[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      EXAMINING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 
                     BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS BUDGET

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 
                               ACCOUNTABILITY

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              June 7, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-47

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        


Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov
                       
                       
                              __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-783 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                           
 
                       COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking 
JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania	     BRAD SHERMAN, California	
DARRELL ISSA, California	     GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri		     WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida		     AMI BERA, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado		     JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee		     DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee	     TED LIEU, California
ANDY BARR, Kentucky		     SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RONNY JACKSON, Texas		     DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
YOUNG KIM, California		     COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida	     ANDY KIM, New Jersey
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan		     SARA JACOBS, California
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 	     KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
    American Samoa		     SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas		          Florida	
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio		     GREG STANTON, Arizona
JIM BAIRD, Indiana		     MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida	             JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey         JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York	     SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
CORY MILLS, Florida		     JIM COSTA, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              JASON CROW, Colorado
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas		     BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN JAMES, Michigan
KEITH SELF, Texas
                                

                    Brendan Shields, Staff Director
                    Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director
                                 ------                                

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability

                       BRIAN MAST, Florida, Chair
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            JASON CROW, Colorado, Ranking 
DARRELL ISSA, California                 Member
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee		   DINA TITUS, Nevada
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas		   COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida		   ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CORY MILLS, Florida		   SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas		      Florida
				    
                                   MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania

                       Ari Wisch, Staff Director
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

Bitter, Rena, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 
  U.S. Department of State.......................................     7

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    36
Hearing Minutes..................................................    37
Hearing Attendance...............................................    38

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    39

 
    EXAMINING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS BUDGET

                        Wednesday, June 7, 2023

                          House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Oversight and
                                    Accountability,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                     Washington, DC

