA................................. 17,174 18,138 13,164 14,155 20,378
Philadelphia International Airport, PA................... 917,996 968,252 1,138,238 1,141,374 1,309,689
Port of Chester, PA/Wilmington, DE....................... 1,366 1,183 1,460 1,932 1,228
Port of Chester, PA......................................
Atlantic City User Fee Airport, NJ....................... 1,060 1,359 769 332 332
UPS Courier Philadelphia, PA............................. 1,604 1,742 3,361 3,825 3,337
Allentown, PA............................................ 1,180 758 960 2,520 2,318
Port of Pittsburgh, PA................................... 254,402 231,631 270,551 229,345 155,038
Trenton/Mercer User Fee Airport, NJ...................... 425 1,260 1,403 1,274
Port of Harrisburg, PA................................... 3,528 2,524 2,987 1,511 1,273
Port of Wilkes Barre/Scranton, PA........................ 612 752 662 757 341
Port of Baltimore, MD.................................... 1,474 331 6,420 201 127,620
Port of Annapolis, MD....................................
BWI Airport, Baltimore, MD............................... 306,279 314,732 382,702 335,593 356,446
Port of Alexandria, VA................................... 4,657 1,825 1,437 119
Port of Washington, DC................................... 1,922,511 2,138,388 2,163,873 2,009,723 2,050,259
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK CMC--New York................................... 14,252,757 15,143,391 14,017,278 11,561,856 12,346,258
Port of JFK Airport, NY.................................. 9,898,560 10,327,062 9,577,663 7,867,512 8,277,995
Federal Express Corp (JFK), NY...........................
NYACC. JFK Int'l Airport, NY.............................
DHL Airways, JFK Int'l Airport, NY.......................
Emery Worldwide, JFK Int'l Airport, NY...................
Air France (Mach Plus), JFK Int'l Airpot, NY.............
Dworkin/Cosell Courier, JFK Int'l Airport, NY............
Swiss Air, JFK Int'l Airport, NY.........................
Alitalia (Aliexpress), JFK Int'l Airport, NY.............
TNT Skypak, JFK Int'l Airport, NY........................
Port of New York, NY..................................... 247,015 320,047 240,039 277,500 425,918
Port of New York-Newark, Elizabeth, NJ................... 4,103,574 4,492,593 4,196,245 3,413,763 3,639,419
Port of Perth Amboy, NJ.................................. 1,346 964 724 101 112
UPS (Newark), Elizabeth, NJ..............................
Morristown Airport, Elizabeth, NJ........................ 2,262 2,725 2,607 2,980 2,814
Federal Express ECCF, Elizabeth, NJ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH ATLANTIC CMC--Atlanta.............................. 3,066,117 3,515,550 3,551,972 3,301,175 3,444,857
Port of Norfolk, VA...................................... 46,149 51,641 48,605 66,975 7,228
Port of Newport News, VA................................. 12,704 7,812 3,992 5,692 779
Port of Richmond/Petersburg, VA.......................... 5,914 5,466 4,412 3,899 4,309
Port of Charleston, WV................................... 718 724 672 755 1,158
Port of Front Royal, VA..................................
New River Valley User Fee Airport, Dublin, VA............ 81 73 82 533
Port of Charlotte, NC.................................... 277,061 380,859 431,613 307,137 485,594
Port of Wilmington, NC................................... 7,879 9,242 9,682 10,372 9,830
Port of Beaufort-Morehead, NC............................ 14,549 18,994 8,561 16,099 18,842
Port of Durham, NC....................................... 70,604 70,610 65,259 65,596 76,286
Port of Winston Salem, NC................................ 1,083 939 989 3,187 1,215
Port of Charleston, SC................................... 6,752 15,712 25,695 23,103 21,579
Port of Greenville/Spartanburg, SC....................... 1,901 2,771 1,518 2,814 3,033
Port of Georgetown, SC................................... 79 23 44 266 234
Port of Columbia, SC..................................... 1,647 1,187 500 492 697
Port of Savannah, GA..................................... 2,890 5,001 4,028 2,118 4,957
Port of Brunswick, GA.................................... 3,088 1,933 1,006 1,015 540
Port of Atlanta, GA...................................... 2,612,712 2,941,488 2,944,991 2,790,937 2,807,944
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH FLORIDA CMC--Tampa................................. 3,151,528 3,613,679 3,318,158 3,019,563 3,120,682
Port of Tampa, FL........................................ 360,837 343,823 394,920 386,517 494,455
Port of St. Petersburg, FL............................... 118,344 78,509 72,002 16,810 11,580
Port of Manatee, FL...................................... 26,063 46,781 48,345 51,210 40,518
Port of Ft. Myers, FL.................................... 24,690 62,726 61,053 22,576 33,223
SW. Florida Regional Airport, Ft. Myers, FL.............. 40,550 736 876 1,109 1,108
