[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VISA WAIVER PROGRAM OVERSIGHT:
RISKS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 7, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-91
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-601 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania JARED POLIS, Colorado
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
MARK AMODEI, Nevada
Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement
ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TED POE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
DECEMBER 7, 2011
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 2
WITNESSES
The Honorable Mike Quigley, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois
Oral Testimony................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
David F. Heyman, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security
Oral Testimony................................................. 31
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
Richard M. Stana, Director of Homeland Security and Justice
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Testimony................................................. 41
Prepared Statement............................................. 43
James Jay Carafano, Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center
for Foreign Policy Studies, Deputy Director, The Kathryn and
Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, The
Heritage Foundation
Oral Testimony................................................. 61
Prepared Statement............................................. 64
Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for
Immigration Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 72
Prepared Statement............................................. 74
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Mike Quigley, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois.......... 11
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from David F. Heyman,
Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security....................................................... 90
Lettter from Randel K. Johnson, Senior Vice President, Labor,
Immigration, & Employee Benefits, Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America....................................... 93
Letter from Bill Vergot, President, the National Federation of
Croatian Americans Cultural Foundation......................... 95
Prepared Statement of Michael W. McCormick, Executive Direcor and
Chief Operating Officer, Global Business Travel Association
(GBTA)......................................................... 97
Letter from Brent Thompson, Vice President, Global Government
Affairs, Expedia, Inc.......................................... 101
VISA WAIVER PROGRAM OVERSIGHT:
RISKS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:10 p.m., in
room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton
Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gallegly, King, Lofgren, and
Waters.
Also Present: Representative Chabot.
Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Marian
White, Clerk; and (Minority) David Shahoulian, Subcommittee
Chief Counsel.
Mr. Gallegly. I call to order the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Policy Enforcement.
While the Visa Waiver Program is a popular diplomatic tool,
it is unfortunately a flawed program. Before it is expanded,
the program should be reexamined to ensure that any national
security concerns are addressed and resolved.
Under the VWP, nationals of designated countries--and there
are currently 36--are allowed to enter the United States
without a travel visa.
Since its creation, the VWP has been rightfully criticized
on national security grounds. Those concerns have been
validated over the years when individuals such as the suspected
20th September 11th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui came to the
U.S. as a French national under VWP and when Richard Reid
boarded the American Airlines Flight 63 en route from Paris,
France, to Miami, Florida, with a British passport and
attempted to light a bomb that was hidden in his shoe.
Congress has acknowledged these security concerns several
times and added security-related requirements to the program in
the 2002 Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, the USA PATRIOT
Act, and most recently in the 2007 Implementing Recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission Act.
But even with the changes, the VWP is still the subject of
significant security risks, both inherently and due to a lack
of follow-up to ensure the countries become or remain compliant
with the program's requirements. A May 2011 Government
Accountability Office report found that only ``half of the
countries have entered into agreements to share watchlist
information about known or suspected terrorists and to provide
access to biographical, biometric, and criminal history data.''
Such an agreement is a requirement of the program.
And Congress required the Department of Homeland Security
to issue biennial reports regarding the security risks
associated with a country's VWP status, but the GAO found that
the DHS had not completed the latest biennial reports for 18 of
the 36 VWP countries in a timely manner.
Unfortunately, this criticism is not new to the Visa Waiver
Program. A 2004 DHS Inspector General report found that the
agency was ``unable to comply with the mandate to conduct
country reviews of each VWP-designated country every 2 years to
determine whether the country shall be continued in the
program.'' And a 2008 GAO report concluded that the ``DHS has
not fully developed tools to assess and mitigate risks in the
Visa Waiver Program.''
So DHS consistently ignores congressional mandates
regarding the VWP and cannot keep up with the demands for the
36 countries that are currently in the program. These failures
need to be addressed before we encourage the expansion of the
Visa Waiver Program.
This Subcommittee has a significant interest in protecting
Americans and ensuring that the VWP is not a national security
risk.
The United States shares a close friendship with many of
the Visa Waiver Program countries and with many countries that
would like to be designated for the program. However,
legislation and policies that can compromise our national
security should be carefully scrutinized by Congress.
Before I close, I know one of the witnesses, Rich Stana
from GAO, is retiring, and this will be his last time
testifying before Congress. I just wanted to take the
opportunity to thank Mr. Stana for his years of service. He has
been testifying in front of this Subcommittee on immigration-
related issues since 1997. We have greatly benefited from his
expertise, and we all wish him well in his retirement.
Thank you very much, Rich.
Mr. Stana. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. There is a vote on. If you would like to make
your opening statement, then we will go vote, or if you would
prefer to----
Ms. Lofgren. I am fine to make it now, and then----
Mr. Gallegly. Okay.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. We can go directly to our
colleague when we return.
Mr. Gallegly. I would yield to the gentlelady, the Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First created by Congress in 1986, the Visa Waiver Program
has actually played a vital role in growing our economy,
creating and maintaining American jobs, and keeping the country
safe. The program permits business travelers and tourists from
certain countries to visit the United States for up to 90 days
without first obtaining a visa at a U.S. Embassy overseas. The
participating countries have to follow strict security measures
and agree to share additional intelligence with our government.
As such, the program facilitates and promotes travel for
business and leisure to the United States while promoting
national security.
The Visa Waiver Program was first initiated with just two
participating countries, the United Kingdom and Japan. Over the
years, as has been mentioned, countries have been added and
subtracted depending on several factors, including conditions
in the country, and the rate at which its nationals are refused
other nonimmigrant visas by consular officers.
The Visa Waiver Program now has 36 participating countries.
Current long-term participants include many of our closest
allies, such as Australia, Germany, Ireland, Singapore, Sweden,
Japan, and the U.K. Most recently, in 2008 President Bush
expanded the program to include additional allies, such as the
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, and South Korea. Greece was
added in 2009 under President Obama.
The Visa Waiver Program is important to our economic
growth. In 2010, over 65 percent of all foreign visitors to the
U.S. came from visa-waiver countries, even though such
countries make up a small percentage of the world's population.
According to the U.S. Travel Association, those visitors spent
nearly $61 billion, helping to support millions of American
workers with travel, tourism, hotel, and restaurant industries.
But what is more telling is how much this country may have
lost because the Visa Waiver Program does not include more
countries. While other countries have taken steps to welcome
more visitors, waiting times for visits at U.S. embassies and
consulates have grown to embarrassingly long levels. In some
consulates, it now takes more than 6 months for visa
applications to be processed, so the result has been decreasing
market share in international travel. According to a study
conducted by an American industry coalition, the U.S. is
estimated to have lost $43 billion in visitor spending in 2005
due to lost market share. And, according to the Department of
Commerce, the positive balance of trade generated by inbound
travel declined by more than 72 percent between 1996 and 2005.