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:59 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Mast 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Mast [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Accountability will come to order.
    For the purpose of this hearing, we are starting a minute 
early. It makes me feel good that we are on Army time; we are 
starting at least a little bit early, right. It is better than 
some.
    The purpose of this hearing is to examine the Bureau of 
Consular Affairs' Fiscal Year 2024 budget.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    As I said, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability 
will be discussing the State Department's Bureau of Consular 
Affairs.
    I want to begin by thanking our witness, Ms. Rena Bitter, 
for being here today, as well as thank the thousands of 
Consular Affairs employees who work at regional passport 
agencies across the country and in embassies across the globe. 
With few exceptions, these men and women are committed to 
getting the job done.
    And when one of my constituents applies for a passport or 
reaches out when they run into trouble abroad, in my experience 
it sets in motion a giant, bureaucratic machine in many cases, 
and it is clear that that machine in many cases does not fire 
on all cylinders. And for the purpose of today's hearing, for 
myself, I want to understand where those failures are and why 
that takes place.
    It is important because, for many Americans, the Bureau of 
Consular Affairs is the only division of the State Department 
that they will ever interact with in their lives. Whether it is 
renewing a passport or dealing with an emergency abroad, we owe 
to those that we represent to make sure that this Bureau is 
getting things right, no matter how big or how small the issue. 
And if an American's only experience with the State Department 
is a month's-long delay on their passport application, then 
that is going to be the only thing that they remember about the 
Department of State.
    I come from a Special Operations background, and we had a 
saying that what makes Special Operations special is being able 
to do the most basic things at the highest possible level. And 
I'm not trying to diminish the importance of passports. They 
are, arguably, however, the most common function of the 
Department of State.
    And last year, in reference to that, almost 18 million 
passport applications were received. That is a high number. It 
is very common. And yet, it is clear that Consular Affairs 
isn't getting every one of them done in a timely fashion and at 
the highest possible level. On average, passport wait times are 
somewhere around three to 4 months, and that is a number that 
is increasing, from what I understand.
    Visa wait times are even worse in many cases. Certain 
posts, it is not taking weeks, or even months. It is taking 
years. I have dealt with this personally myself in trying to 
get people abroad those meetings.
    People are able to call their Representative and usually 
get a passport renewed in a few days, but companies are also 
able to charge hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars and 
get it handled in a guaranteed 24 hours. An online system was 
developed for renewals, by which most accounts, it got nearly 
half a million people to want to participate in, but that beta 
version crashed, leaving perhaps half a million people in limbo 
with that process.
    Here is what my constituents in some cases have had to say 
about their experiences in this process:
    ``So, I just said goodbye to my family. I've been in tears 
all morning. Very sad to see them all excited about the trip 
that I am supposed to be going on with them. But the State 
Department has, effectively, made our families prisoners of the 
United States.''
    These were a couple of quotes that people gave us after 
they were unable to get their passports when they needed them. 
And I'm sure that my constituents would agree when I say that I 
would rather Consular Affairs' efforts be spent on getting 
passports processed in a timely manner versus implementing 
gender-neutral passports.
    This change, as something else, effectively, downgrades the 
gold standard of identification by allowing a person to not be 
identified as a man or a woman. Moreover, it is likely that 
this causes confusion for those ``X'' individuals who travel to 
foreign nations that do not recognize their pronouns, let alone 
the ``X'' next to their name on a U.S. Government document. 
That is another problem. State needs to make sure that it is 
doing the basic things at the highest possible level, or the 
big things will fail miserably.
    And I understand that you came in in the middle of this 
situation, but the crisis of evacuating Americans from a 
collapsing Afghanistan went incredibly wrong. And I would love 
to ask your predecessor about much of what went on in that 
process.
    But, while August 2021 was far from a basic situation, it 
is clear that Consular Affairs operations were not performed at 
that time at the highest possible level. We have many questions 
about the withdrawal. What warnings were sent to American 
citizens and legal permanent residents in the weeks and days 
leading up to the pullout of Afghanistan, the pullout of our 
troops? What was Consular Affairs' roles in the contingency 
planning efforts? Why did not we have an accurate count of how 
many Americans were in Afghanistan? Why, to this day, are we 
failing so many of the Special Immigrant Visa holders who 
served alongside us, who were completely abandoned and left for 
dead?
    These aren't new questions. I asked the Special Envoy to 
Afghanistan in May 2021 about Special Immigrant Visas, and he 
could not even tell me at that time how many Afghans were 
eligible for the program. So, why, then, did the State 
Department not devote major resources over the next months to 
answering that question and formulating a response plan before 
August 2021?
    Additionally, it is my understanding that Consular Affairs 
is involved anytime an American is arrested abroad. And when it 
is suspected that these arrests are based on shaky 
circumstances, it is the job of Consular Affairs to 
