[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WELCOMING BUSINESS TRAVELERS AND TOURISTS TO AMERICA ACT OF 2011
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 3039
__________
MAY 17, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-107
__________
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
74-260 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
Richard Hertling, Staff Director and Chief 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
----------
MAY 17, 2012
Page
THE BILL
H.R. 3039, the ``Welcoming Business Travelers and Tourists to
America Act of 2011''.......................................... 3
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............................. 12
WITNESSES
The Honorable Joe Heck, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Janice L. Kephart, Director of National Security Policy, Center
for Immigration Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 28
Prepared Statement............................................. 31
Jessica Zuckerman, Research Associate, Allison Center for Foreign
Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Oral Testimony................................................. 43
Prepared Statement............................................. 45
Edward Allen, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, Council on
Foreign Relations
Oral Testimony................................................. 50
Prepared Statement............................................. 52
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Response from Jessica Zuckerman, Research Associate, Allison
Center for Foreign Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation..... 60
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 63
WELCOMING BUSINESS TRAVELERS AND TOURISTS TO AMERICA ACT OF 2011
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:08 p.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton
Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, King, and
Lofgren.
Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Marian
White, Clerk; and (Minority) Gary Merson, Counsel.
Mr. Gallegly. I call the Subcommittee to order. Today we
are conducting a hearing on H.R. 3039, the ``Welcoming Business
Travelers and Tourists to America Act of 2011.''
The legislation raises important issues, including how we
balance our Nation's security and counterterrorism efforts with
our desire to encourage increased tourism and more visitors
from foreign countries.
H.R. 3039 requires the Secretary of State to process visas
for Chinese, Indians and Brazilians within 12 days. The bill
also requires the Secretary to conduct a pilot program using
videoconferencing to interview visa applicants. Supporters
believe videoconferencing should be used in remote areas far
from a U.S. consulate office.
The bill also allows the Secretary to increase the period
of visa validity for individuals from a certain country
regardless of the reciprocal visa validity period for Americans
traveling to that country.
I am looking forward to the hearing from each of our
witnesses and getting their assessment of these provisions
contained in H.R. 3039.
As we learned from past terrorist attacks in the United
States or from other plots that have been foiled, we can never
let down our guard in terms of preventing the entry of
terrorists. And our visa processing system plays a critical
role in keeping terrorists out of the country. For these
reasons, I am eager to better understand how this legislation
will impact the screening of potential terrorists by the State
Department and other governmental agencies, while also ensuring
that law abiding visitors can come to America for tourism and
business.
I appreciate the hard work from the gentleman from Nevada,
Congressman Heck, on H.R. 3039 and look forward to his
testimony, and now I would yield to the gentlelady from
California, the Ranking Member Ms. Lofgren.
[The bill, H.R. 3039, follows:]
__________
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tourism is a vital
U.S. industry so I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing
and also Representative Heck for coming here to testify on his
bill.
As we emerge from the economic downturn, travel and tourism
can help spark economic growth and create jobs. Currently
international travel to the United States generates more than
$153 billion annually in exports and supports 2 million U.S.
jobs. In 2011 total direct travel spending in my State of
California was $102.3 billion, supporting 893,000 jobs. Travel
spending in 2011 generated $2.3 billion in local and $4 billion
in State taxes for California.
However, while significant revenue and jobs are supported
by travel and tourism, America has been experiencing a decrease
in market share. According to a study conducted by a coalition
of American industries, the U.S. is estimated to have lost
billions, $43 billion in 2005 alone, in visitor spending due to
lost market share. According to the Department of Commerce, the
positive balance of trade generated by inbound travel declined
more than 72 percent between 1996 and 2005, from $26.3 billion
in 1996 to just $7.4 billion in 2005. Since 2005 these losses
have only grown as international travel continues to increase
but the U.S. share of this travel market continues to decrease.
As we lose market share in international travel, we also
lose the ability to share American ideals with the rest of the
world. Studies have shown that foreigners who visit the U.S.
are 74 percent more likely to have a favorable view of our
country and 61 percent are more likely to support the U.S. and
its policies. The country thus suffers with fewer foreign
visitors who are able to experience real American hospitality,
kindness and values.
Now I know some in America would like to further close down
our borders to commerce and tourism. Some say that would make
the country safer. But we know that would crush our economy in
sectors ranging from agriculture to tourism, sap the vitality
that immigrants bring to America, and go against the values we
share with visitors, values that have been essential to our
national character and exceptionalism. It would in fact make us
much weaker economically and in other important ways.
Rules that facilitate visa issuance for eligible foreign
nationals are not only important for travel and tourism but
also for American educational institutions, scientific and
academic research, as well as U.S. business in a variety of
industries. What we need is to find ways to welcome foreign
visitors while continuing to protect, of course, national
security. Simply put, we need to have smarter visa issuance
procedures. To do this we should explore new technologies,
including threat assessment tools, and videoconferencing
technologies for which a pilot is proposed in Mr. Heck's bill.
We should also explore ways to expand the visa waiver program,
again while continuing to protect national security.
This bill also has provisions to require faster visa
processing for foreign nationals from some of the world's
fastest growing economies. These are issues that are important
for us to consider.
The bill's provisions echo the approach outlined in
President Obama's January 19th Executive order, which also
seeks to increase visa processing capacity in China and Brazil
and to ensure that applicants are interviewed in a timely
manner. These are laudable goals, and I look forward to working
with the Administration and Department of State to ensure that
our visa process is as efficient and effective as possible.