Since 2005, those losses have only grown, as international
travel continues to increase but the U.S. share of the travel
market continues to decrease. And as we lose market share, we
also lose the ability to share American ideals with the rest of
the world. Studies show that foreigners who visit the U.S. are
75 percent more likely to have a favorable view of our country,
and 61 percent are more likely to support the United States and
its policies. So this country also suffers because fewer
foreign visitors are able to experience and value our
hospitality and our values.
For these reasons alone, we should consider expansion of
the Visa Waiver Program, but there is a more important reason,
however counterintuitive it may be. Many of the supporters of
the Visa Waiver Program, including conservative security
advocates like former DHS Assistant Secretary Stewart Baker,
support expansion of the program because they believe it makes
the U.S. safer.
This is because participating countries are required to
share important law enforcement and national security
intelligence and take other steps pursuant to agreements
required by the program. Participating countries must exchange
watchlists of known and suspected terrorists, issue more secure
e-passports, report lost and stolen passports on a daily basis,
and enhance overall counterterrorism and law enforcement
cooperation with us. At the same time, visa-waiver travelers
must also obtain preclearance to board a flight to the U.S.
through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization.
These measures provide U.S. Government personnel with new
tools to secure the borders, help prevent terrorist and
criminal activities, and promote a safer international travel
environment for our citizens and those of our allies.
Considering all of these benefits, as well as recent
improvements made to the program by the Departments of State
and Homeland Security, it may well be time to alter the program
and extend its reach.
I look forward to the hearing today and our witnesses, and
especially Representative Mike Quigley, who has been such a
leader in advocating especially for Poland, one of our most
firm allies in the world.
And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back,
looking forward to hearing from Mr. Quigley first and the rest
of our witnesses.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
As you probably are all aware, the bells went off. We have
about 7 or 8 minutes to get to the floor to vote. So we will
vote as quickly as we can, return, and, Mike, we will be ready
to go as soon as we get back.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
Mr. Gallegly. The Subcommittee stands in recess for
probably 20 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gallegly. I apologize for the interruption, but that is
the way the system works around here. Unfortunately, we don't
have a lot of control over when the bells ring.
I was about to introduce our witness, our colleague and
friend from Illinois, Mike Quigley. Congressman Quigley
represents Illinois's Fifth District in the United States House
of Representatives. He is a Member of the House Committee on
Judiciary and the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform. Congressman Quigley is the former Cook County
commissioner and has served his community for over 20 years.
Welcome, Mike. And, with that, we will yield to you for
your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MIKE QUIGLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Quigley. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Lofgren. I appreciate that.
And I also want to thank the Chairman of the full
Committee, Lamar Smith, for helping us put this together, the
Committee staff for their hard work, and certainly my staff,
Lindsey Matese and others, who have worked so hard to get us to
this point. And I look forward to hearing from the second panel
here of experts today.
But today's hearing really represents a watershed moment.
Believe it or not, it has been 10 years since this Committee
has had a hearing on the Visa Waiver Program, and in that time
a lot has happened. And many in this room have long-founded
beliefs about what this program, commonly known as VWP, can or
cannot do.
Let me ask something of my colleagues today, and that is:
Let's set aside some preconceived notions of the program. As I
have spoken to my colleagues over the past few years in my time
here in Washington about VWP, I have repeated one line: This is
not your father's VWP program. This is not your father's Visa
Waiver Program. And, again, this is not an issue of
immigration. These are travelers, not immigrants. This is an
issue of national security, but it is not about comprehensive
immigration reform.
The Visa Waiver Program increases our access to data
regarding who is coming and going. It allows us to map and
trend country-based data and requires a commitment to safety
and security from country designees.
One of the most compelling reasons to promote the expansion
of VWP to qualified countries is that the program has become a
vital counterterrorism tool. Already, the program requires
travelers to receive travel authorization through the ESTA
program before boarding a U.S.-bound flight. Over the last 2
years, DHS developed an enhanced biographic program and
accelerated efforts to improve vetting and screening
capabilities.
DHS still must release overstay numbers in order for VWP
expansion to happen, something they are working on. Combine
this work with the reformed and expanded Visa Waiver Program
and we will have effectively minimized opportunities for the
expansion of terrorist networks. This is a goal I am sure we
all share.
My interest in this issue began, though, even before I took
office. I represent a district that is nearly one-fifth Polish.
Chicago has the highest concentration of Poles of any city
outside of Warsaw. I hear from my Polish community daily about
the unfair law that excludes their country from visa-free
travel. Poland, whose country has fought side-by-side with
Americans in Afghanistan, is among those countries left outside
looking in.
As President Obama acknowledged in Warsaw this year,
Poland's exclusion from VWP is having a detrimental impact on
our relationship with this key ally. Other vital nations, such
as Brazil and Taiwan, are currently excluded from
participation.
So I took action. I introduced H.R. 959, the Secure Travel
and Counterterrorism Partnership Program Act of 2011. The bill
would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to bring
additional eligible countries into the VWP by modifying primary
qualifying criteria for entry. Senators Kirk and Mikulski have
introduced identical language. The Administration formally
supports this language.
This Nation needs to keep its doors open for visits from
its allies. Foreign travelers who come to America gain an
understanding of what makes America great, and they share these
positive experiences with their neighbors. Expansion of the VWP
would bring in tourism dollars and economically stimulate the
travel industry. In 2008, the countries in the VWP generated
more than 16 million visits to the United States, accounting
for 65 percent of all overseas arrivals that year. VWP
travelers spent more than $51 billion in the United States.
International travelers spend three times more than
national travelers when they come to this country. That
spending generated 512,000 jobs, $13 billion in payroll, and
$7.8 billion in taxes for our economy. If properly done,
expansion of the VWP will improve our international
relationships, create jobs, stimulate the economy, and, again,
let me repeat, make us safer.
There are 36 countries currently designated for visa-free
travel under the program, all of which must sign information-
sharing agreements with the U.S. and qualify under certain
enumerators regarding refusals at consular offices abroad. The
U.S. Government maintains that there are significant security
benefits from having countries enter into the required info-
sharing agreements and to report lost and stolen passports
promptly, in addition to the economic and diplomatic benefits
accrued from more travel to the U.S.
As I conclude my remarks, I am hopeful that those with
questions will ask them of our panelists and that they will
listen to the answers. I wholly believe that today's outdated
visa regime reflects neither the current strategic relationship
nor the close, historic bonds between our peoples. I look
forward to today's discussion and thank the Committee for its
indulgence.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quigley follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mike Quigley,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois
__________
Mr. Quigley. And, Mr. Chairman, at whatever points of
procedures you deem appropriate, I will for the record ask that
a letter of support from the President; testimony from Senator
Kirk; testimony from Roger J. Dow, President and CEO of the
U.S. Travel Association; testimony from the U.S.-Poland
Business Council; letters of support from the Discover America
Partnership, the Polish American Chamber of Commerce, the
Embassy of the Republic of Croatia, and the Embassy of Romania,
as well as the Kosciuszko Foundation, be submitted for the
record.
Mr. Gallegly. If that is a unanimous-consent request, I
would----
Mr. Quigley. It is.
