[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) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001


                     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.