Sarasota Bradeton Airport, Sarasota, FL.................. 2,951 22 4,686 57 139
Port of Orlando, FL...................................... 1,077,155 1,134,713 957,781 660,123 665,585
Port of Port Canaveral, FL............................... 974,764 1,439,073 1,249,400 1,341,212 1,383,326
Sanford Regional Airport, FL............................. 457 2
Daytona Beach Regional Airport, FL....................... 10,966 11,264 8,089 8,449 8,903
Melbourne Regional Airport, FL........................... 221 1,310 1,680 3,781 4,723
Sanford-Orlando Int'l Airport, Sanford, FL............... 458,156 442,508 465,096 467,778 418,835
Port of Jacksonville, FL................................. 44,213 41,897 44,044 48,941 50,364
Port of Fernandina, FL................................... 6,529 5,376 5,538 5,188 3,513
Port of Panama City, FL.................................. 4,047 3,518 3,156 2,674 2,671
Port of Pensacola, FL.................................... 1,566 1,318 1,370 3,056 1,462
Ocala Regional Airport, FL............................... 8 66 86 82 275
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH FLORIDA CMC--Miami................................. 14,777,974 12,974,382 13,563,043 13,019,133 14,220,879
Miami Airport, FL........................................ 8,369,505 8,314,194 8,079,088 7,266,908 7,371,891
Port of Fort Pierce, FL.................................. 17,675 17,434 15,550 15,943 16,073
International Courier Association, Miami, FL.............
DHL Worldwide Express, Miami, FL.........................
MIA/CFS Exp Consig Facil, Miami, FL......................
UPS Miami International Airport, Miami, FL...............
Port of Miami, FL........................................ 1,585,472 1,608,171 2,332,493 2,285,511 2,581,304
Port of Port Everglades, FL.............................. 1,878,378 1,892,019 1,662,927 1,783,454 2,139,684
Port of West Palm Beach, FL.............................. 94,732 114,715 93,411 93,244 107,274
Port of Key West, FL..................................... 973,097 958,150 885,081 1,207,716 1,591,785
Miami Seaport Alternate, Miami, FL.......................
Ft. Lauderdale Intl. Airport, FL......................... 69,699 494,493 366,357 412,868
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARIBBEAN CMC--San Juan.................................. 3,219,189 3,500,223 3,817,388 3,888,511 5,081,159
Port of Aguadilla, PR.................................... 5,003 7,196 5,600 3,843 5,061
Port of Fajardo, PR...................................... 50,806 47,804 43,678 33,594 35,929
Port of Mayaguez, PR..................................... 23,569 27,575 47,541 74,481 54,863
Port of Ponce, PR........................................ 1,889 1,712 3,504 6,553 10,467
Port of San Juan, PR..................................... 629,602 699,021 956,993 1,355,000 1,604,471
International Airport, Old San Juan, PR.................. 1,264,001 1,409,354 1,371,418 1,182,893 1,195,174
Guanica, PR..............................................
Port of Charlotte Amalie, VI............................. 317,548 243,938 181,365 138,079 1,150,666
Port of Cruz Bay, VI..................................... 146,683 138,031 134,914 148,580 194,790
Port of Christiansted, VI................................ 128,178 230,167 363,963 244,285 108,792
Pre-Clearance, St. Croix , VI............................ 186,421 187,726 185,282 176,956 161,831
Pre-Clearance, St. Thomas , VI........................... 465,489 507,699 523,130 524,247 559,115
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GULF CMC--New Orleans.................................... 394,929 423,691 390,418 453,287 607,289
Port of Morgan City, LA.................................. 22,517 19,776 16,250 15,921 12,499
Port of New Orleans, LA.................................. 166,123 224,778 210,168 239,382 337,837
Port of Little Rock, AK.................................. 109 133 177 271 231
Port of Baton Rouge, LA.................................. 10,453 3,226 210 166 183
Port of Memphis, TN...................................... 115,040 118,745 116,930 150,176 182,671
Port of Nashville, TN.................................... 2,6632 24,165 18,992 9,569 8,978
Port of Chattanooga, TN.................................. 298 319 228 446 237
Port of Gramercy, LA..................................... 310 351 316 183 142
Port of Vicksburg, MS.................................... 278 239 185 368 317
Port of Knoxville, TN.................................... 532 382 273 414 369
Port of Lake Charles, LA................................. 21,114 2,583 2,027 937 1,971
Port of Shreveport/Bosier City, LA....................... 3,997 3,886 801 941 1,064
Port of Jackson Airport, MS.............................. 96 130 153 113 88
Tri-City Airport, Blountville, TN........................ 212 263 454 722 781
FEDEX Courier, Memphis, TN............................... 10,723 12,464 12,561 9,985 10,184
Arkansas Aeroplex User Fee Airport, AR...................