Mr. Gallegly. So it will be made a part of the record of
the hearing, without objection.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The material referred to follows:]
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Quigley, do you agree that if a country
does not meet the requirements to sign the agreements that the
country should not be designated?
Mr. Quigley. Yes. Countries need to meet the requirements.
The bill in question does not lax the requirements. It believes
that the Department of Homeland Security and even in the last
few months has gotten even more prepared for having a
protective system using visa waiver.
Mr. Gallegly. Would you agree that additional resources
would be necessary to support ICE? And if you do agree with
that, would you support additional resources be available to
devote specifically to identification information, our removal
of foreign nationals who overstay their allotted time in the
U.S.?
Mr. Quigley. Well, I do, but I think the Chairman, with all
due respect--and I would defer some of this to the Assistant
Secretary--I believe that there will be some cost-shifting.
I do believe two things: that there are lost opportunities,
financially, by not having a Visa Waiver Program. That is money
that doesn't come to our country in the form of tax dollars at
the Federal, State, and local level.
I also believe that by not having this program it ties up
our consular offices in other regards for people having to go
through a visa process. So, by reducing the burden in one area,
reducing the burden on people putting visa processes together,
it frees up those resources to deal with what is needed to have
an appropriate Visa Waiver Program.
Mr. Gallegly. I would yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, first, before asking anything, I would
just like to offer my praise to you, Congressman, for the
leadership that you have shown in this area.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. And, you know, when I think about the citizens
of Poland and how they are fighting side-by-side with American
soldiers in Afghanistan, and then to think that their fellow
countrymen have been excluded from this program, you know, it
really is an incentive to make sure that this works properly.
And your efforts are obviously key and in the forefront on
this.
I just--you know, one of the things that I have often
thought is that, you know, the refusal rate of consular offices
has--there is almost no relationship to anything. And your bill
actually tries to tag a metric that is actually meaningful.
One of the things that we need to do is to be able to
calculate that, and I wonder if you would like to share any
thoughts on how that might progress.
Mr. Quigley. Well, I agree that the overstay rate makes
more sense. I think that the other process of trying to
determine whether or not someone will overstay or a guess is
very subjective, and it is a more appropriate tool to gauge
with overstay rates, numbers that I believe we will be getting
rather soon. And, again, I would defer to the Assistant
Secretary to talk about how that process will work.
But I do agree with your earlier statements, as well. This
is very important from a diplomatic point of view. You don't
have to just go to the point of Poland defending us and working
with us, with boots on the ground in Afghanistan and other
locations. You can go back a hundred years, in terms of the
relationship between the United States and Poland. And,
unfortunately, I believe we have let them down at several key
junctures. And they are literally the front line, and have been
for a long time, in protecting this country and Europe from
various threats.
So I believe the Assistant Secretary can go into more
details, but I do think your point is well taken, that gauging
overstay makes far more sense than someone's subjective
determination guessing how someone will act when they are in
this country. I do believe the improved--the historical
analysis, biographical data, will be very, very important as it
continues to improve, actually far better than biometric in
making us safe and making sure that we know who is coming over
and how long they are here.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I thank you. And I know that each one of
us has multiple obligations all at the same time, so I won't
burden you with additional questions. Just to thank you once
again for being here and for your leadership on the subject.
And I would yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
And I would certainly invite Mr. Quigley to sit at the dais
for the rest of the hearing if he opts to.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
Mr. Gallegly. But since he is not a Member of the
Committee, he can't participate in the questions and answers,
as is the case with my good friend Mr. Chabot, who we certainly
invite to share the dais with us.
And thank you very much for being here, Mike.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you so much for having me.
Mr. Gallegly. Our second panel, if you would step forward.
I would like to welcome our very distinguished panel of
witnesses today.
Each witness' written statement will be entered into the
record in its entirety. I would ask each witness to please
summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes so that everyone
will have a chance to have an opportunity to ask questions.
And, with that, I would like to introduce our first
witness, Mr. David Heyman. Mr. Heyman is Assistant Secretary
for Policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In
addition to his time at DHS, Mr. Heyman has served as a senior
advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Energy and at the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy. Mr. Heyman received
his B.A. From Brandeis University and his master's degree from
Johns Hopkins University of Advanced International Studies.
Our second witness today, Mr. Richard Stana, serves as
director of homeland security and justice issues at the U.S.
Government Accountability Office. During his nearly 35-year
career with the GAO, he has served in headquarters, field, and
overseas offices and has directed reviews on a wide variety of
complex military and domestic issues. Most recently, he has
directed GAO's work relating to immigration and border security
issues. Mr. Stana earned a master's degree in business
administration, with a concentration in financial management,
from Kent State University.
Our third witness, Dr. James Jay Carafano, is director of
The Heritage Foundation's Center for Foreign Policy Studies as
well as the deputy director of the Institute for International
Studies. He joined Heritage as a senior research fellow. Dr.
Carafano is a graduate of West Point. He holds a master's
degree and doctorate from Georgetown University as well as a
master's degree in strategy from the U.S. Army War College.
Our fourth witness, Ms. Jessica Vaughan, is the policy
director at the Center for Immigration Studies. She has been
with the Center since 1991, where her area of expertise is
administration and implementation of immigration policy. Prior
to joining the Center, Ms. Vaughan was a foreign service
officer with the U.S. State Department. She holds a master's
degree from Georgetown University and a bachelor's degree from
Washington College in Maryland.
So, with that, we will start with you, Mr. Heyman. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID F. HEYMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Heyman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank
you, other distinguished Members, for the opportunity to appear
before the Subcommittee today. I also want to thank you just
for holding the hearing. This is an important program and an
important hearing as such.
I think most people take for granted that they can travel
to a large part of the world without a visa, but visa-free
travel to the United States is actually relatively new. In
1986, Congress established a pilot project to facilitate low-
risk travel to the U.S. and help spur trade and tourism. That
program's ability to accomplish these goals has been a success.
In fiscal year 2010, nearly 18 million visitors from visa-
waiver countries constituted approximately two-thirds of all
overseas travelers coming to the United States.
This has great implications for our economy. According to
the Department of Commerce, in 2010 spending by international
travelers to the U.S. directly supported 827,000 jobs.
Moreover, each additional 10 jobs created directly from tourism
expenditures generated approximately 3 to 4 additional jobs
indirectly in service sectors.
Much has changed since the program's inception. Thanks in
large part to congressional action, the Visa Waiver Program has
also evolved over the past 25 years. It is now an essential
tool for increasing security, advancing information sharing,
strengthening international relationships, and promoting
legitimate trade and travel to the United States.
The Visa Waiver Program currently allows eligible nationals
of 36 countries to travel to the U.S. without a visa and, if
admitted, to remain in our country for a maximum of 90 days for
tourist and business purposes. In the last decade, Congress and
the executive branch have worked together to implement a number
of enhancements to the program to address evolving threats to
international travel. And now we see in places it is a
requirement of partner countries and there are key enhancements
in support of and to the benefit of U.S. law enforcement and
security.