investigate. Why, then, following the disastrous and deadly 
withdrawal from Afghanistan, was there an attempt to not 
classify some Americans as wrongful detainees or hostages?
    It flies in the face of something that I know my colleague 
and I here very much believe in, which is no man left behind. 
And it disregards the United States Government's most absolute, 
fundamental job--the safety of United States citizens.
    State needs to make sure that it is doing the basic 
functions at the highest possible level, whether it is 
something like a passport or the national embarrassment that 
the cost the lives of 13 servicemembers. Americans are 
frustrated. We owe them answers. We do not owe them excuses.
    And again, I want to say that I give credit where credit is 
due. I know that Consular Affairs staff were back working in 
person far sooner than most Federal Government employees were 
in any other agency. But three and a half years past the onset 
of the pandemic, I know very few people that accept COVID-19 as 
an excuse to this point, and I certainly do not as well.
    I am confident that we all share a common goal--
strengthening America's position on the global stage and making 
sure the basics are things that get done right. In order to 
achieve that goal, I know it is important for all of us to work 
together.
    In that, I am now going to yield to Ranking Member Crow for 
his opening remarks.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman Mast, for calling this 
hearing and the opportunity to have this discussion today.
    You know, I have always loved the saying that ``Hard things 
are hard.'' Right? It seems simple, and yet, it is true, and it 
is a great reminder that the things that we talk about on this 
committee, the charge of this committee, is to have fact-based, 
rational discussions about very challenging work that people do 
around the world.
    That is why I'm looking forward to this discussion with 
you, Ms. Bitter, because I want to hear the story about the 
challenges that your people face.
    Every organization can do things better. Every organization 
can find ways of improving, of being more efficient, 
particularly when that organization faces crisis after crisis 
and contingency that forces you to evolve your model and change 
with the rapidly changing world. And I look forward to hearing 
about that.
    There are a couple of things that I know are true. I know 
that your organization, in particular, is complicated. You are 
spread out around the entire world in different cultures, in 
different countries, many of which are conflict zones. And you 
are dealing with people in their worst possible circumstances, 
when emotions are at the highest, when people are not ready for 
what is to come. And I look forward to hearing about that.
    The other thing I know is true is that your organization 
has a unique structure; that you are a fee-for-a-service. So, 
during the pandemic, when your revenue plummeted and Congress 
had to backfill that, you were able to maintain a lot of your 
employees, but at the same time the extreme, extreme charge of 
travel post-pandemic--including me, by the way; I wanted to 
travel, too, and get out of my basement and get out of my 
sweatpants and travel, so does every other American--wasn't met 
with a commensurate increase in resources. And there was also a 
lag between those fees and your ability to onboard folks to 
meet that.
    So, I look forward to hearing how you have met that unique 
challenge and some of the innovation you have done to find 
efficiencies, but also some of the resources you might need 
from Congress to meet some of those unmet needs.
    The other thing I know is true is that the chairman and I 
share a history in Afghanistan and are committed to 
Afghanistan. And we, certainly, know that things did not go 
well in many respects, and we continue to find ways to keep our 
promises to our allies and our partners.
    But what I also know is that the men and women of the State 
Department went through tremendous sacrifice, volunteering to 
serve in a situation that was rapidly devolving--at great risk 
to themselves--to help their friends, too.
    And you do not have to serve in uniform to have a monopoly 
on a commitment to our Afghan friends. And I know in my many, 
many discussions with my friends at the State Department and 
the Diplomatic Corps that this was horrific for them, too. And 
they, at great personal expense and sacrifice, tried to make it 
right and still try to make it right. And I look forward to 
hearing that story.
    And finally, just a recent example of continued service by 
the men and women in your charge is Sudan. Again, not a perfect 
situation, one that not many people saw coming, but able to 
evacuate thousands of American citizens that have no obligation 
to register, right? The United States of America is a free and 
democratic nation. We do not require American citizens to tell 
the government when and where they are going. That is who we 
are. We would not do that.
    So, it is very hard for you to know who is traveling and 
who is in a country during a conflict crisis, and I look 
forward to hearing that story, and how you meet that unique 
challenge as well.
    So, with that, thank you for coming in, and we look forward 
to the discussion.
    And I yield back, Chairman.
    Mr. Mast. Very timely. You were much more timely than I 
was. So, thank you for that.
    Other members of the committee are reminded that opening 
statements may be submitted for the record.
    We are pleased to have a distinguished witness before us 
today on this important topic. The Honorable Rena Bitter is the 
Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the 
U.S. Department of State. From 2016 to 2020, she was the U.S. 
Ambassador to the Lao People's Democratic Republic and has held 
many senior Consular Affairs positions, such as Consul General 
in the Ho Chi Minh City, Consular Chief in Amman, Jordan, and 
Non-immigrant Visa Chief in London. So, a number of stations.
    We thank you for being here today. Your full statement will 
be made a part of the record, and I will ask you to keep your 
spoken remarks to 5 minutes.
    I now recognize Assistant Secretary Bitter for your opening 
statement.