On June 26, 1963, before the Berlin Wall, John F. Kennedy
said in one of his most memorable speeches, ``Freedom has many
difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we never had to
put up a wall to keep our people in.'' What was true then
remains true almost 50 years later. People from all over the
world still want to come to America. Many come seeking a refuge
from persecution, to get a job to support their families, to
start a business or to begin their studies. And some just come
to visit America to see Disney World, the Grand Canyon, to show
their support at Ground Zero in New York, to visit our Nation's
Capital. Many come because they love America and have dreamed
of visiting our country for their whole lives.
We should encourage this with smart visa policies that
support travel and tourism, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady. We have very
distinguished witnesses on both of our panels today. Each of
the witnesses' written statements will be entered into the
record in its entirety. I would ask that each witness summarize
his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less to help stay within
the time. There is a time, a little light out there that will
be a good indicator. And I would just appreciate your
consideration of that.
And with that we will move to our first panel and our first
witnesses, our good friend and colleague from the State of
Nevada's Third District, Congressman Joe Heck. Welcome, Joe.
Joe is currently serving his first term in the House. He
serves on the Education and Workforce Committee and the Armed
Services Committee. He also serves on the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. And prior to serving in
Congress Representative Heck spent 25 years in public service
as a physician and Army reservist and community volunteer.
Welcome this afternoon and we look forward to your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOE HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gallegly,
Ranking Member Lofgren, thank you very much for holding this
hearing today on legislation I introduced this past fall, H.R.
3039, the ``Welcoming Business Travelers and Tourists to
America Act of 2011.'' I know there are several bills out there
trying to address the visa processing issue. This is but one
more trying to attack the problem from a different pathway.
As you have mentioned, I represent the Las Vegas area where
travel and tourism is the main industry, with hundreds of
thousands of Nevada families relying on the travel and tourism
sector as a source of jobs and income. To give you an idea of
how large the travel and tourism industry is in the United
States, in 2011 travel and tourism generated approximately $1.9
trillion in total economic output. This can be directly linked
to 2 million American jobs being supported and the exporting of
$153 million in U.S. Goods.
Additionally, international travelers spend about $4,300
during each visit to the United States. Over the past 10 years
from 2000 to 2010, the travel industry has seen major growth.
According to the U.S. travel organization, global long haul
travel has increased by 40 percent. However, as Ms. Lofgren
mentioned, over this same time period the share of
international travelers coming to the United States has
dropped, dropped from 17 percent to 12 percent. This decline in
the number of travelers coming to the U.S. has definitely been
felt nationwide as well as in my home State. The hospitality
industry is the largest employer in Nevada as well as the
largest contributor to the State's general fund. But while the
national unemployment rate has remained about 8 percent for 30
months, the unemployment rate in Nevada has continued to hover
around 12 percent.
The Department of Commerce estimates that just returning to
the 17 percent market share would generate almost $860 billion
to our economy and create 1.2 million jobs. It goes without
saying that America is struggling and something needs to be
done to get folks back to work. Because I represent a district
that is markedly dependent on the travel and tourism industry,
I introduced H.R. 3039.
The decrease in number of travelers coming to the U.S.
cannot simply be attributed to a lack of desire to visit the
United States but more so to a cumbersome travel visa
application and processing system. In the past it has been
reported that the State Department has posted interview wait
times of more than 30 days, sometimes as much as 180 days,
which exceeds its own internal goal of interviewing all visa
applicants within 30 days. This can present major barriers for
those wishing to travel to the United States because travelers
do not have an accurate idea of the timeline to get an
interview or when an appropriate time to apply for a travel
visa would be because of a lack of information on historical
wait times.
My legislation seeks to modernize this process in several
ways. H.R. 3039 mandates that the State Department implement a
12-day visa processing standard to ensure timely processing of
visas, requires the disclosure of historical data, encourages
better coordination between State Department and Department of
Commerce, and allows for the establishment of a visa
videoconferencing pilot program and gives the Secretary of
State the option to modify visa validity periods.
I understand that some Members of the Committee will have
concerns with the legislation, specifically from the homeland
and national security aspect. Please let me assure you that as
someone who has severed in both the Army Reserves an its
homeland security sector for over 25 years, national security
is of the utmost importance to me. Some of the testimony you
will hear later is somewhat inaccurate and off base, having
largely nothing to do with the provision of H.R. 3039. Nothing
in this legislation does anything to increase or modify the
visa waiver program, it does nothing to change the visa
interview process, nor does it change the approval requirements
for actually granting a visa. It just tries to streamline the
process.
The video processing, video teleconferencing provision I
can tell you, from someone who has used secure
videoconferencing in my military career as well as in my
medical career, being able to have secure communications around
the world and provide cutting edge, lifesaving medical
treatment because of a high resolution in quality of sound and
video is something that we should be able to explore in trying
to grant visa interviews.
As I mentioned, I have worked in the homeland security
sector for a large part of my career, been both to Iraq and
Afghanistan. As was mentioned, I am on the Armed Services
Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. I know
firsthand the threats of terrorism and national security.
Nothing in this legislation that I have introduced is intended
to compromise it in any way. Rather, it is bipartisan
legislation that looks to streamline a process in a way that
has already been proven by the Department of State's report on
itself when it did its pilot study on how to use
videoconferencing, and it is widely supported by the tourism
travel and hospitality industry, by Discover America
Partnership with over 50 members. We have letters of support
that we would ask to enter into the record.