Port of Mobile, AL....................................... 2,911 1,384 2,285 15,342 2,028
Port of Gulfport, MS..................................... 3,159 901 802 1,076 41,296
Port of Pascagoula, MS................................... 2,565 2,344 2,432 1,835 1,062
Port of Birmingham, AL................................... 5,242 4,980 2,738 2,771 2,347
Port of Huntsville, AL................................... 2,618 2,642 2,436 2,669 3,004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MID-AMERICA CMC--Chicago................................. 15,339,328 6,441,804 6,333,382 5,451,645 5,607,942
Port of Chicago, IL...................................... 4,124,875 4,557,948 4,573,343 3,799,223 3,917,296
Port of Peoria, IL....................................... 994 658 613 682 852
Port of Omaha, NE........................................ 662 1,070 1,158 2,213 1,808
Ohare International Airport, Chicago, IL.................
Port of Des Moines, IA................................... 482 635 728 1,316 1,075
Port of Davenport/Rock Island/Moline, IL................. 34 83 250 181 217
Waukegan Regional Airport, Chicago, IL................... 502 736 935 801 925
Greater Rockford Airport, Rockford, IL................... 416 291
Pal-Waukee Airport, Wheeling, IL......................... 511 1,734 1,549 1,702 1,802
Nippon Courier Hub, Chicago, IL..........................
Rockford Airport, IL..................................... 414 292 412 587 633
Midway Int'l Airport, Chicago, IL........................ 1,743 95,207 123,994
Dupage User Fee Airport, West Chicago, IL................ 111 821 805 1,036 747
Decatur User Fee Airport, IL............................. 150 287 274 223
Port of Cleveland, OH.................................... 69,832 100,706 101,043 65,878 88,602
Port of Ashtabula/Conneaut, OH........................... 13,160 11,882 9,709
Port of Erie, PA......................................... 3,986 3,902 3,594 3,633 3,379
Port of Owensboro, KY/Evansville, IN.....................
Port of Akron, OH........................................ 1,193 1,106 1,156 1,093 1,026
Port of Cincinnati, Lawrenceburg, IN..................... 449,090 412,297 298,369 326,247 322,691
DHL Courier, Cincinnati, OH.............................. 1,640 2,730 3,523 3,930 3,921
Port of Columbus, OH..................................... 11,296 11,798 12,259 11,112 11,939
Rickenbacker Airport, Columbus, OH....................... 141 30 157 177
Port of Dayton, OH....................................... 3,856 3,101 1,854 2,200 1,206
Airborne Air Park, Wilmington, OH........................ 1,955 1,690 1,552
Emery Courier, Dayton, OH................................ 6,830 7,403 6,544 3,962 3,659
Port of Indianapolis, IN................................. 47,310 47,597 51,473 50,358 45,587
Port of For Wayne Airport, IN............................ 1,750 1,651 1,424 1,009 888
Port of Louisville, KY................................... 1,178 2,170 1,316 884 1,097
Blue Grass Airport, Lexington, KY........................ 33 472 511 635 698
UPS Courier, Louisville, KY.............................. 3,112 2,825 3,316 3,119 3,331
Port of Toledo/Sandusky, OH.............................. 14,659 35,989 29,095 31,267 25,939
Port of Sandusky, OH..................................... 789
Burlington Air Express, Toledo, OH....................... 2,426
Burlington Air Express Hub, Toledo, OH................... 3,550 3,947 3,197 2,351
Federal Express Hub, Indianapolis, IN.................... 775 915 1,492 779 873
Airborne Courier Hub, Wilmington, OH..................... 1,597 1,606
Port of Milwaukee, WI.................................... 48,799 48,107 54,699 57,139 63,500
Port of Marinette, WI.................................... 610 575 600 820 658
Port of Green Bay, WI.................................... 2,285 2,109 2,083 2,500 1,880
Port of Manitowoc, WI.................................... 11
Port of Sheboygan, WI....................................