Specifically, several unique security benefits accrue to
the United States: the mandatory bilateral information-sharing
agreements regarding potential terrorists and criminals;
sharing of lost and stolen passport data; inspections of visa-
waiver countries' aviation border control and travel document
standards; the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or
ESTA, requirement; and vigorous monitoring of changing
conditions in visa-waiver countries. All of these security
benefits would not accrue without the program.
Two security concerns are often raised when discussing visa
waiver. The first is the notion that Moussaoui and Richard Reid
both came from visa-waiver countries, and the second is that
the Visa Waiver Program lacks a consular interview. In both of
these cases, I would note two important points. First, the
other 19 hijackers had valid visas and interviews. And, second,
more importantly, these events happened in 2001. We have put in
place a post-9/11 travel architecture that didn't exist then:
watchlisting, information sharing, predeparture screening, the
ability to no-board. The Department of Homeland Security had
not even been created.
In my written testimony, I will elaborate further on the
security and economic benefits of this program and provide a
status of the Visa Waiver Program and its implementation.
One element, additional element, I just want to touch on
today has to do with overstays and enhanced exit. I am pleased
to report that the Department has taken a number of steps to
improve its capability to record exits.
First, we are enhancing our existing biographic air exit
system to better be able to match records and, thus, identify
overstays with much greater fidelity. This will allow for
better reporting of data on overstays for visa-waiver and non-
visa-waiver countries alike and improve our ability to
prioritize those who constitute a threat to national security
or public safety.
Second, as is being announced today, perhaps even at this
very moment, by President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister
Harper as part of our U.S. and Canada shared vision of
perimeter security, the Department of Homeland Security is
working to facilitate the exchange of information on U.S. and
Canadian entry records so that an entry in one country becomes
an exit from the other. Thus, when you enter Canada from the
United States, we will be able to register you as exiting from
the United States when this is fully operational in 2014.
Beyond these efforts, we remain committed to introducing
the biometric component to the exit process when it is
financially feasible and benefits are commensurate with the
costs.
Let me close by saying just a word or two about the
legislation proposed by Congressman Quigley, Senators Mikulski
and Kirk. As you may know, President Obama has expressed his
strong support for this legislation. We regard this bill as an
opportunity to expand the substantial security, political, and
economic benefits of a program that has been developed and
strengthened over the span of a quarter of a century.
In conclusion, let me reiterate the valuable contribution
this program brings to our economy and to national security,
and I ask your support for this valuable program, not only for
the benefits, the economic benefits, it provides the country,
but also to the contributions it makes to our national security
and our enduring international partnerships.
Thank you. I am happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heyman follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Heyman.
Mr. Stana?
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD M. STANA, DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND SECURITY
AND JUSTICE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Stana. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member
Lofgren, for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on
the related issues of visa waiver, US-VISIT, and visa
overstays.
Each year, millions of visitors come to the United States
for various reasons like to either tour or for medical reasons
or to visit family. From fiscal years 2005 to 2010, about 98
million visitors came through the Visa Waiver Program for stays
of about 90 days or less. Another 36 million came during that
6-year period for varying durations and for various reasons.
I would like to spend my time in my oral statement to
discuss--really put some perspective and context around some of
the issues and numbers that we have heard about making changes
to the Visa Waiver Program and things that maybe Congress could
consider in that regard.
First, let me begin with a few observations on the Visa
Waiver Program itself. Since the program was made permanent in
2000, we have issued six reports that, when taken together,
show progress that the Department has made in managing the
program, but also show some persistent problems that haven't
gone away yet.
On the positive side, the major information gaps that we
found early on, regarding the reporting of lost and stolen
passports, has pretty much been addressed. And to the
Department's credit and to INTERPOL's credit, 35 of the 36
visa-waiver countries now routinely report, and, although the
information isn't always timely and perfect, it is there.
Another positive is that the Department has put more staff on
the case to manage the program. And DHS has smoothly
implemented ESTA, and now they have about a 99 percent
compliance rate from the airlines.
On the other hand, while over half the countries in the
program have signed the required agreements to share
biographical, biometric, and watchlist information, only
several have actually begun implementing those agreements. And
DHS is more than a year overdue on the required biennial
security risk assessments for half of the visa-waiver
countries, in some cases 2 years or more.
Finally, another challenge is with the ESTA program. The
compliance rate of 99 percent indicates some success, but that
leaves hundreds of thousands of travelers who are not cleared
before boarding airlines to the United States. In 2010, there
were 360,000 such passengers. And, upon reflection, it appears
that about at least 650 should have not been permitted to
board. DHS has begun to analyze a small portion of these cases
to see if they are of legitimate concern or if there is a
systemic weakness to the program.
Now, related to the integrity of the Visa Waiver Program is
our ability to determine traveler compliance with the terms of
their visas. And this gets us into US-VISIT. Since 2002, DHS
obligated about $193 million to develop air, sea, and land exit
solutions, but, again, there is good news and there is some
not-so-good news.
The good news is, on the entry side, it is pretty well up
and running at the 300 land, air, and sea ports of entry, and
it appears to generally be working well, in that biometric
information is collected and used by our officers at ports of
entry and by consular officials overseas.
The not-so-good news is that the exit records are not
there. We do not have a biometric exit capability at airports,
seaports, and land ports. We have biographic information from
airline departure manifests that could help identify overstays,
and ICE uses it for that purpose. But, again, DHS does not,
itself, use that information for mandatory and statutory
reports on overstay rates. So doing a country-by-country
assessment would be even more difficult.
Finally, let's talk about overstays. The Pew Hispanic
research center in 2006 estimated that about one-third to one-
half of the illegal alien population in the United States
entered with a valid visa and overstayed. That is a very large
figure. To its credit, ICE uses a risk-management process to
focus its attention on the greatest security risk of those it
identifies. But, again, you are talking about ICE arresting
only about 1,200 visa overstays per year, against 4.5 million
to 5 million overstays in the United States. Clearly, DHS and
ICE need to do more to get on top of that issue.
In closing, we recognize that the Visa Waiver Program can
help to find the appropriate balance between facilitating
legitimate travel and attending to security concerns. Much
progress has been made to shore up the vulnerabilities that we
identified, and we are in a much better position today than we
were when the program started to address these concerns.
Now, that said, we also recognize that the program has lots
of information gaps and management challenges and that adding
more countries before addressing these gaps and challenges
could further strain ICE's and DHS's ability to effectively
manage this program. We have made a number of recommendations
to DHS and State to help ensure that visa-waiver countries meet
the stringent criteria that Congress established for meeting
the program's security requirements.
This concludes my oral statement, and I would be happy to
answer any questions that the Subcommittee Members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stana follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Stana.
Dr. Carafano?
TESTIMONY OF JAMES JAY CARAFANO, DIRECTOR, DOUGLAS AND SARAH
ALLISON CENTER FOR FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE
KATHRYN AND SHELBY CULLOM DAVIS INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Carafano. Thank you, sir. And I would like to thank the
Committee for holding this important hearing.