At a time when we need jobs and increased economic growth,
H.R. 3039 provides a solution at no cost to the taxpayer while
maintaining safety and security.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee on Immigration. I look forward to your questions
and the discussion later today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heck follows:]
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you for staying within the guidelines
of the lights. You obviously have a military background, and I
appreciate your credentials both from military and serving on
the Intelligence Committee. You obviously no about many of the
challenges that we are facing at a national security level, I
am sure many cases beyond many of us.
Regarding the in-person visa interview, you spoke a little
bit about the electronic versus the in-person interview, but
the in-person interview requirement was put in place as a
result of the fact that only 2 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were
interviewed for visas despite the State Department's authority
to do so. Given that terrorists constantly attempt to and some
are successful in entering the country by abusing U.S.
immigration policy, shouldn't we make sure that every visa
applicant has a sit down, face-to-face interview so that the
consular has the best ability possible to determine the intent?
I would yield back.
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the important
point that you brought up was that only 2 of the 19 actually
had an interview. This does nothing in changing having the
interview, this actually opens up additional pathways to
conduct interviews so that more people can actually have the
interview. And with the newer technology, especially
telepresence technology, it is almost like sitting in the room
with the individual while you are conducting that interview.
And so the technology has progressed significantly, even since
the pilot study was done in 2006, that actually allows the
ability for an individual to conduct a very comprehensive
interview. I tell you I have talked to people from the consular
staff. And they do have a lot of discretion. In fact I was
given one anecdote where the person claimed to be a farmer but
their visa was denied because according to the interview
official they didn't have calluses on their hands to make it
look like they were a farmer.
I think that we need to be much more selective in how we
decide to grant or not grant the visas, but what this program
does is actually increase the ability for more interviews to be
accomplished.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lofgren. Yes. I remember when I was in local government
we did--the courts did arraignments by video. Something as
fundamental as your due process rights in a criminal proceeding
could be accommodated through a video transaction. So I think,
and you are right, Cisco is headquartered in my district. Their
telepresence, I mean it is like you could touch the person, it
is so like being there, it is amazing technology. So I think it
is very creative and I think there is a lot of promise with
that.
I wanted to talk about the 12-day visa processing standard.
I like it, but here is the concern I have and I am not sure
that I have the solution and maybe you do. If you don't have
additional resources, and I realize using the video capacity
will help some in that, the easy thing is just to say no. And
so you might end up with an increased number of arbitrary noes
to accommodate the 12-day requirement. Have you thought about
that and what we might do about that? Because these decisions
are not reviewable by anybody.
Mr. Heck. Yeah, thank you for that question. In fact, we do
allow within the bill for the State Department to increase the
visa fee to be able to offset the additional resources that may
be necessary to meet that timeline of trying to get them done
within 12 days. In addition, I will say that when we met with
the Department of State officials they were concerned that in
the event they would need to move people due to humanitarian
crisis or evacuation of U.S. citizens and they needed more
officials in another area, that that would pose some difficulty
for them and we were willing to help them with that and say
look, we would be willing to allow----
Ms. Lofgren. I saw that you accommodated that, yes.
Mr. Heck. During a time of national crisis or humanitarian
crisis where individuals needed to be redeployed. I think the
key is that they already looked at increasing some of the
resources in these three targeted countries.
Ms. Lofgren. I met with the ambassador in Brazil and they
are in the process of gearing up right now. I mean it is
insane, you can't even get inside the building for your
application to be heard, and they are gearing up so that they
can do, he says, a better job.
I guess I would just say I don't know I have a solution but
we have all in our capacity as advocates for our constituents
seen cases where it is inexplicable why someone doesn't get a
visa and then they are coming for the daughter's wedding and
they can't get in and you get the call. Certainly we want
national security issues but in some cases there is really
almost arbitrary denials for people who have legitimate needs
to visit family. So I am just concerned this could aggravate
it. But maybe there is a way to get around that. I would love
to talk to you further after the hearing about it and
brainstorm on that.
Thank you. I yield back Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Heck, for
your testimony and taking the initiative on a bill that I
understand matters to your constituents and a number of people
across the country. I always look at numbers and I get curious
about how they are derived, so I want to just take you back
that $1.9 trillion in economic activity that is derived from
tourism and let's see then from that. The first question I had
was how much is derived from foreign tourism and I think you
had 1 out of $7 in the United States derived from foreign
tourism. So I am extrapolating these numbers but can you source
that 1.9 trillion for me first?
Mr. Heck. The 1.9 trillion is the tourism industry in
general, both domestic and international, to the United States
and the number comes from the U.S. Travel Organization.
Mr. King. Okay, generally a consensus between all of them
then. And so I began to wonder then what percentage of the U.S.
GDP that would be, so I took one-seventh of that number and
came up with 271 billion and divided it by 15 trillion GDP just
to pick a round number, and I came up with 1.8 percent of our
economic activity that is foreign travel according to this
number. Then you also had testimony that says that the global
longhaul travel has been reduced--or been increased by 40
percent in the same period of time longhaul global travel to
the U.S. Has dropped from 17 to 12 points.
Do you have an estimate on how much of global longhaul
travel is for impact on the United States economy?
Mr. Heck. It was estimated by the Department of Commerce
that if we were able to get from 12 percent back up to 17
percent that that would be about $860 billion worth of economic
activity.
Mr. King. That number was on the first page of your
statement, I understand. But how much of this then can be tied
to a delay in visa, issuing visas, how do you link those two
together?