Port of Racine, WI....................................... 264 451 550 444 362
Port of Minneapolis, MN.................................. 829,395 890,950 863,737 739,976 757,732
Rochester User Fee Airport, MN........................... 374 908 737 939 924
Port of Sioux Falls, SD.................................. 2,242 2,287 1,887 2,267 1,183
Port of St. Louis, MO.................................... 238,187 263,622 264,728 202,851 183,716
Port of Springfield, MO.................................. 245 163 258 355 364
Port of Wichita, KA...................................... 1,343 2,878 4,223 2,660 1,125
Port of Kansas City, MO.................................. 33,986 25,293 22,057 15,121 18,002
Port of Spirit of St. Louis, MO.......................... 309 293 215
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEST GREAT LAKES CMC--Detroit............................ 33,389,092 38,382,135 31,993,695 23,676,485 22,651,093
Port of Detroit, MI...................................... 22,685,595 25,657,300 23,066,299 16,074,309 14,355,872
Oakland/Pontiac Airport, Detroit, MI..................... 3,502 3,454 3,141 3,055 9,735
Willow Run Airport, Ypsilanti, MI........................ 597 778 963 ,4367
Detroit Metropolitan Airport............................. 1,022,321
Port of Sault Sainte Marie, MI........................... 3,920,555 4,435,217 2,606,768 2,060,759 2,024,761
Port of Escanaba, MI.....................................
Port of Mackinac Isle, MI................................
Port of Grand Rapids, MI................................. 7,177 8,547 5,948 5,695 5,992
Port of Battle Creek, MI................................. 1,649 1,498 1,905 1,865 1,681
Port of Saginaw/Bay City/Flint, MI....................... 3,999 4,279 4,340 3,974 3,888
Port of Muskegon, MI.....................................
Port of Port Huron, MI................................... 6,766,586 8,271,243 6,304,516 5,525,865 5,222,476
Port of Algonac, MI......................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAST TEXAS CMC--Houston.................................. 4,513,256 4,977,497 5,203,799 4,838,113 4,871,889
Port of Houston, TX...................................... 77,205 97,868 161,626 231,533 104,521
Houston Intercontinental Airport, TX..................... 2,378,482 2,656,873 2,774,955 2,691,220 2,707,030
Port of Galveston, TX.................................... 2,835 1,252 256 274 111,597
Port of Texas City, TX...................................
Port of Freeport, TX..................................... 287 488 463 509 766
Port of Port Arthur, TX.................................. 49 40 271 41,757 35,492
Port of Beaumont, TX.....................................
Port of Port Lavaca, TX.................................. 320 50 80 1,168 2,974
Port of Corpus Christi, TX............................... 1,818 584 2,184 5,519 11,970
Port of Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX............................. 2,049,669 2,215,224 2,258,993 1,861,923 1,893,137
Midland Airport, TX...................................... 613 372 387 349 453
Addison Airport, Dallas, TX.............................. 577 2,219 1,519 1,692 1,681
Fort Worth Alliance Airport, TX.......................... 54 425 462 440 445
Port of Amarillo, TX..................................... 10 64 94 97 96
Port of Lubbock, TX...................................... 75 24 40 82 59
Port of Oklahoma City, OK................................ 268 964 1,250 889 874
Port of Tulsa, OK........................................ 820 1,050 1,219 661 794
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH TEXAS CMC--Laredo.................................. 107,074,542 105,021,530 96,205,915 87,113,236 84,395,797
Port of Laredo, TX....................................... 25,584,455 25,223,807 25,996,152 22,175,729 22,096,828
Port of Del Rio, TX...................................... 6,185,883 6,300,780 4,750,624 4,883,922 4,729,946
Port of Eagle Pass, TX................................... 8,028,121 9,608,956 9,593,065 9,806,065 9,248,047
Port of Roma, TX......................................... 5,157,288 5,296,982 4,479,956 3,826,185 3,435,146
Port of Rio Grande City, TX.............................. 2,587,394 2,558,389 2,275,470 2,700,494 2,657,861
Port of Hidalgo, TX...................................... 32,362,499 28,282,474 22,687,793 20,232,325 19,354,891
Port of Progreso, TX..................................... 4,574,584 4,553,650 4,487,126 4,339,723 4,034,632
Port of Brownsville, TX.................................. 22,446,293 23,035,546 21,776,588 19,014,143 18,720,158
Port of San Antonio,TX................................... 133,689 144,710 141,087 119,868 100,411
Port of Austin, TX....................................... 14,336 16,236 18,054 14,782 17,877
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEST TEXAS/NEW MEXICO CMC--El Paso....................... 57,460,944 61,194,899 56,694,883 42,141,131 41,612,624