   STATEMENT OF RENA BITTER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF 
           CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Ms. Bitter. Thank you.
    Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Crow, and esteemed members of 
the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to discuss 
the work of the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs 
and to express my appreciation for the support that we receive 
from Members of Congress and from your staffs.
    The 13,000 people of the Bureau of Consular Affairs serve 
your constituents 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, across the 
United States and across the globe.
    Mr. Chairman, last fiscal year, we issued 41,000 visas to 
temporary agricultural workers to support Florida growers, the 
U.S. food supply, and State exports.
    Ranking Member Crow, in your district, our colleagues at 
the Colorado Passport Agency oversee a network of 124 
acceptance facilities throughout the State for Coloradans to 
conveniently apply for passports.
    Around the world, consular officials are protecting the 
lives and serving the interests of U.S. citizens and 
safeguarding our national security. They are present for your 
constituents' best and worst moments--births, deaths, 
adoptions, illness. They worked in person, both domestically 
and overseas, during the pandemic to keep serving the public at 
great personal peril.
    Just last month, I attended a ceremony at the Department to 
honor Tom Wallis, a consular officer who helped U.S. citizens 
repatriate from Peru back to the United States during the early 
days of the pandemic before losing his life to COVID-19. And 
his name deserves to have a place in the congressional Record.
    When I have the opportunity to travel to our 29 passport 
agencies and centers and more than 240 overseas posts to meet 
directly with these extraordinary teams, I highlight three key 
priorities for the Bureau, all of which I look forward to 
discussing with you further today.
    First, the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas. 
This is the Bureau and the Department's highest priority. 
Diplomats have been working to protect the lives and vital 
interests of U.S. citizens abroad since before the United 
States had a Constitution. It is our highest and most enduring 
purpose.
    Most recently, in Sudan, we evacuated more than 2,000 U.S. 
citizens, their family members, along with lawful permanent 
residents, locally employed staff, and nationals from allied 
and partner nations in a complex, multinational effort.
    Second, we are focused on maintaining record productivity 
in the face of unprecedented passport and visa demand. Demand 
for both U.S. passports and visas to the United States are at a 
all-time high. At the same time, right now, more people than 
ever before have the ability to travel to and from the United 
States.
    Forty-six percent of Americans today have passports--up 
from 30 percent in 2008 and just 5 percent in 1990. On the 
inbound travel side, more than 50 million valid visas are in 
the hands of foreign travelers. More people can visit the 
United States today than at any in our history. These numbers 
are growing, and the Bureau of Consular Affairs is committed to 
meeting that demand today and into the future, while rigorously 
safeguard our national security.
    While we remain focused on addressing historically high 
demand for our passport and visa services, we are also planning 
for a more agile and optimized future. To that end, our third 
priority is modernizing consular systems and technology. For 
example, before the end of the year, 5 million Americans will 
be able to renew their passports entirely online--a major 
milestone in fulfilling our customer service goals.
    We cannot make meaningful progress on these priorities 
without sustained and significant investments in our IT 
infrastructure and staff. I'm grateful for Congress' 
partnership during the darkest days of the pandemic, when our 
fee-funded Bureau took a sudden 50 percent decline in revenue.
    Your appropriation and authorization to use consular 
revenue more flexibly has been the most important factor on our 
road to building a Bureau of Consular Affairs for the 21st 
century. Making these flexible authorities permanent would 
ensure that we are able to weather any contingency into the 
future.
    So, I thank you again for your continued partnership, and I 
look forward to our discussion today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Bitter follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Mast. Thank you for your testimony.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
    And I want to begin with this: you and I spoke this week. 
We spoke about an incident that I had--I'm not going to bring 
that up--but it is layered upon now. In the time since you and 
I spoke and today, I had other Members of the House of 
Representatives reach out, knowing that we were having this 
hearing.
    And one Representative, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, she shared 
with us one of the emails that she just received, and I'm going 
to read it to you, but, then, it brings me to some questions 
that I would like some answers on.
    And it starts out, ``Good morning.'' And this is coming 
from the consular staff. This is coming from a customer service 
manager. I'm not going to give the name on camera, but you will 
get a copy of this.
    ``Do you really think that listing a congressional 
assistance as the subject is sufficient!''--followed by 10 
exclamation points. ``That is not a unique name. Please submit 
inquiries in the format, as we have requested''--this, this, 
this. ``I will be happy to place your inquiries at the bottom 
of the list if you do not cooperate. This one was delivered 
today via UPS.'' Signed this customer service manager.
    So, we could go into whether that is appropriate 
correspondence to come back to this Representative or not. That 
is a different question for a different time. But what I want 
to know about is that ability for somebody to place inquiries 
at the bottom of the queue or the top of the queue, and try to 
get some understanding of the, essentially, three-tiered 
system, I would call it, for getting a passport.
    You have individuals that are just reaching out on their 
own, that it may take them three-four months. You have 
individuals that reach out to their congressional offices--
Republican, Democrat, it does not matter--that in most cases I 