Mr. Heck. Well, we know that certainly from the experience
that we have had in southern Nevada which is very dependent on
travel and tourism and especially business travel and the
convention industry, there was a travel and tourism summit held
that had representatives from all of the major trade shows in
attendance, and they have talked about how they have had
difficulty in bringing foreign travelers to the trade shows
here in the United States, primarily for people to come, those
who want to show their wares because the lead time takes too
long to know whether you are going to get a visa before you
actually book convention space. And they have found that those
same shows have seen an increase in their attendance in foreign
locations; those shows are held in Europe, they are seeing an
increased attendance there and they are seeing a dropoff in
attendance in the shows in the United States.
Mr. King. And I do hear some of these complaints. Is the
lead time all together from say the average application time
until such time as the visa is issue, what is that average lead
time, do you know?
Mr. Heck. Well, for the countries we are trying to address
through the bill the wait times has been as high as 180 days
just for the visa interview, not the granting or denial of the
visa, just to get an interview.
Mr. King. Is there a mean time or an average time though
rather than extreme time?
Mr. Heck. In those three countries they vary. Brazil has
been--China has been as high as 180 days, Brazil has been as
high as 60 to 70 days. India has been even higher at times. So
I do not have a mean time of all three countries.
Mr. King. But I do have some information here that gives I
believe it was average wait times for different cities in
China, Beijing, Shanghai and several others, that show 2 to 4
days of an average lead time. Do you have experience also that
that happens?
Mr. Heck. Right, those numbers have been within the last 4
to 5, 6 months, actually since the bill has been introduced.
But again we have seen wait times far exceeding that.
Mr. King. And I think to be clear for this panel, too, that
what I have expressed here is wait time for the interview, not
the full time for the issuance for the visa, just to put some
balance to this discussion.
Mr. Heck. Right.
Mr. King. So to some degree your bill has had a positive
affect in a positive way. I would make that point so you don't
have to or actually you already did. But I have been looking
on. I would add also we have a similar times down in South
America, Brazil, 2 days, 2 days, Rio de Janeiro 1 day, Sao
Paulo 25 days. Odd that it would be had a high out of Sao
Paulo. And then you go into Asia and you see New Delhi 4 days,
Mumbai 4 days, but there are some longer dates there too. It
looks to me like the issue time is reasonable if you look at it
from an average standpoint or a mean standpoint and probably
plenty of lead time for someone to be able to plan a convention
and book their travel, but it is the extremes that you are
concerned about. Do I interpret that correctly?
Mr. Heck. That is correct. And also one of the major
reasons for the videoconferencing provision is that those 2 to
4-day times is in that city, somebody applies within that city,
but in these larger countries it may take somebody 2 days to
travel to the consulate to be able to get the interview, and
that is after being scheduled for the interview. And so the
videoconferencing from remote locations will help expedite that
process as well.
Mr. King. Would you do patient exam over conferencing?
Dr. Heck. I have many times.
Mr. King. And would you diagnose over that?
Dr. Heck. We have many times. The resolution and the
quality now is such that you can provide cutting edge life
saving care via telemedicine around the world, and I have done
it on several occasions.
Mr. King. I have another topic we will talk about in
person. Thank you, doctor, I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I thank
you for being here today, Joe.
We will turn to our second panel.
Our first witness is Janice Kephart, the Director of
National Security Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
She served as counsel to the 9/11 Commission. Ms. Kephart
received her JD from Villanova Law School and her Bachelor's
Degree from Duke University. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF JANICE L. KEPHART, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY
POLICY, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Ms. Kephart. Thank you for having me. Thank you for the
invitation to testify and your continued interest in visa
security.
The bill we are considering today mimics President Obama's
visa waiver interview pilot program announced in January 2012
for China, India and Brazil. The effect of the President's
program is still unknown in terms of reducing application
processing time. If the pilot achieves the aims the President
seeks; that is, to dramatically reduce visa processing times by
negating many visa interviews and visa revetting, then this
bill is unfortunately unnecessary, untimely and premature.
Especially concerning is that this bill probably unknowingly
supports the President's amnesties policies that include not
enforcing immigration law against illegal population but for
convicted criminals and terrorists.
What does systematic enforcement of immigrant immigration
law have do with this bill? Well, crunching out more tourist
visas will add to more tourists likely becoming overstays.
According to 2011 GAO reporting, ICE only actively pursues 3
percent of the overstay population due to resource constraints.
None other than criminals and terrorists are pursued now, and
even the criminal deportation numbers are half of what they
were in 2010, with a paltry 5,500 identified in the first
quarter of 2012, with twice that many identified in the same
quarter in 2010. What does this mean for Chinese, Brazilian and
Indian illegal population numbers? To me this means they will
grow.
For years Brazilians and Indians have come to the United
States for many reasons, but also to get away from poverty,
while Chinese often come to escape a repressive regime. That is
good, right? This is America, we welcome people here for a
better life. But unfortunately, that is not the end of this
story. China openly commits significant corporate government
and university espionage on American soil, and it uses its own
citizens to do it.
Just as disturbing is the incredibly high illegal alien
population numbers from China, India and Brazil currently in
the U.S. These three countries have increased their illegal
status in the U.S. By nearly 70 percent collectively in the
last decade, with 700,000 illegal aliens in the U.S.,
representing 6 percent of the total 11.5 million of the illegal
population. China is the biggest producer of illegal aliens
outside this hemisphere ranking fifth of the 180 Nations in the
world, India ranks seventh, Brazil is close behind. And here is
the clincher, most of these illegals must be overstays from
issued visas.
As to those arguing that there is sufficient security in
the automated check State now does of visa applicants and 12
days is sufficient time to get all applicants, let me say this.