Port of El Paso, TX...................................... 52,118,723 55,255,832 51,295,486 36,443,526 36,513,928
Port of Presidio, TX..................................... 2,016,187 2,007,443 1,867,851 1,818,696 1,719,429
Port of Fabens, TX....................................... 2,135,911 2,097,280 1,989,080 1,847,469 1,439,989
Port of Columbus, NM..................................... 1,016,923 1,624,295 1,203,051 1,154,676 1,231,911
Port of Albuquerque, NM.................................. 1,162 1,044 1,844 1,259 253
Port of Santa Teresa, NM................................. 156,760 208,549 337,117 875,156 706,797
Port of Santa Teresa Airport............................. 15,278 456 454 349 317
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA CMC--Tucson...................................... 34,520,599 35,952,803 34,205,867 37,193,881 35,145,484
Port of Douglas, AZ...................................... 6,558,323 6,880,304 5,800,521 8,754,639 6,254,480
Port of Lukeville, AZ.................................... 1,472,346 1,257,372 1,431,679 1,386,963 1,318,329
Port of Naco, AZ......................................... 908,154 978,901 964,705 930,849 1,518,848
Port of Nogales, AZ...................................... 15,174,299 17,074,824 15,363,834 14,687,826 15,684,719
Port of Phoenix, AZ...................................... 397,777 458,729 506,587 495,109 559,927
Port of Sasabe, AZ....................................... 97,857 95,646 96,592 111,524 115,873
Port of San Luis, AZ..................................... 9,873,359 9,171,062 10,011,133 10,799,854 9,667,260
Port of Tucson, AZ....................................... 38,484 35,452 29,786 26,125 24,142
Scottsdale User Free Airport, AZ......................... 513 1,030 992 1,152
Williams Gateway User Fee Airport, Mesa, AZ.............. 754
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CMC--San Diego....................... 95,780,599 95,492,433 98,946,655 85,732,767 90,509,926
Port of San Ysidro, CA................................... 41,413,098 39,569,663 47,936,872 42,265,083 47,405,596
Port of Otay Mesa , CA................................... 11,357,380 12,780,553 11,069,117 11,364,297 12,852,960
Port of San Diego, CA.................................... 278,306 298,798 338,745 377,677 393,538
Port of Tecate, CA....................................... 3,465,212 3,650,752 2,887,611 2,779,776 3,116,574
Port of Calexico, CA..................................... 29,434,800 28,276,782 25,074,265 18,735,914 16,926,701
Port of Andrade, CA...................................... 3,397,050 3,580,525 3,358,839 3,137,651 3,175,678
Port of Calexico East, CA................................ 6,434,753 7,335,360 8,281,206 7,072,369 6,638,879
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH PACIFIC CMC--Los Angeles........................... 8,782,667 9,820,664 9,635,201 8,213,662 8,497,539
Port of Los Angeles, CA.................................. 941,228 1,111,185 931,168 810,012 1,000,055
Port of Long Beach, CA................................... 599
Port of Port Hueneme, San Pedro, CA...................... 7,129 7,667 7,038 10,669 7,926
Port of Port San Luis Obispo, CA.........................
Port of Segundo, CA......................................
Port of LAX, Los Angeles, CA............................. 7,580,488 8,405,521 8,368,864 7,126,242 7,136,984
Port of Ontario Int'l Airport, Los Angeles, CA........... 198 377 10,288 19,336 53,796
Port of Las Vegas, NV.................................... 252,409 294,713 316,633 246,089 297,436
DHL (LAX), Los Angeles, CA...............................
Gateway Freight Ser. Inc, Los Angeles, CA................
International Bonded Courier, Los Angeles, CA............
Virgin Atlantic Cargo, Los Angeles, CA...................
UPS Ontario, Los Angeles, CA............................. 281 394 284 275 265
Port of Palm Springs, Los Angeles, CA.................... 335 757 871 953 1,015
TNT Express, LAX, Los Angeles, CA........................
Southern Calif. Logistics Airport, Victorville, CA....... 50 55 86 59
San Bernadino User Fee Airport, CA....................... 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MID-PACIFIC CMC--San Francisco........................... 6,597,151 7,014,660 6,931,112 5,995,546 5,852,760
San Francisco International Airport, CA.................. 3,307,795 3,699,556 3,808,868 3,324,888 3,111,401
Port of San Francisco, CA................................ 37,387 27,999 34,622 44,793 49,886
Port of Reno, NV......................................... 649 3,062 2,310 885 858
Port of Fresno, CA....................................... 19 188 69 10
Port of Eureka, CA....................................... 1,086 719 526 662 488
Port of Salt Lake City, UT............................... 23,675 21,314 30,256 31,311 35,835
Port of Monterey, CA.....................................