find that we can probably get it done in 48 hours. However, I 
would not go out so far as to say I could guarantee them 24 
hours in most circumstances. And then, you have this third tier 
of private companies that offer one, two, or 3 days, but, 
essentially, guaranteeing that somebody can get it in a day for 
a certain fee.
    Can you help explain to me how that is broken up within 
these consulates for us to have people served that reach out to 
us or that are getting served directly? And can they put people 
at the bottom of the list or the top of the list, and by what 
means and reasons are they doing so?
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    To answer your question in short, of course, that is not an 
acceptable way for one of our customer service managers to talk 
to anyone, let alone a Member of Congress. So, I just want you 
to hear me say that, and you have my apology. And every member 
of the committee has this apology, and also, Representative 
McMorris Rodgers. And I will look forward to seeing that 
correspondence.
    Mr. Mast. Very good.
    Ms. Bitter. The way that our systems are set up, basically, 
for the most part, the way prioritization works is first in, 
first out. We do have a system where you can pay extra for an 
expedited passport. Right now, regular processing is 10 to 13 
weeks and expedited is seven to nine.
    As you have pointed out, it is not ideal. We are facing 
unprecedented passport demand. Last year, we issued 22 million 
books and cards----
    Mr. Mast. I'm going to pause you for a moment, ma'am.
    Ms. Bitter. Uh-hum.
    Mr. Mast. I understand the numbers. You went over them in 
your remarks. But I want to understand the inner workings----
    Ms. Bitter. Sure.
    Mr. Mast [continuing]. Of the Department, more so, 
specifically, to understand how an outside group can guarantee 
that, but when somebody reaches out to our offices, we cannot 
get guarantee that. What is that breakup of the numbers for--if 
you have 30 consular officers working in an office, are 10 of 
them working on Members of Congress--28 Members of the House of 
Representatives from Florida and two Senators--and 10 of them 
are working on the general list that comes in, and 10 of them 
are working for the fee-for-service folks? How is that broken 
down?
    Ms. Bitter. It depends on the passport agency. It depends 
on what is going on. It is a little bit of a hard question to 
answer, but I'm very happy to give it my best shot.
    Mr. Mast. Please do so.
    Ms. Bitter. And if you need more detail, I would love to 
set up a more detailed briefing for you or your team.
    So, we have regular processing. We have expedited 
processing. We also have emergency processing, where we have 
counter appointments, for people who have true emergencies, in 
person. Our staff sees 23,000 of these per week. They have 
expanded those hours there. It is greater than it was pre-
pandemic and they are committed to continuing to expand them, 
as long as we are facing the demand that we are facing, and as 
long as Americans have emergency needs to travel.
    I want to refer back, actually, to our conversation in your 
office, because you drew my attention to the courier agencies 
that we also have working. And I wanted to talk a little bit 
about that briefly, because I am grateful to you for raising 
it. And it is something that I looked into after we left.
    The courier service was in place prior to the pandemic, and 
we reinstituted it in December. What I want to assure you of is 
that, while our agencies do work with courier companies to set 
aside a certain number of appointments, there is no guarantee. 
It is negotiated with a passport agency.
    We monitor it closely to make sure, in particular, that it 
is not taking away any capacity from counter appointments, from 
emergency appointments, in particular, or from any of the other 
work that we are trying to do.
    So, I want to assure you that one thing that you raised was 
one thing that we do not monitor. We do monitor the couriers 
themselves and we do monitor to ensure that they are not taking 
up appointments that should go to your constituents, to regular 
Americans.
    You had raised the issue of high fees, and we do not 
monitor that. And I'm grateful to you for raising it, because I 
think it is something that we are going to look into.
    Mr. Mast. My time has expired. I now yield 5 minutes to 
Ranking Member Crow.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ambassador Bitter, could you expound a little bit on this 
idea of how the fee for service plays with your ability to 
match surges in demand? You mentioned earlier that there is a 
record number of U.S. passport holders; that that number has 
just surged tremendously in the last decade, in particular. 
What are you doing to meet that surge, onboard new employees, 
and expand the pipeline?
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you for asking the question, sir.
    And I am going to have to mention the pandemic, even though 
I agree with Chairman Mast that the time has past for talking 
about the pandemic. But there is a real relationship between 
where we are and where we were then.
    We are fee-for-service. And so, the fees that we take in 
are completely related to how much the service that we provide 
costs the American people. At the pandemic, we lost 50 percent 
of that overnight. And it is because of our relationships with 
Congress that we were able to work with you to get an 
appropriation. We had to freeze our staff, but, thanks to the 
appropriations, we were not forced to fire people. We were not 
able to start hiring again until our fees returned.
    During that time period, Congress also gave us expanded 
spending authorities, so that we could move fees more easily 
between the different parts of our services, so that we could 
address emerging challenges.
    So, when fees began to come back, when international travel 
resumed in late 2021, we were able to start hiring again. We 
could hire passport adjudicators because passport fees were 
coming in. But, thanks to the expanded spending authorities, we 
were also able to begin hiring overseas visa adjudicators as 
well. So, we were able to start bringing on more people into 
overseas positions. We would not have been able to do that 
before the expanded authorities that you all gave us during the 
pandemic.
    Both on the domestic side and on the overseas side, these 
are national security positions. Every passport adjudication, 