I believe that this is the single most important visa issue
that the Congress and the President can address, just because
the majority of visitors who come lawfully through this country
use this visa program, so it is our single most important visa
program, but also because this is the wave of the future. If
you go out there, you look at the trends in international
travel and when you look at countries who are doing innovative
work like Australia, this is the trend of where we are going.
So this is the future. And getting this program right, well, I
don't think, in terms of international travel, anything is more
important.
The Heritage Foundation, I am very proud to say, has
dedicated substantial resources to looking at homeland security
issues. I believe that we have the largest--and I am proud of
the work that we have done. And in every issue that we have
looked at, we have held the same standard, which was we insist
on programs and answers and solutions that keep the Nation
safe, free, and prosperous, and we won't compromise on any
three of those objectives. And there are few issues that we
have dedicated more resource and time to than looking at the
Visa Waiver Program.
So, in my testimony, I wanted to highlight what I thought
really are the key issues to be addressed. The first one is the
linkage between biometric exit and authority for visa-waiver
caps. The second is the issue of using refusal rates versus
overstay rates for authority to enter into an agreement to the
program and to remain in the program as a country. And the
third is the future of the Visa Waiver Program. And I would
like to address each of those very, very quickly.
On the first, whatever--you know, I am not going to--I
mean, it doesn't make any sense to really look at whatever the
rationale was and why people thought biometric exit was a
really great idea or why linking that to the Visa Waiver
Program was a really good idea. And, you know, I can make
arguments either way. Those arguments were made several years
ago, and I think we have to evaluate where the program is and
where its future is going based on the reality today.
So, by our count, there have been at least 43 known
terrorist attacks aimed at the United States since 9/11 that
have been thwarted--43. Increasingly, most of those have been
homegrown. Increasingly, I believe you have to give a lot of
the credit for that for the fact that the United States and
countries that have adopted similar initiatives to the United
States, like Australia, are becoming harder targets for
transnational terrorists. So, from a criminal perspective or
from a terrorist perspective, what we are doing must be
working.
And I think you have to look at not just an individual
program like Visa Waiver but the complement of all the tools
that we are using to thwart criminal and terrorist travel, when
you really evaluate that and to figure out what additional
value, either from an immigration perspective or criminal law
enforcement perspective or counterterrorism perspective, that
biometric brings to the table. And I think it is very, very
difficult to argue, that you would really only gain very, very
marginal benefits at all, at extremely significant additional
cost. So I really don't see where the cost-benefit analysis of
linking those two programs together, at this point in time,
really makes sense anymore.
On refusal versus overstay rates, I think the issues on
refusal rates as a valid predictor and as a measure of overstay
propensity are legion. We have had them for years. Clearly, the
standard by which we run the program, overstay would be a much,
much more effective metric. We should move toward that metric.
And it is important to get that metric right because it is
valuable for determining whether countries should not just
enter the program but whether they should remain in the program
and also to identify what are the best practices, what are the
lessons learned, what are the ways to adapt and improve the
program over time. So I think moving toward the overstay rate
is not only the right metric, it is the metric that we need to
really evaluate and keep this program healthy for decades to
come.
On the third issue of whether the Visa Waiver Program--it
is estimated in about 10 years the value of international
travel is going to double, to about $2 trillion. The U.S.
percentage of that is shrinking, and it is going to shrink in
the future if we don't improve access to this country. And that
is not just an economic issue, although right now I think it
supports millions of--2 million plus jobs on international
travel, but it is going to affect us in terms of public
diplomacy, in terms of intellectual capital, and a whole other
realm. We have to get back into the business of bringing people
safely into this country.
We really have two alternative strategies: expanding and
improving visa-waiver or expanding visa-access programs, or
lowering the standards for visa-access programs. Expanding the
speed of the way we issue visas would require significant
capital investments or lowering standards, which would increase
risks. I think the alternative of enhancing the Visa Waiver
Program and using that as an instrument to bridge to the future
is a much, much more cost-effective way of getting back our
legitimate share of international travel.
And, conversely, of course, as you add countries to the
program, you free up resources, not just in the State
Department but in DHS, for strengthening the Visa Waiver
Program and focusing visa resources on countries that are truly
countries of concern.
And so what would my recommendation be? It would be that,
look, this Administration needs to learn how to walk and chew
gum; they need to learn how to expand this program and how to
address and strengthen the management of the program at the
same time.
The new countries that are coming into the program, they
are not the problem. They are the most compliant, they most
want to be there, they are the least security risk. And when
you bring these countries into the program, that actually, I
think, strengthens your position to go to existing countries in
the program and present them with the challenge of meeting the
standards that other countries have demonstrated that they can
meet. You learn new lessons. I mean, you know, we have already
seen this with United States and Australia, where as we make
initiatives, they are learning--as we are making initiatives,
they are learning from us. So I think bringing countries into
the program actually is going to allow us to pull other
countries which are not quite up to standard yet into the
future.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carafano follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Vaughan?
TESTIMONY OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY STUDIES,
CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Ms. Vaughan. Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
In my view, these proposals to modify the Visa Waiver
Program, with the result that would expand participation in it,
are very premature. We have heard about some of the benefits of
the program, which are real, for foreign visitors, obviously,
and also the travel industry and the State Department. And we
are all aware of the risks and problems that are associated
with any relaxation of entry requirements and screening--not
just security risks, which other experts here have emphasized
today, but also the problems associated with illegal
immigration.
The risk I see is that if the Visa Waiver Program is
modified or expanded before better security measures, better
visitor tracking, and better interior immigration law
enforcement is in place, Americans are going to be more
vulnerable to attack and more exposed to transnational crime
and the country is going to experience even more illegal
immigration, all of which comes at enormous fiscal and social
cost to the Nation.
And I would also argue that, yes, the program has worked
well in expanding travel here, but part of the reason for that
is because we have been relatively strict about which countries
are admitted.
We have heard from Mr. Heyman about the potential for very
important security enhancements that we hope will eventually be
implemented, but, at this time, most of those enhancements are
really very much aspirational. We really need to give DHS a
chance to catch up and develop tools to evaluate the results
since the last major expansion of the program, which occurred
right in the middle of some enormous economic and political
upheaval.
And, of course, we can still pursue security enhancements,
like information sharing, even outside of the framework of the
Visa Waiver Program. There is no reason we can't seek those
agreements, regardless, with these other countries.
Mr. Stana has covered most of the issues related to the
Department of Homeland Security's slow progress in meeting
congressional expectations, so I am going to focus my remarks
mainly on the issue of overstay metrics.
But before I do, I just want to make one quick comment
about ESTA. I agree that ESTA can help determine--can help with
screening people for terrorism ties or criminal ties. But one
thing that ESTA cannot do is help overcome a country's basic
issues with eligibility and compliance. Just because someone is
not a known terrorist or a criminal, which is what mainly ESTA
can determine, does not mean that they qualify for entry.