First few, if any of the problems in visa issuance with the 9/
11 hijackers had anything to do with technology or databases
vetting the applicants. Rather, the issue is that the
interviews that could have detected fraud and lies were simply
not done. In the one instance where there was an extensive
interview at a border security inspection at Orlando
International Airport, potential Flight 93 hijacker Mohammed
al-Qahtani was forced to return to Saudi Arabia only because
his interview was done.
Second, fraud does not change depending on where a person
is from or what the intent is in coming to the United States.
Fraud is fraud whether used by terrorists, spy, criminal or
simple economic migrant. Whether committed in 2000 or the year
2012, the commonality is it that it all breaks the law, it is
all detectable, but usually only through the interview process.
Third, State's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Consular
Affairs, Ed Ramotowski, reiterated this point in a September
2011 hearing before House Homeland, making clear that the
automated security checks and review of submitted documents
don't catch what an interview will, saying, ``The personal
interview that our officers conduct in our embassies and
consulates often note discrepancies in the interview that open
a line of inquiry and lead to a visa denial when necessary.''
Fourth, it is also important to revet visas, a case made
manifestly clear by the fact of the Christmas Day bomber's visa
issuance and which is reduced in this bill.
And lastly, terrorist organizations or governments seeking
to use their citizens as spies are likely to recruit from those
that have already been issued U.S. visas. It is foolish to
assume that vetted once means no revetting need take place.
In regard to videoconferencing, there are a host of
security issues that are specific a visa interview, including
State Department personnel safety that I note in my written
testimony that are not addressed in the bill fully.
In regard to section 7 of the bill it gives limitless
authority to the Secretary and what can be done to visa
categories or visa terms with any country, under any
circumstances, very dangerous for immigration policy and
diplomacy and our national security.
In conclusion, illegal activity needs to be curtailed
significantly and current immigration law enforced before we
consider broadening out our visa policies even further than
already done by the President as this bill would do.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kephart follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Ms. Kephart. Our next
witness is Ms. Jessica Zuckerman. She is a Research Associate
at the Heritage Foundation House and Center for Policy Studies.
She researches and writes on issues such as border security,
counterterrorism, immigration policy, among others. Ms.
Zuckerman received her Master's Degree from George Washington
University and holds a Bachelor's Degree from Ohio State
University. Welcome, Ms. Zuckerman.
TESTIMONY OF JESSICA ZUCKERMAN, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, ALLISON
CENTER FOR FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Ms. Zuckerman. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today. I believe very strongly in the need to tackle the
challenges of facilitating legitimate travel by reducing
unnecessary barriers to issuing visas.
The policies contained in H.R. 3039 are a commendable step
in reducing visa backlog and derive two significant benefits in
my opinion. The first advantage is job creation as was
discussed. Currently inbound travel to the U.S. Supports almost
2 million American jobs and the value of global travel is
expected to double to more than 2 trillion over the next 10
years. Unfortunately, the U.S. Share of long distance travel is
shrinking. According to the U.S. Travel Association, this
decline is said to have resulted in the loss of approximately
78 million visitors and over half a trillion in lost spending.
If America recaptures its fair share of international travel by
some estimates more than 1 million jobs could be created over
the next decade.
The second advantage is public diplomacy. As the Ranking
Member has pointed out, surveys of international visitors to
the U.S. Have shown that foreigners who travel to the country
are over 74 percent more likely to view the U.S. favorably and
61 percent more likely to support the U.S. And its policies.
These are just a few of the many reasons the United States
should work to regain its rightful share of long distance
travelers. And it is my view that this can be done without
disadvantaging homeland security. With these advantages in
mind, I would like to briefly explore some of the background
issues.
Currently one of the most vexing burdens for foreign
visitors wishing to obtain a visa is long wait times for
applicants to be interview at overseas consular offices. In May
of 2010 the Department of Commerce and State indicated the visa
wait times in high volume countries such as Brazil and China
were anywhere between 1 to 5 months. While the State Department
has done much to improve wait times in these nations more
remains to be done.
H.R. 3039 would set a reasonable visa processing standard
of no more than 12 days for citizens in the high-volume nations
of China, Brazil and India. These standards would serve to
codify many of the changes made by the Department of State over
the past year and help to combat extensive visa wait times.
Standards, however, are nothing without the resources to
meet them. Recognizing this fact, H.R. 3039 also calls for the
use of fees collected from issuing machine readable
nonimmigrant visas to hire additional consular personnel. The
processing standards contained within H.R. 3039 offer a strong
first step in reducing overly burdensome visa wait times.
The legislation also calls on the Secretary of State to
conduct a 2-year pilot program for the processing of
nonimmigrant visas via secure videoconferencing. In many large
countries such as Brazil and India citizens may have to travel
for hours or even days at great personal expense in order to
reach a U.S. consulate to conduct their visa interview. The use
of secure videoconferencing would help to ease this burden,
allowing for remote interviews for individuals living far from
the U.S. consulate. It also offers the potential to expand the
Department of Homeland Security's visa security program where
consular facilities do not have the space or resources to house
visa security officers.
Finally, H.R. 3039 would also require the State Department
to publish data on wait times for visa interview appointments
and visa application processing as well as provide performance
assessments of how the department is responding to increased
demand for visas. Such data would be crucial in helping the
Department of State to understand bottlenecks in visa
application rates. Publishing this data would also serve to
encourage individuals to apply for visas at times of lower
demand. I would urge the Congress to seriously consider such
initiatives aimed at facilitating greater travel to the U.S.
without compromising security.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Zuckerman follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Ms. Zuckerman. Our next witness,
Mr. Edward Alden, is the Bernard L.