every visa adjudication is a national security position. And it 
does take time to onboard people; to ensure that they have the 
appropriate clearances; to make sure they are suitable; to 
train them in many cases in quite difficult languages. So, all 
of these things take a little bit of time before we are able to 
get people out in the field.
    We were able to start hiring for overseas positions in the 
beginning of 2022, and people started reaching the field by the 
summer of 2022. We still have positions overseas vacant.
    On the passport side, we have been able over the past year 
to build our team by 10 percent. We have increased the number 
of passport adjudicators. We have about that many in the 
pipeline. And you will see in our foreign ops plan, and also, 
in our 2024 budget, it is we have notified requests for more 
staff. We need more staff to address these issues.
    And I will say one more thing, if I may, which is we do not 
want to surge our way out of this. We do not want to insist on 
people doing overtime. We want to be able, also, to invest in 
modernized systems and equipment to be able to support these 
functions.
    So, our budget and our ops plan both go, not only to hiring 
the people that we need to address these issues, but also to 
making sure that they have appropriate systems and the best 
modernized systems possible for the 21st century.
    Mr. Crow. Yes, so shifting quickly to crisis and 
contingency operations, I would like a quick note from you on 
what those look like on the ground. Because a lot of times 
people will say, ``Well, there are `X' number of American 
citizens in this conflict zone. Why cannot we get these folks 
out?'' But the reality is many of them are dual nationals. Many 
of them have family members that they do not want to leave 
behind. Oftentimes, they do not understand when a crisis 
reaches a tipping point, and after it reaches that tipping 
point, then it becomes much harder to get out. People do not 
want to leave their residents until that moment.
    So, can you paint a picture for me as to the complexity of 
accomplishing those missions?
    Ms. Bitter. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate your asking the 
question.
    You have highlighted it and I think the chairman did as 
well. We do not track American citizens. What we can do--and 
the most important thing we do--is to provide timely and 
accurate information, so that they can make the best possible 
decisions about their own safety and security in traveling 
overseas.
    In crises, we increase our communication with American 
citizens. We try to inform them with the most accurate 
information about changing circumstances, about what they may 
face in any overseas environment. We offer them assistance when 
it is time. When we are approaching a crisis, we urge Americans 
to leave. We offer them assistance in leaving. We offer them 
repatriation loans if we can get them to leave. We offer to 
assist them with making commercial arrangements. And if 
circumstances permit and they haven't, in some circumstances we 
may offer non-commercial options.
    But you highlighted the exact challenge. It is very, very 
difficult. We are asking people who are dual nationals with 
long residencies in these countries and really deep family 
relationships that they are unwilling to leave. And making 
decisions about when and whether to leave is an extraordinarily 
difficult decision that we are asking people to make.
    Thank you for raising that.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you.
    I now recognize Representative Perry for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Do travel documents that Americans receive from the Federal 
Government allude in any way to the fact that those traveling 
presenting those documents must abide by the laws of the 
countries that they are interested in visiting?
    Ms. Bitter. I do not know if the passport does. I'd have to 
take a look. But, certainly, our travel advice advises them 
that.
    Mr. Perry. Certainly, your travel advisory does, and I 
would encourage you to take a look at the passport.
    And with that, in February 2022, Brittney Griner was 
arrested for drug possession in Russia. I do not think there's 
any dispute about that. Now, we fast forward 10 long months 
later, and the United States did a one-for-one prisoner swap 
for Brittney Griner. They traded a well-known arms dealer, 
Viktor Bout, or kind of called his nickname as the ``Merchant 
of Death,'' right?
    Now, I think everybody here understands that wrongful 
detention, each case has its own intricacies and a lot of 
unique issues. However, in that case, the decision that she was 
wrongly detained was made in a matter of weeks. Yet, we have 
others locked up overseas where determinations have taken years 
or, literally, there never is a determination.
    Do you have any insight as to why it appears, certainly, to 
most Americans, that the case of Brittney Griner was rushed? 
Did it have anything to do with what some would consider 
celebrity status?
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate the 
question.
    First, I want to thank Congress. I think what you are 
referring to, the wrongful detention determinations are made 
under a law that Congress passed called the Levinson Act.
    Mr. Perry. Right.
    Ms. Bitter. And we are grateful for it because it is a tool 
in our toolkit and we really appreciate Congress' interest in 
this issue.
    We work in lockstep with our Special Presidential Envoy for 
Hostage Affairs in making these determinations. It starts with, 
as you have highlighted--and you know this--that it is based on 
the totality of the circumstances.
    For our part in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, where we 
care about all detainees overseas--there are more than 1700 
American citizens detained overseas--and our officers are the 
ones on the frontline who visit them, who insist on consular 
access----
    Mr. Perry. But, ma'am, with all due respect, I got all 
that, but, well, it was 10 long months, but you just named, 
literally, over a thousand, right? You did not name the 
thousand, but you characterized over a thousand people 
wrongfully detained overseas. Yet, in this particular case, it 
seems like America went way above and beyond the call of duty. 
And thank goodness they did. We want every single American 
home, whether or not they have broken the law overseas. We can 
take care of that here in the United States.
    But it, certainly, seems like there is two standards here, 