Port of Oakland, CA...................................... 85,963 74,083 55,238 104,058 195,870
Port of San Jose, CA..................................... 159,965 163,646 216,722 147,003 144,339
DHL Worldwide Express, San Francisco, CA.................
Aircargo Handling Service, San Francisco, CA.............
TNT Skypak, San Francisco, CA............................
FEDEX Courier Hub Facility, Oakland, CA..................
IBC Pacific, Burlingame, CA..............................
Sacramento, CA........................................... 50 55 135 57 122
Port of Honolulu, HI..................................... 90,412 124,643 89,303 79,241 184,200
Port of Hilo, HI......................................... 64,307 40,254 243 1,112 1,619
Port of Kahului, HI...................................... 6,856 1,288 1,984 4,281 1,084
Port of Nawiliwili-Port Allen, HI........................ 37,674 62,791 13 25
Honolulu International Airport, HI....................... 2,688,519 2,710,113 2,603,268 2,190,256 2,058,144
Port of Kailua-Kona, HI.................................. 92,274 84,949 87,555 66,989 68,889
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHWEST GREAT PLAINS CMC--Seattle...................... 26,959,252 26,049,912 24,478,093 21,274,248 19,177,687
Port of Seattle, WA...................................... 214,561 279,289 301,588 321,697
Airport Inspection Branch (SEATAC), Seattle, WA.......... 922,184 923,884 855,454 877,324
Port of Spokane, WA...................................... 8,858 8,899 5,286 2,520
Yakima Airport, WA....................................... 1
Grant County User Fee Airport, Moses Lake, WA............ 260 608 176 81
Port of Kenmore Air Harbor, Seattle, WA..................
UPS, Seattle, WA.........................................
Port of Avion Brokers, Seattle, WA,......................
DHL Worldwide Express, Seattle, WA.......................
Port of Tacoma, WA....................................... 22,070 20,151 20,059 19,073
Port of Aberdeen, WA..................................... 30 14 1 359
Port of Everett, WA...................................... 7,176 5,875 1,776 1,499
Port of Port Angeles, WA................................. 313,335 307,917 285,957 263,627
Port of Port Townsend, WA................................ 1,018 784 712 1,035
Port of Olympia, WA...................................... 253 516 352 446
Neah Bay, WA.............................................
Airborne Express SEATAC, Seattle, WA.....................
UPS Courier HUB, Seattle, WA.............................
Port of Blaine, WA....................................... 9,504,549 9,319,177 8,751,886 5,495,810 5,370,526
Port of Oroville, WA..................................... 607,283 592,659 576,971 574,944 568,099
Port of Boundary, WA..................................... 78,256 71,904 90,484 73,811 88,149
Port of Danville, WA..................................... 128,570 137,339 134,053 106,737 96,899
Port of Ferry, WA........................................ 30,317 26,415 29,054 27,585 25,165
Port of Frontier, WA..................................... 126,899 110,610 110,390 103,907 92,423
Port of Laurier, WA...................................... 125,901 122,729 123,816 97,881 99,265
Port of Metaline Falls, WA............................... 81,639 80,600 81,602 73,269 63,742
Port of Nighthawk, WA.................................... 16,348 15,987 12,641 12,305 10,222
Port of Sumas, WA........................................ 2,286,081 2,264,737 1,916,030 1,787,237
Port of Bellingham, WA................................... 15,861 12,525 52,093 52,370
Port of Anacortes, WA.................................... 115,075 119,505 121,972 101,128
Port of Friday Harbor, WA................................ 48,575 42,453 37,827 34,177
Port of Point Roberts, WA................................ 1,697,067 1,645,188 1,320,372 1,471,157
Port of Lynden, WA....................................... 1,479,860 1,394,663 1,312,636 1,270,411
Port of Great Falls, MT.................................. 43,247 32,895 3,247 2,893
Port of Butte, MT........................................ 312 334 185 146
Port of Eastport, ID..................................... 349,233 299,234 271,516 247,922
Port of Piegan, MT....................................... 448,210 412,076 401,444 379,087
Port of Porthill, ID..................................... 256,379 288,803 226,218 208,078
Port of Roosville, MT.................................... 322,829 242,476 277,670 248,084
Port of Missoula City Airport, MT........................