Schwartz, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations. Prior to joining the Council Mr. Alden was the
Washington Bureau Chief for the Financial Times and also served
as the project director for the independent task force on
immigration policy. Mr. Alden holds a Master's Degree in
international relations from the University of California
Berkeley.
Welcome, Mr. Alden.
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD ALDEN, BERNARD L. SCHWARTZ SENIOR FELLOW,
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
Mr. Alden. Thank you very much, Chairman Gallegly and
Ranking Member----
Ms. Lofgren. Could you turn your microphone on?
Mr. Alden. There we go. Thank you very much to both of you
for inviting me to testify today.
I have studied U.S. Visa policy for a number of years. My
2008 book, The Closing of the American Border, detailed the
mistakes in visa processing that were made before the 9/11
attacks, but also examined the negative economic and diplomatic
consequences of the decline in travel to the United States
after 2001.
More recently I coauthored with Liam Schwartz, an American
Israeli immigration lawyer who is one of the world's foremost
experts on visa processing, a Council on Foreign Relations
report recommending improvements to the U.S. visa system to
speed processing without sacrificing security. I agree with Ms.
Zuckerman that the record of progress in recent years shows
that efficiency and security can go hand in hand and that the
United States does not need to harm its economy to safeguard
its borders.
While it is far from comprehensive and not without some
problems, the legislation before you today deserves support. It
would promote job creation by addressing inefficiencies in the
visa system. In particular, it takes on one of the chronic
problems that we have seen over the past decade which is that
improvements in visa processing times have not durable. The
State Department has periodically reduced the waiting times by
surging staff when the backlogs have grown unacceptably long,
only later to relocate staff or fail to anticipate demand
increases and have the wait times balloon again. The exchange
between Mr. King and Congressman Heck is very much about this.
You go back a year ago and the wait times in many places were
2, three, 4 months. The State Department has put resources into
these countries and the wait times have been reduced
dramatically.
This legislation would set a new visa processing standard
of 12 days or fewer in the biggest markets that have been
subject to the longest delays.
H.R. 3039 should, however, be approved as part of a broader
package of legislation that includes reforms to the criteria
for expanding the visa waiver program and encourages more
efficient visa security screening.
Since 9/11, the United States has made considerable
progress in improving the security and integrity of the visa
system. But this was not accompanied for many years either by
either staffing increases or by technological improvements to
maintain efficient visa processing. The result has too often
been long delays for visa applicants. The falling U.S. Share of
world travel, which is in part the consequence of visa issues,
certainly not all by any means, has hurt the United States
economically by discouraging tourists and business travelers.
Tourism is the largest service export in this country and
expanding travel is an easy way to create hundreds of thousands
of jobs. The good news is that the State Department has
recently made improved visa processing a high priority and has
increased staff and significantly reduced waiting times in key
markets like China and Brazil. These improvements are being
made without additional expenditures of taxpayer dollars, which
is important given budget constraints. The fees charged to
foreign travelers fully cover the cost of additional staffing
and improved technology. There was just an increase in the
tourist fee by $20 to $160 last month, for instance.
H.R. 3039 would build on this recent progress.
Establishment of the 12-day standard is a reasonable target.
The Department of Commerce's U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory
Board has recommended a more ambitious 5-day target. Virtually
all U.S. Missions in these countries, Sao Paulo is one of the
few exceptions, are currently meeting the standard. But as I
elaborate in my written testimony, the legislation should make
clear that this is a goal, not a deadline. Flexibility in
implementation is essential.
The bill also promises better transparency. The Department
of State maintains current wait times but doesn't show us
historically whether wait times have gone up or down in
different locations. And the legislation would also require an
annual visa demand forecast to help manage workload.
H.R. 3039 is only one element of the changes needed to make
sure the United States has the most secure and efficient travel
system in the world. Increasingly improvements in screening
technology and information sharing are making it possible to
enhance security even as processing speeds improve. This
approach should be wherever possible to focus consular
resources on higher risk travelers.
I just want to make one quick point on the 9/11 Commission
before I sum up. The 9/11 Commission looked at the whole realm
of problems prior to 9/11 and interviews clearly were an issue,
especially in Saudi Arabia, but the biggest failures were
failures of information sharing. Two of the hijackers
identified by the CIA as al Qaeda operatives, that information
not shared with the State Department, those individuals not
watch listed. The 9/11 Commission rightly focused on
information sharing as the key element to protecting our
borders against terrorist travel. They even acknowledged that
had the interviews been done in Saudi Arabia, consular officers
at the time were looking for people who might overstay and the
Saudis didn't do that. Very few if any of the hijackers would
likely have been turned back by interviews. So the 9/11
Commission, if you read their recommendations, says it is
critical that border screening systems check people efficiently
and welcome friends, that admitting large numbers of students,
scholars, business people, and tourists fuels our economy,
cultural vitality and political reach, and they call for the
design of these security measures to be updated and adapted to
meet that goal and the goals of security.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alden follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very, Mr. Alden. I am going to try
to make my questions a little expedited because we are
scheduled for votes momentarily and I don't want to hold you
here for an hour or so because there are a series of votes.
Very briefly, Ms. Kephart, would you be kind enough to
respond as the counsel on 9/11 Commission, you may or may not
have had a little different perception as to the statement that
Mr. Alden presented, could you respond to that?