So what kind of overstay metrics do we need? Well, we have
known for some time that visa overstayers represent about 4
million to 6 million people within the illegal alien
population. A few have become terrorists; some commit crimes.
But, in general, they are costly to the taxpayers, based on
reputable studies, that is about between $3 billion and $5
billion every year.
We also know that we need better data, but I question
whether the biographic matching system that DHS has proposed,
based on ADIS, will be able to deliver what Congress mandated
and what Federal agencies need to maintain the integrity of the
system. Since ADIS is maintained by the airlines, not the
government, there could be data integrity problems. It is not
biometric, so it can't actually authenticate the identity of
travelers. It is more susceptible to fraud. The users of the
system tell me that, as it is operating now, because it is
biographic, it can have difficulty producing matches. And it is
so inexact that sometimes people using it either get hundreds
of matches, which is not helpful, or none at all because the
system can't match records where people change their names.
I would agree with Mr. Carafano that once we have credible
data, the overstay rates are superior to refusal rates for
determining likely compliance from visitors. But I would
caution that they should not be considered in isolation from
refusal rates or other key metrics like adjustment-of-status
requests and so on.
And it is certainly premature to speculate about what an
acceptable overstay rate might be because we have no reliable
information about what is happening now. A low overstay rate
might be an indication of a high refusal rate that is right-on,
or it could be an indication for countries, for example, from
the Western Hemisphere, where a lot of the people who are
coming here illegally are actually entering over the land
border, not with visas. So mere reliance on the overstay rate
is going to be misleading with some of those countries.
Obviously, we have to accept some risk in our admissions,
and we know that there are going to be mistakes. Therefore, we
also have to make sure that we have a satisfactory level of
interior immigration law enforcement. And, right now, we don't
have that.
There are 2 million, roughly, criminal aliens living here,
according to ICE. There are about 7 million illegal aliens
working here in jobs that we need for Americans and legal
immigrants. We have sanctuary cities and States that refuse to
cooperate with Federal efforts and attract illegal immigration.
We don't have mandatory status verification at the workplace.
And the current Administration is broadcasting that it is
targeting only those illegal aliens who are convicted of
serious offenses for enforcement.
So expanding the Visa Waiver Program too fast or
irresponsibly is going to make it that much harder for ICE, and
the price will be paid by those Americans who are victims of
crimes committed by people who shouldn't be here or who lose
job opportunities.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan.
Mr. Heyman, DHS has told the Committee staff that DHS has
identified 757,000 in-country overstay leads. How many agents
does DHS currently have that are specifically assigned to make
sure that those 757,000 illegal immigrants are located and
deported? How many specifically do you have assigned to take on
the task of 757,000? Is it less than 10,000?
Mr. Heyman. So let me give you context of that number. This
summer, we decided, as part of our review of the Visa Waiver
Program and looking at overstays, to make an effort to--there
was a 1.6 million backlog dating back to 2004. We ran it
through a number of databases, which we had not done before
previously. And just in the checks against the databases, we
were able to get--all but 757,000 were cleared, as in people
who had left the country or changed status or otherwise. The
757,000 possible overstays were then vetted by CBP and the
National Counterterrorism Center for national security and
other rules, and we were able to get that number down even
further.
Let me tell you the--jump ahead to the short story. The
investigative leads that came out of that numbered only in the
couple of dozens after we ran through the number of data checks
and evaluations. And, of those, we--ICE was given those leads,
a number of them were duplicate records, a number of them were
people who were in status, some were departed. The answer is,
it came up with only two investigations that were required by
the field, and they both turned out not to be of concern.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Heyman, I understand all the wonderful
work they are doing. I am just trying to determine whether we
have enough wonderful people to do all the work that needs to
be done.
Of the 757,000--I will ask the question one more time--how
many people are specifically tasked to--I would like--
obviously, you have to have an exact number or within two or
three.
Mr. Heyman. Yeah, there are sufficient resources for the
internal enforcement, which is now based upon prosecutorial
discretion. And, as I said, the 757,000--we are not required to
do field investigations.
Mr. Gallegly. Okay. Can you tell me how many people
specifically are assigned just for the purpose of field
investigation?
Mr. Heyman. It is in the thousands. I will get you the
exact number.
Mr. Gallegly. I am sorry?
Mr. Heyman. It is in the thousands. I will get you the
exact number.
Mr. Gallegly. Okay. I would appreciate that, and we will
make it a part of the record of the hearing.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Of the 757,000, or whatever that magic number
is, in the last 12 months how many have been deported?
Mr. Heyman. As I said, those are not all overstays. The
number actually gets down to about two investigations. One was
somebody who was a changed status, so they were legitimately
present, and one who had already left the country.
Mr. Gallegly. Of all of those that--and we do know that
there are a lot of individuals in this country that are clearly
visa overstays. In fact, when we talk about all the illegal
alien problems that we have in this country, it is not just the
folks crossing the southern border. And I think most would
agree that that number is somewhere around 40 percent of the
people that are illegally in this country are visa overstays.
Is that not correct?
Mr. Heyman. I think that is correct.
Mr. Gallegly. Okay. Now, if you could please tell me, of
the 11 million, 20 million, or whatever that would be overstays
in this country, how many were formally--how many were removed
from the country last year, a number?
Mr. Heyman. I don't have that number for you.
Mr. Gallegly. Would you say it is less than 500,000?
Mr. Heyman. Yes.
Mr. Gallegly. Less than 100,000?
Mr. Heyman. I don't have that number for you. I can get it
for you.
Mr. Gallegly. Probably less than 10,000?
Mr. Heyman. Well, what we have done is we are looking at
the national security and public safety risk. And we have made
every attempt to investigate those of concern----
Mr. Gallegly. Sir, with all due respect, public safety is
our primary responsibility, but the law also calls for this. If
you don't have enough folks, say, ``We need more help,'' and I
would like to know what that number is.
So, obviously, you don't know what the number is, you don't
know how many people you have working out there, you don't know
how many people have been removed. I would think that number
would be fairly simple to come up with.
Dr. Carafano, you have stated that you believe that the
biometric program needs to be reassessed; is that correct?
Mr. Carafano. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. Could you tell me, when an immigrant that has
a visa leaves this country, what better method do you have of
identifying whether they actually left than through a biometric
program?
Mr. Carafano. Well, the question is, what is the additional
value of that biometric qualification versus a biographic
qualification.
Mr. Gallegly. Well, identification, I would think, would be
one----
Mr. Carafano. So, obviously, you could spend a billion
dollars and have a home that is perfectly secure, and then you
could ask, okay, well, if I just got a burglar alarm and locked
my doors, which maybe I would spend $100 for, is that
reasonable security? And I think the answer is, we have to make
a decision about what is reasonable versus what is----
Mr. Gallegly. So, in other words, you would, kind of, maybe
prefer the honor system?