Port of Kalispell, MT.................................... 981 1,014 643 1,485
Port of Raymond, MT...................................... 99,612 92,461 87,082 77,503
Port of Scobey, MT....................................... 14,696 15,420 13,858 13,524
Port of Whitetail, MT.................................... 12,391 11,521 10,925 8,037
Port of Opheim, MT....................................... 13,685 14,235 12,161 9,099
Port of Sweetgrass, MT................................... 939,250 766,593 1,924,416 175,604
Port of Turner, MT....................................... 15,932 13,126 11,606 11,016
Port of Morgan, MT....................................... 16,627 17,295 12,676 10,481
Port of Whitlash, MT..................................... 2,953 2,759 2,759 2,286
Port of Del Bonita, MT................................... 66,759 40,906 45,785 43,034
Port of Wildhorse, MT.................................... 20,571 43,512 45,254
Port of International Falls/Ranier, MN................... 1,454,414 1,389,293 1,239,368 1,331,169
Port of Baudette, MN..................................... 521,770 464,019 483,224 451,948
Port of Warroad, MN...................................... 447,124 435,308 397,972 388,621
Port of Grand Portage, MN................................ 775,062 518,607 532,186 526,467
Port of Pembina, ND...................................... 1,123,526 1,020,220 1,020,743 986,051
Port of Noyes, ND........................................ 143,135 159,374 71,355 51,849
Port of Duluth, MN....................................... 32,240 15,813 12,765 12,558
Port of Ashland, WI......................................
Port of Superior, WI.....................................
Grand Forks Airport, ND.................................. 713 769 2,137 1,787
Port of Portal, ND....................................... 375,932 328,358 341,890 318,441
Port of St. John, ND..................................... 76,315 75,308 68,878 65,835
Port of Northgate, ND.................................... 44,301 42,832 33,472 31,635
Port of Ambrose, ND...................................... 13,034 8,855 5,099 4,509
Port of Antler, ND....................................... 30,148 27,953 26,544 24,171
Port of Sherwood, ND..................................... 31,341 24,882 23,765 21,984
Port of Hansboro, ND..................................... 32,223 28,574 23,615 23,020
Port of Fortuna, ND...................................... 31,327 26,932 28,288 26,056
Port of Westhope, ND..................................... 29,595 34,023 44,819 28,611
Port of Noonan, ND....................................... 64,550 60,155 58,909 59,511
Port of Carbury, ND...................................... 33,934 34,090 27,730 29,340
Port of Dunseith, ND..................................... 202,927 200,413 176,168 203,804
Port of Roseau, MN....................................... 109,821 107,068 89,295 96,479
Port of Neche, ND........................................ 110,577 100,327 111,966 114,399
Port of Walhalla, ND..................................... 63,681 64,708 73,052 74,642
Port of Hannah, ND....................................... 14,153 19,574 17,618 14,221
Port of Sarles, ND....................................... 14,478 19,058 20,997 22,591
Port of Maida, ND........................................ 41,384 41,579 41,985 39,976
Port of Pinecreek, MN.................................... 16,735 17,466 18,804 12,547
Hector User Fee Airport, Fargo, ND....................... 2,691 2,911 3,486 2,276
Lancaster, MN............................................ 133,875 111,025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH PACIFIC CMC--Portland.............................. 1,403,461 1,519,036 1,128,649 1,145,094 1,280,083
Port of Portland, OR..................................... 250,994 169,741 80,656 8,109 52,325
Portland International Airport, OR....................... 2,394
Port of Longview, WA..................................... 167 238 194 186 202
Port of Boise, ID........................................ 1,132 1,104 1,070 1,536 1,193
Port of Astoria, OR...................................... 162 175 71 125 128
Port of Coos Bay, OR..................................... 1,255 1,249 1,098 727 1,045
Port of Newport, OR...................................... 69 235 229 357 220
Rogue Valley-Medford, Medford/Jackson, OR................ 53 73 247 210 92
Port of Vancouver, WA....................................
Port of Kalama, WA.......................................
Kingsley Field User Fee Airport, Klamath Falls, OR.......