Ms. Kephart. Sure. I was a counsel on the 9/11 Commission
assigned to the border team, I did all the immigration work for
the 9/11 Commission for how the hijackers got in and stayed in.
And I also conducted all the interviews of all the border
inspectors who had let the hijackers in as well. So I come at
this from a perspective, having been also an author of the 9/11
and Terrorist Travel monograph, with a very, very strong sense
of what our border recommendations were and why we insisted on
the in-person interview. I was also the one who found out and
discovered Mohammed al-Qahtani as the potential 20th hijacker
who did not get in. It was based on the behavioral interview
that we had done of him at Orlando International Airport,
August 2001, that our commissioners decided to include the
paragraph in the 9/11 Commission final report, in the
recommendations, about the importance of the interview and the
importance of determining behavior. It was critical to us, and
so I do take a little bit of an issue at the interpretation of
the 9/11 Commission report.
Thank you for letting me respond.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Ms. Kephart. In the interest of
time I would yield to the gentlelady from California, the
Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. In the 9/11 Commission report on
page 389, it indicates that we should have efficiency and that
admitting large numbers of student scholars and business people
and tourists is basically good for the country. But the last
sentence in that paragraph says, training and design of
security measures should be continuously adjusted.
Now in the footnote to that paragraph it says this, one
post-9/11 screening process known as Condor has conducted over
130,000 extra name checks. The checks have caused significant
delays in some cases but have never resulted in visas being
denied on terrorism grounds.
That makes me wonder whether we should examine the utility
of that particular--I mean, we want to be protected but if we
are doing something that doesn't yield value except for delay
maybe we ought to be doing something else in terms of security.
So, I am wondering, Mr. Alden, you have studied this
considerably. We put about 366,000 people through the SAO
process every year. Is there a more efficient way of dealing
with our security concerns than what we are doing now.
Mr. Alden. I strongly believe there is. I know it is not
directly the topic of this legislation, but it arises out of
the concern you expressed in your question to Mr. Heck, which
is if interviews are moving at a more rapid pace you were
worried by the danger of arbitrary denials. I think more likely
what we will see is more individuals being put into what they
call the security advisory opinion system, which is a very
lengthy background check. And there is no question in some
cases these are appropriate. The problem is that the numbers
have grown extraordinarily.
So there were, you mentioned, 366,000 visa applicants put
into these reviews last year. They take a long time, an average
about 4 weeks, in some cases much longer, months and even
years. The troubling thing about this, a lot of these
individuals are highly skilled individuals so we do it for
people with technology backgrounds.
Ms. Lofgren. Believe me, I hear about it from Silicon
Valley all the time.
Mr. Alden. Aerospace companies, semiconductor companies,
these are people with skills who automatically get put into
these background checks. You have it happening in India a lot.
The State Department has been working for some time, and I am
puzzled as to why they haven't rolled it out, systems that
would more efficiently narrow down the number of people who are
determined to need these long background checks. The technology
is much better than it used to be in raising red flags that
this is someone that we really need to take a careful look at,
and these numbers should be much smaller, nothing like 366,000.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you this. Whenever I go overseas I
always try and go into the embassy or consulate and talk to the
people that are actually doing the processing to get a sense
from them directly how it is going and what their suggestions
are. One of the issues is that our State Department employees
can't actually access the database, they have to hand it over
to Homeland and that is inherently delayed, and having served
for 10 years on the Homeland Security Committee, I regret to
say that the Department of Homeland Security is not a model of
efficiency, and that would be bipartisan inefficiency. Under
both Administrations it hasn't been that great.
Would it help expedite--I mean, these State Department
employees have background checks, they are as reliable as other
American employees--to let them access the databases that
Homeland never gets around to checking, would that help?
Mr. Alden. This has broadly speaking been a constant
problem over the last decade. There has been a tremendous
challenge in integrating the different databases that contain
information about individuals who raise concern on terrorism or
criminal grounds. There has been real progress. This is an
enforcement example rather than terrorism example, but the
State Department consular officers now have data on overstays.
So if you have flown into an airport in United States and you
flew back to your country after the period of your visa
expiration, if you go to apply for another visa that will come
up on the screen of the State Department consular official and
they are at least going to want a pretty good explanation of
why you didn't go home on time the last time.
Ms. Lofgren. No delay would count but otherwise----
Mr. Alden. Yeah, quite a reasonable set of questions. So
there have been improvements on that front, but I agree still
real issues with information not being shared freely across the
agencies. Really if you look at it, DHS and State have the same
mission here.
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Alden. This is what they call a layered screening
system to try to be sure that there are multiple points in
which it is possible to identify people that we want to keep
out of the country.
One of the ironies of the Christmas Day bombing story is
that CBP officials, once he was on the airplane, ran their
checks and they said this is a guy, as soon as he gets to
Detroit we are going to pull him aside and question him and
probably send him on the next plane back home. That turned out
to be too late, and there have been a number of efforts since.
But it is a layered system----
Ms. Lofgren. The sooner we get that information, the better
off.
Mr. Alden. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Zuckerman, you heard
the discussion I had with Mr. Heck regarding the economics of
travel and I would point out, do you agree with that $1.9
trillion in economic activities as a consensus number that we
heard here. And then his testimony says 1 out of $7 are of
foreign travel dollars. That mapped out to be $271 billion in
economic activity here. And I notice that in your written
testimony you had that number set at $606 billion but your oral
testimony was more than a half trillion. Both of those
definitions do fit but those numbers don't match. Can you tell
me why?