and I'm trying to get to whether there was a particular 
standard that was afforded to Ms. Griner as a priority to win 
political points for social justice warriors, or otherwise. We 
traded the ``Merchant of Death.''
    And I think it is important that everybody understands that 
this guy found his way around sanctions in Angola, Liberia, 
Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Yugoslav. 
He was involved in the Yugoslav wars in the nineties; in the 
2000's, once again, involved in selling arms to the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Lebanon, Tajikistan, Libya, and 
Tripoli. In the case of the Kenyan arms, they were used to 
attack our allies in Israel. This guy is a dangerous guy.
    And is it your opinion, or would it be your professional 
opinion, that we did not just incentivize every enemy of the 
United States to hold captive American citizens that wish to 
exchange that person for some high-value target that the United 
States is lawfully detaining?
    Ms. Bitter. Again, I think I may have misspoken. If I did, 
I apologize. I referred to 1700 Americans detained overseas, 
not wrongfully detained.
    With respect to the Brittney Griner case, as I mentioned, 
we work with our colleagues in the Special Presidential Envoy 
for Hostage----
    Mr. Perry. OK. So, how did the special circumstances occur? 
Why did they occur?
    Ms. Bitter. Again, we work in lockstep with them.
    Mr. Perry. I know you do, but what happened?
    Ms. Bitter. And I would like to defer to them to ensure 
that you get the best possible answer.
    Mr. Perry. You have no knowledge of these proceedings 
whatsoever?
    Ms. Bitter. The proceedings of?
    Mr. Perry. Regarding Brittney Griner's release and trade 
for the ``Merchant of Death,'' while other detainees, 
wrongfully detained or otherwise, remain rotting in foreign 
prisons around the globe?
    Ms. Bitter. One, and I'm going to explain to you--I'm going 
to give you a little bit of a bigger picture, so I can be clear 
about why I would like to defer to my colleague in SPEHA, which 
is because, once again, under the Levinson Act, somebody is 
determined to be wrongfully detained. Then, the lead for the 
case switches and becomes SPEHA in that instance.
    So, while we work very closely and in lockstep, as I say, I 
want to defer to them to answer your questions in greater 
detail.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the chairman. With all due respect, that 
was not an answer, but I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Mr. Kim for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you for coming on out here and talking with us.
    I wanted to lift up some of the work that you all are doing 
and dive in a little deeper, get an understanding of the 
dynamics there. You mentioned about 13,000 staff that is in the 
Consular Affairs. Do you know offhand sort of some breakdown of 
how many of them are Foreign Service, Civil Service? Or does 
that number also include locally employed staff?
    Ms. Bitter. It does not include locally employed staff, but 
I do not have the breakdown in front of me.
    Mr. Kim. OK. Well, look, we can get some followup on that 
front, but what we are talking about here is, if you are saying 
that there are going to be Foreign Service and Civil Service 
that combine for that number, you know, my understanding is 
that the State Department is at around, I think around 26,000 
total for Foreign Service and Civil Service. So, you are saying 
that the Consular Affairs is taking up, potentially, a massive 
portion of what the staff of the State Department would be, is 
that correct?
    Ms. Bitter. We are a big Bureau.
    Mr. Kim. Yes. You talked a lot about this already today, 
about the fee for service, how you are funded through that 
capacity. I wanted to ask, does Consular Affairs get back 100 
percent of the fees that it is being provided for the services 
that they are rendering? Or does some of that money get 
diverted to other parts of the State Department?
    Ms. Bitter. Thanks for asking.
    Depending on the fees, some of it goes to the Treasury, and 
a very, very large--well, not a large, excuse me--but a 
percentage of our budget does go to the platform of the State 
Department to be able to support the services that we provide.
    Mr. Kim. So, in terms of what goes to other parts of the 
State Department, is that your determination? Or who is 
determining where these go and how much of this funding goes 
back to the Bureau that is actually providing the services 
here?
    Ms. Bitter. We work with our partner bureaus, we call them 
on service-level agreements. And if I may, just for a big 
picture----
    Mr. Kim. Uh-hum.
    Ms. Bitter [continuing]. We are fee-funded, but we are part 
of the State Department.
    Mr. Kim. Yes.
    Ms. Bitter. And so, if I had one plea for Congress, it 
would be to fund the State Department, because the platform 
that they provide is the platform that we sit on. So, IT 
services----
    Mr. Kim. Yes.
    Ms. Bitter [continuing]. They are a partner bureau. Hiring, 
clearing people, contracts, training--all of these parts of the 
Department are hardworking colleagues in the Department.
    Mr. Kim. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
    Ms. Bitter. Yes.
    Mr. Kim. And as someone who worked there before, you know, 
I'm somebody that absolutely will be fighting here in this 
committee, and elsewhere, for increased funding writ large. I 
guess what I'm just trying to get at is for us to be thinking 
about, as a whole, are we properly prioritizing Consular 
Affairs and the work that you are doing within the broader 
context of the Department?
    As you mentioned, the staffing is a enormous percentage of 
what the State Department is. The funding, you are right, there 
is a platform in the State Department as a whole, but you are 
the only portion of it that has this other arrangement in terms 
of not having that guaranteed in that kind of capacity.
    And so, I guess I'm not going to necessarily put you on the 
spot here, but it is for all of us here on this committee, and 
more broadly, to kind of be thinking about that. I will be 
honest with you, when I think about what part of the State 
Department has the most amount of direct interaction with the 
American people, would you say that it is probably your Bureau?
    Ms. Bitter. I would say 100 percent it is our Bureau, and--
--
    Mr. Kim. And in terms of which part of the State Department 