Mr. Carafano. No, sir, I think I have very carefully stated
not. I think biographic data is perfectly adequate for what the
system is intended for, which is to show you trends and
compliance with the law. If you are interested in tracking
specific individuals because they are a terrorist concern or a
criminal concern or because there is some kind of immigration
concern, there is plenty of data in the current system to find
and track those individuals.
So if you are asking me if it is worth it to spend all that
additional money to gain very little additional capability, I
would tell you ``no.'' It would be like somebody who wanted to
take a trip, you know, downtown, and instead of going in a
Piper Cub, they said, ``No, I want an F-35.''
Mr. Gallegly. Well, I am not sure I understand that
specific analogy, and reasonable minds can differ.
I would yield to the gentlelady, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I listened here to the witness from The Heritage
Foundation, it is pretty clear that having an expanded Visa
Waiver Program--you are the conservative think tank. I mean,
this is not some flighty liberal proposal. And I think it is
important to be very hardheaded about what is being discussed
here.
Mr. Gallegly. But--would the gentlelady just yield for a
moment? Just for the record----
Ms. Lofgren. I would yield.
Mr. Gallegly. Just for the record, Mr. Carafano is the
Democrats' witness today.
Ms. Lofgren. That is right. And it is a sad day when the
Democrats have to invite the conservative Heritage Foundation.
But I was happy to do it to make this point, and I think it is
an important one. This is a mainstream proposal, and it is
accountable.
You know, I think it is important to be practical and to
weigh apples to apples. We are talking about 757,000 potential
overstays. Some of those are duplicates, so it is not that
high. But those include--that is not visa-waiver people; that
is everybody. It is people who came in with visas, people who
came in with visa waivers. So to say that somehow that is an
argument against the Visa Waiver Program is completely
illogical.
And it is important to note that if you are in the Visa
Waiver Program, it doesn't mean that you have a right to enter
if we think there is a problem with you. That is why the
background is done and the enhanced background is done, and you
are turned away if there is a reason why you should not be
admitted to the United States.
So I would like to actually ask you, Mr. Heyman--and I
thank you for being here--what is the enhanced information that
we get on this Visa Waiver Program?
And confirm this information, if you will. It is my
understanding that all the newcomers into the Visa Waiver
Program have complied with all of the requirements. The only
issue in terms of lagging on compliance is the countries that
were in from before the new ones were added. Is that correct?
And then please describe why this makes us safer. I mean,
what else do we get for nations that join in to this program?
Mr. Heyman. Thank you for the question.
It is true that the implementation of the Visa Waiver
Program has been much more than aspirational. There are about
five or six requirements that are fully implemented. Secure
travel documents are now fully implemented, including e-
passports; that is fully implemented, that requirement. The
lost and stolen passports, as we heard from the GAO, has been
fully implemented, 35 out of 36 of the countries. The ESTA
program is now fully implemented, 99.5 percent compliant. And
we have continuous and vigorous monitoring across all the
countries as it pertains to aviation security and border
security.
So, absolutely right, these are actually in--programs that
have been implemented. Some of the information-sharing
agreements need to get concluded. We are on track for getting
those concluded next year. And then it requires those partner
countries to have their technology updated, to have their
legislation passed, so that they can actually implement it
fully.
Ms. Lofgren. Just a comment before I do a follow-up. I was
interested in Ms. Vaughan's testimony. And we get classified
briefings from time to time, and obviously we can't go into
what we are told in the classified briefings, but I think we
are allowed to say what we are not told. And we get reports on
who is coming across the land border by ethnicity and by
country. And I have never been told that anybody from Brazil
has been apprehended. So that is not a violation of our oath;
it is what we were never told in a classified setting. And I
just thought it was important to make that point.
Getting to the cost-benefit analysis, I mean, unless we
want to have no one enter the United States, which would be a
catastrophe for our country, how do we best spend our funds to
make sure that we have the most vigorous system to protect our
security?
Mr. Heyman, you and also Mr. Carafano suggested that the
biographic system is worthy of expansion. And I am wondering if
some of the money that has been programmed for the biometric
system that really hasn't been implemented because--you know, I
know the pilot program really didn't work except when it was
at, you know, the door of the airplane--whether that would be a
source that could be used to really upgrade this biographic
system well.
I mean, Mr. Carafano and Mr. Heyman, maybe you could both
comment on that.
Mr. Heyman. Sure.
Look, the enhanced biographic exit program that we are in
the process of implementing provides greater fidelity of the
data for overstays. That will be helpful for the Visa Waiver
Program. As everyone, I think, on this panel has acknowledged,
that is a better metric, a useful metric for visa-waiver
designation. It will also help us in terms of the ability to do
better targeting for enforcement actions and the like.
The process of implementing that is on the order of--for
automating that--we can do it manually now with great fidelity,
but it takes a lot of resources, somewhere between $15 million
and $20-some-odd million. It would be useful to take the
biometric resources to help us on that right now, particularly
given that biometric estimates, at the minimum, are somewhere
at $3 billion to have an effective biometric program.
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Before my time is up, Mr. Carafano, do you want to briefly
comment on that?
Mr. Carafano. Well, I have been in this business a long
time. You know, if this was a mandate that could have been
easily fulfilled, it would have been fulfilled back in the
1990's when it was first implemented. I don't think we are
arguing between biographic versus biometric because I doubt
this government is ever going to be able to afford or implement
biometric. So I really think we are kind of having a false
debate here.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Before I yield back, I would just like to echo your
comments, Mr. Chairman, about Mr. Stana and his long service to
our country.
And I guess this is your last hearing. It is great to see
you, and we appreciate you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stana. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do thank the witnesses. And I especially thank Mr. Stana
for a lot of years of service. And I am sure that I have
contributed to the difficult times of your service here. I
appreciate the product that came from that hard work.
And, first, I would just turn to Mr. Heyman. I am trying to
understand here what our optimum policy is and what we would
like to do. You know, we should all start with, if we could
draw this out so it is the best it could possibly be and then
work on how we get to that goal. And so I am looking at a Visa
Waiver Program, a US-VISIT program, a prosecutorial discretion
policy that may be a program for administrative amnesty, the
way I see it. I have not seen the will within an Administration
to enforce immigration law since I have been close enough to
actually look. And so I lack a lot of confidence in what we
might do to grant more license for more open borders because I
don't quite see yet--I don't see the philosophy, I don't see
the mission within the Administration, this one or the previous
three.
And so I would just take you to this. If you could have
this thing operating, functioning the way you would like to
have it function, without regard to the cost or the ability to
put the resources together--and Christmas is coming--what would
your ask be?
Mr. Heyman. Well, the best ask for the quickest turnaround
for the most fidelity both for enforcement but also for visa-
waiver expansion would be to get the enhanced biographic exit
system up and automated as soon as possible. It is a few
million dollars. It would be worth doing.
The ability to track and monitor overstays--and I should
just add for the record that, in our pilots looking at the data
to make sure we could have better fidelity of overstays, it is
quite clear that the visa-waiver countries are substantially
lower in terms of overstays than other countries. And I think
it is something that will bear out as we are able to get that
data up and useful.