Ms. Zuckerman. I can't but I can double-check that and
submit it for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Mr. King. I would be interested in that. I hear a lot of
economic discussions. So I would like it if we could agree on
the numbers we are discussing here. You had 2 million American
jobs that were used on tourism and travel. I remember testimony
in this Committee that we needed to bring more immigrants in to
do that work. Would have you an idea of what percentage of
those 2 million American jobs would be jobs that we are
actually seeking to fill or have filled by legal or illegal
immigrants?
Ms. Zuckerman. I don't have that offhand, no.
Mr. King. Just my curiosity, as I read through your
testimony, Ms. Zuckerman. And I also notice note that you point
out in May of 2011 is the time that you have here when you
identified that there are wait times in countries such as
Brazil and China anywhere between 1 to 5 months. Do you agree
with Mr. Heck that that wait time has diminished significantly
over the last, say, 6 months or the last year would be
appropriate. This is 1-year old data, correct?
Ms. Zuckerman. Yes, this is the height.
Mr. King. Then to take you back to the data that I quoted
to Mr. Heck on the 2 and 4-day wait periods with various cities
in places like China and Brazil and in Asia. The Beijing 2
days, Shanghai 4 days, and Brazilia 2 days, Sao Paulo was the
anomaly in this whole list at 25 days. I wanted to make sure
that I understand this correctly, the process that one uses to
apply for a visa can now be--the application can be online and
that is available to everyone now, isn't it, online
application? And at that point can't they also schedule an
interview online?
Ms. Zuckerman. I am not positive, but I believe so.
Mr. King. I am confident that that is the case. As I review
the material that I am looking at from the State Department,
that one can go online and apply for a visa and schedule the
online interview and these dates that I have given here are
State Department numbers, 2 to 4 days for almost every one of
these major cities within the countries in question with the
exception of Sao Paulo.
So if it is a 2-day waiting period to schedule the
interview, when they finish the interview can you tell me will
they then receive the visa, if it is going to be issued on the
spot?
Ms. Zuckerman. It would have to go through possibly a
background process if they are flagged as was mentioned by----
Mr. King. Let me ask Ms. Kephart who has dealt with this.
Can you illuminate that subject a little bit for me?
Ms. Kephart. Can you repeat the question one more time? We
have gone on a long string of--I am sorry.
Mr. King. Of course. I have had that happen to me before
too. The question is when one applies for a visa one can do so
online and then schedule the interview online.
Ms. Kephart. Yes.
Mr. King. If the interview time, according to the State
Department, now in most of these cities is 2 to 4 days, then
when one schedules the interview say within say 48 hours or
perhaps more, when they arrive for that interview, the in-
person interview that you advocated, do they receive the visa
normally at that meeting?
Ms. Kephart. Well, according to the information that you
provided, I don't know if they are providing it at the meeting,
at the actual meet itself. My memory of it was it was not
always at the meetings. Sometimes there is a was a few days lag
time. But if you are talking about 2 to 4 days that is not a
big deal, especially when you need to revet.
If you have an officer in front of you and that officer
begins to note fraud in your interview, they are going to want
to check out more. That is why you need more time. Sometimes
you can't do that within 2 to 4 days. Sometimes you can't even
do it within 12 days if it looks like you have a large fraud
scheme in front of you.
Mr. King. Thank you. I turn the question to Mr. Alden. Can
you identify anything in this bill that enhances security?
Mr. Alden. That enhances security.
Well, I think by setting--most of the bills are about
facilitation. I think you are right about that. The question is
does it detract from security. My argument would be no, it in
no way detracts from security. I think the issue is can you be
efficient and secure at the same time.
Mr. King. I heard that testimony. Ms. Zuckerman, do you
agree with Mr. Alden?
Ms. Zuckerman. Yes.
Mr. King. And Ms. Kephart, do you?
Ms. Kephart. No, I think this is a facilitation bill and
the security is dumbed down and numbed down by it.
Mr. King. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman, and I want to thank
our witnesses. I would like to have had a little more time
today, but the bells are about to go off. I want to thank each
of the witnesses today for your testimony.
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 they can do so and that the answers may
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, I again thank the witnesses and this hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Since September 11th, each proposed change to U.S. immigration
policy must be thoroughly considered with an eye toward national
security. Unfortunately, we learned by experience that those who wish
to do us harm will exploit any weakness in immigration policy to enter
the United States.
However, U.S. immigration policy should not be so restrictive that
it denies access to foreign nationals who want to enter the country for
legitimate business or travel purposes.
H.R. 3039 makes several changes to current U.S. visa policy. It
requires the State Department to issue visas within a span of 12 days
or less. The bill requires the State Department to conduct a two year
pilot program that uses video-conferencing in place of the required in-
person interview for a non-immigrant visa.
H.R. 3039 also requires the State Department to post on their
website the median wait times for interviews and visa processing. And
the bill alters the current standard for visa validity so that the time
period for which a visa is valid is no longer tied to the time period
of visa validity set by the foreign national's home country.
These changes have major consequences for U.S. immigration policy
and national security. We have to be careful not to encourage rubber-
stamping of applications in order to meet a deadline.
In addition, the use of video-conferencing in place of in-person
interviews changes current law, which was enacted because the State
Department did not exercise its authority to interview in-person the
majority of the 9/11 hijackers.
The State Department has informally expressed concerns about some
of H.R. 3039's provisions. So I look forward to hearing the testimony
of the Gentleman from Nevada and of all of the witnesses today to
assess the risks and benefits of H.R. 3039.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back the balance of my time.