Port of Anchorage, AK.................................... 235,774 287,744 125,817 141,483 117,123
Port of Juneau, AK....................................... 14,889 153,106 12,680 2,660 1,11,314
Port of Ketchikan, AK.................................... 151,928 130,229 138,082 213,957 155,031
Port of Skagway, AK...................................... 254,612 268,931 248,098 247,139 269,741
Port of Alcan, AK........................................ 162,583 154,141 142,191 148,332 134,439
Port of Wrangell, AK..................................... 5,610 1,342 1,120 1,537 1,725
Port of Valdez, AK....................................... 436 476 125 189 15,588
Port of Dalton Cache, AK................................. 40,484 47,743 49,014 47,839 45,314
Port of Fairbanks, AK.................................... 7,866 7,312 8,145 10,698 10,241
Saint Paul Airport, Anchorage, AK........................ 41 5 32
Port of Sitka, AK........................................ 447 411 337 1,760 595
FEDEX Courier Hub Facility, Anchorage, AK................ 6,146 6,141 6,194 5,943 5,911
UPS Courier Hub Facility, Anchorage, AK.................. 3,936 4,499 5,306 5,076 5,508
Port of Denver, CO....................................... 261,751 282,112 306,910 304,941 350,054
Natrona County Int'l Airport, Casper, WY................. 494 585 351 741 795
Jefferson Country Airport, Broomfield, CO................ 238 402 218 732 585
Arapahoe County Airport, Englewood, CO................... 1,042 464 817 914
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRECLEARANCE OPERATIONS CMC.............................. 12,320,530 12,702,346 11,252,036 11,271,449
Kindley Field, Bermuda................................... 323,088 380,785 346,412 340,635
Freeport, Bahamas........................................ 318,027 372,059 349,068 355,123
Nassau, Bahamas.......................................... 1,278,464 1,258,091 1,100,619 1,136,901
Aruba, Miami, FL......................................... 251,963 541,086 494,778 507,254
Vancouver, Canada Preclearance........................... 2,068,395 2,064,671 1,904,495 2,083,875
Edmonton, Canada Preclearance............................ 245,814 267,601 200,431 238,610
Montreal, Canada Preclearance............................ 1,532,035 1,482,292 1,339,176 1,373,199
Winnepeg, Canada Preclearance............................ 209,572 206,282 163,824 185,978
Toronto, Canada Preclearance............................. 4,854,284 4,901,616 4,194,927 3,850,854
Calgary, Canada Preclearance............................. 838,664 848,037 827,657 864,522
Ottawa, Canada Preclearance.............................. 400,224 379,826 330,649 334,498
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions for the Record Submitted to DHS Assistant Secretary C.
Stewart Verdery, Jr. by Senator John E. Sununu
Question. With 80% of the U.S. border crossings through land ports
of entry, security of the entry process at these ports is critical.
What steps is the Department of Homeland Security taking to do security
name checks and Congressionally mandated document verification for
those seeking entry without passports because they claim Canadian or
U.S. citizenship or resident status and are thus exempt from passport
requirements?
Answer. The great majority of persons arriving at land border ports
are residents of the border areas who cross frequently and who are
familiar with requirements concerning their entry into the United
States. Consequently, at land border ports-of-entry, a screening
procedure has been established to rapidly inspect applicants for
admission, passing those found readily admissible and referring for
further action those requiring more detailed examination. Without an
efficient primary inspection, it would be impossible to process the
great volume of applicants at large land border ports or utilize
manpower effectively at the smaller ports. The effectiveness of
inspections at such ports is entirely dependent on the effectiveness of
the primary inspector. Despite the limited time devoted to each
inspection, primary officers at land borders intercept a high volume of
fraudulent documents and false claims to U.S. citizenship. CBP
inspectional procedures differ between the northern and southern
borders, reflecting differences in regulations governing entry
documentation. While the actual procedures may differ, the inspection
process itself does not--each application for admission is carefully
reviewed by a CBP officer who must be fully satisfied that the person
making application is entitled to enter the United States.
In determining which oral claims to accept, a CBP officer may rely
on the confidence of the applicant's demeanor and language ability.
Veteran officers develop questioning and recognition skills. Each adult
applying for admission is questioned as to citizenship. An officer may
require documentary proof of citizenship at any time.
In order to properly screen arriving persons and vehicles entering
at Canadian or Mexican border ports-of-entry, a license plate number is
entered into the IBIS computer on the primary line. Automatic license
plate readers (LPRs) have been installed at the majority of the land
border crossings. These LPRs are designed to automatically capture and
transmit license plate data from vehicles processed at the land border
to TECS.
It is current CBP policy for all officers on the land border to
perform a 100% query of the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
on all arriving private and commercial vehicle license plates including
buses, tractor-trailers and taxi cabs. IBIS checks are performed for
all adults applying for admission at land border pedestrian primary
stations, where local managers deem appropriate. IBIS checks are
mandatory for all applicants for admission, who are referred to
secondary inspection. Discretion must be exercised consistent with
existing threat levels when less than 100% IBIS checks are to be
performed. Local CBP management officials should coordinate to
determine how to best inspect frequent border crossers and conduct IBIS
checks.
CBP is constantly reviewing its procedures and operations to
address national security issues. CBP provides the most up to date
information to our line officers and develops additional training
materials so that they are fully prepared to meet the challenge that
they face daily.