Mr. King. We still, though, have this situation, if we had
US-VISIT working in and out, and they were biometric, then we
would have finally that list of those people that are here in
the United States and we would have the definitive list of the
overstays that the Chairman says might be 757,000. I don't see
any heartburn about that growing number of people here in the
United States--or there is a little, I hear a little, but I
don't see it being led with that policy.
So do you have a sense of what the price is to this society
for the, I will say, criminal actions that take place here in
the United States because of visa overstays?
Mr. Heyman. So I would just like to say that, first and
foremost, I think this Administration has an outstanding record
of enforcement actions, having record removals for this year
beyond any other preceding years. And I think that that speaks
for itself.
I do think that, if you look at overstays, you are going to
have to make the distinction between those that are of national
security or public safety concern versus those that are not.
The proper----
Mr. King. Does the law make that distinction?
Mr. Heyman. Sorry?
Mr. King. Does the law make that distinction?
Mr. Heyman. The law does not make that distinction, but
what makes that distinction, as is the case for all----
Mr. King. Is prosecutorial discretion.
Mr. Heyman. Yeah, is the ability for us to provide guidance
given limited resources. There is no way we could do
everything, and so we have to make distinctions on what is more
important. We are going to take those criminal actions----
Mr. King. Mr. Heyman, would you be more comfortable if
Congress actually granted prosecutorial discretion and defined
the difference between visa overstay people according to who is
a risk and who isn't?
Mr. Heyman. Well, I would leave it to Congress to do that,
although there is a history of every Attorney General, I think,
going back, you know, throughout history, of using that.
Mr. King. That is a long discussion on prosecutorial
discretion, but I think this Administration has taken it as far
as any I have seen, at least with regard to immigration.
And it seems to me this House, at least, voted to make it a
crime for overstaying a visa some years ago. Do you recall
that?
Mr. Heyman. Yes.
Mr. King. And do you think it might be a good idea for this
Congress to come back and revisit that and perhaps draw that
distinction so it would be easier for the prosecutorial
discretion appliers to determine between a dangerous and a
nondangerous visa overstayer? And perhaps we might be able to
draft into law that if someone is a risk to society, we will
make it a crime for them to overstay their visa, but if they
are not, we just kind of let them go and be part of that
757,000?
Mr. Heyman. Well, one of the things that the Visa Waiver
Program does which is, I think, unique to the Visa Waiver
Program is it allows us to do this advance screening for the
ESTA program. So we are actually doing----
Mr. King. Is that biometric?
Mr. Heyman. That is biographic, but you do collect the
biometrics for ESTA.
And one of the things we do prior to anybody giving travel
authorization is we screen them against all the immigration
databases to see if they violated the immigration laws, to see
if there are overstay records, as well as all the terrorist and
criminal----
Mr. King. I thank you, Mr. Heyman.
I would like to turn quickly to Mr. Stana and wouldn't want
to let you leave this hearing without getting asked one last
question before you go off into retirement.
But do you have any knowledge of the price to society for
those who have, one category, illegally crossed the border into
the United States and the other half of that category being
those visa overstayers? Do you have a sense in the loss in
American life that would be the cumulative loss of life here in
the United States due to people who have overstayed their visas
and/or crossed the border illegally?
Mr. Stana. I don't know that anyone has calculated the loss
of economic opportunity or loss of life owing to the illegal
alien population in the United States. As you know, there are
thousands and thousands of illegal aliens, criminal aliens, who
are in our Federal, State, and local prisons. They run up the
cost to the American taxpayer in terms of per diems and other
costs that way, costs to law enforcement.
So those costs are there and they are documented, and I
believe a report that we did for you not all that many months
ago documented that. But, beyond that, the loss of life, the
lost economic opportunity of a victim, I don't recall seeing
any data like that.
It is interesting when you make the distinction between
overstays and other illegal aliens, because the overstays, you
might argue, are subject to far less enforcement action. About
3 percent of ICE enforcement resources are devoted to the
overstay population. And this number we are throwing around of
757,000, that is the top of the funnel. By the time it gets
down, you are talking about 1,200 arrests a year. And, of
those, it is hard to say how many are actually deported. There
might be delays in deportation because they are in jails or
they are awaiting deportation for another reason. But this
757,000 winnows down to a little over 1,000 a year.
Mr. King. Does 25,064 homicide arrests of criminal aliens
ring a bell?
Mr. Stana. Yes, it does. That was in the report.
Mr. King. Thank you very much, Mr. Stana.
I thank all the witnesses. I regret I am out of time, and I
yield back the balance of whatever might be available.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman from Iowa.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today to
help us better understand what our policies are.
I would like to direct this question to Mr. Heyman. I think
you would be the correct one. And maybe this was discussed
before, maybe everyone else knows; I don't. How does a country
indicate its interest? Do we initiate invitations to countries,
or do countries apply, or how does this happen, for them to
become a part of the program?
Mr. Heyman. Thank you. No, it has not been discussed.
Countries indicate usually to the State Department
officially that they are interested in being designated a visa-
waiver country. They oftentimes will also approach the
Department for technical discussions about what the
requirements are, how does one become designated. And then they
must meet the obligations set forth by Congress to be
designated.
Ms. Waters. I noticed that there are no African countries
that are part of the acceptable countries that are in the
program. Do you know if there have been any applications from
any African countries?
Mr. Heyman. No. And what I do know is that the countries
have not met the requirements as set by Congress at this point,
and that is probably why you haven't seen them.
Ms. Waters. All African countries that have applied have
not met the requirements?
Mr. Heyman. Those who have requested, and I don't think we
have had very many.
Ms. Waters. That have requested?
Mr. Heyman. Yes.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
I will yield to the gentlelady from California. She has
some more questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you to my colleague.
I just wanted to make a quick comment on Mr. King's point,
because I think there has been a lot of beating up of the
Administration for its priorities. But there is an express
requirement in 6 U.S. Code 202 that directs the Department of
Homeland Security to establish, quote, ``national immigration
enforcement priorities and policies.'' And, for years, the
appropriations bills have directed that additional enforcement
and funding for removal priorities, including through Secure
Communities and 287(g) and the Criminal Alien Program, be
directed toward removal of criminal aliens.
So I just thought it was worth getting that on the record.
And I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And we yield back our
time.
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection, that will be added to the
record.
And I would like to thank all of our witnesses today and,
again, recognize Mr. Stana for his years of dedicated service.
I know I have had the honor of participating in many hearings
where he has testified.
And I want to say, for myself and I am sure the Committee,
how much we appreciate your public service and wish you well in
your retirement years. Lots of blue skies and green lights to
you.
Mr. Stana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a privilege
to work for GAO and for the Committee.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you so much.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
witnesses, which we will forward and ask the witnesses to
respond as promptly as possible so that the answers can be made
a part of the record of the hearing.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record.
And, with that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from David F. Heyman, Assistant
Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security