has the most direct interactions with foreign nationals and 
businesses that are thinking about coming to the United States, 
is it your Bureau?
    Ms. Bitter. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Kim. So, you know, I just kind of want to hone in here. 
I have been really focused on this with my work. You know, when 
I think about what my constituents are thinking about, you 
know, the 70 or 80 thousand people that I represent, when they 
are thinking of the State Department, they are often thinking 
about your Bureau and whether or not they can get that passport 
in time, or whether or not their family member can get a visa 
to come for their wedding.
    And I say that because it is important for us to do the 
big-picture work, the diplomacy and the multilateralism out 
there, but we also just need to really crush it when it comes 
to the work that is directly related to the American people. 
And so, I would just ask us to really think about that. That is 
a first-order effort. It is something I did not really think 
about when I was at the State Department, but we have to earn 
the trust and respect of the American people. We have to think 
about what it is that they are interacting; how do we make that 
as frictionless as possible?
    So, for instance, I would love for us to think through and 
work with the State Department. Is a bureau the appropriate 
level? Should we have an Under Secretary, for instance, that is 
focused on this, make this a bigger pillar of the State 
Department? Should we think about ways in which we can assure 
that funding--make sure you can have control over the funding, 
especially the funding that is because of the services that you 
are providing? Those are the things that I would love for us to 
dive in deeper. I would love to keep working with you on it.
    My time is expired. So, I will yield back to the chair, but 
let's keep this conversation going.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you.
    I now recognize Mr. Waltz for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Madam Secretary, I'm the co-chair of the U.S. India Caucus. 
I think it is one of the most consequential economic, 
diplomatic, security relationships we have in the 21st century.
    However, one of the consistent and painful complaints that 
I receive from Indian Americans, and from our Indian 
colleagues, is the wait time, despite the fact that in India I 
believe you have the second or third most Consular Affairs 
officers. And the data that I have is the average waiting 
period in Mumbai, India was 587 calendar days.
    And with our trade over $150 billion, with the 
consequential relationship, with Prime Minister Modi coming for 
a State dinner and visit just this month, what are we doing to 
fix this? I mean, have you looked at any India-specific policy 
fast tracks or issues? Have you looked at even perhaps a Quad 
umbrella or bubble for some of these critical business 
relationships.
    In my State, just in Florida, it is estimated that $28 
billion in trade, conferences, events, and visitors--that is 
250,000 jobs--are affected by these delays. So, what are we 
doing to fix it?
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you very much.
    If I may, I will address India first, and then, if I could 
zoom out a little bit and talk about----
    Mr. Waltz. Good. Very briefly. I have two more questions I 
want to get to.
    Ms. Bitter. Oh, got it.
    Mr. Waltz. Great.
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you very much.
    So, with respect to India, there has been quite a bit of 
pent-up demand. I just want to highlight that we have, for all 
of the reasons that you have mentioned, we really have 
prioritized India pretty significantly.
    Mr. Waltz. At 587 days of delay?
    Ms. Bitter. For one category of visa applicants. For 
virtually every other category of visa applicants, wait times 
are pre-pandemic levels or below.
    Mr. Waltz. So, what is the category that is 587? Is that B-
1, business?
    Ms. Bitter. First-time tourist visa applicants.
    Mr. Waltz. OK.
    Ms. Bitter. We have opened appointments for Indian 
applicants at other posts that are dedicated just to Indians to 
make sure that they are able to get their travel needs met. We 
surge staff to India. We reduced wait times by about two-thirds 
at the beginning of the year. And we will continue to focus on 
it. We are very aware of these issues.
    If I may, because you referred to some of the challenges 
that your constituents were facing, over the course of the--we 
do have high wait times in some posts for first-time tourist 
visa applicants. But I want to highlight that this year to date 
we have issued 22 percent more visas than we issued pre-
pandemic the Fiscal Year to date.
    And I want to mention that because we are working very, 
very hard on these issues. We have employed a variety of 
different----
    Mr. Waltz. Just in the time that I have left, it sounds 
like you are taking steps. It sounds like they are not moving 
fast enough, at least to meet the demand. And your Bureau 
should not be the obstacle. You should be the facilitator. And 
if you need more resources, you need more authorities, I hope 
that a year from now we are not still talking about on any 
category over a year wait time.
    I just want to switch to Afghanistan. I know you are not 
responsible for or you are not the lead for the SIVs, but you 
are for the P-1/P-2, correct?
    Ms. Bitter. Actually, it is the reverse. We are the lead 
for SIVs, but not for P-1/P-2.
    Mr. Waltz. You are not for the P-1/P-2? My understanding 
from SIGAR is that--from the Special Inspector General--that 
the current processing rate to move through all of our allies 
that are still waiting, that are still in harm's way, that 
fought and served with us--with me--it will take 18 years to 
process that many visas. These people are being hunted down by 
the Taliban right now, as we speak. Despite the President and 
your boss, the Secretary, lauding this as an outstanding 
success, it was an absolute disaster and a disgrace.
    What are we doing to get through those SIVs faster----
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you.
    Mr. Waltz [continuing]. Because they are being hunted and 
killed right now?
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you. I appreciate the question.
    And also, thank you for your service. One of the things 
that makes Afghanistan unique is the number of people, and the 
number of people on this committee, who served and sacrificed 
there, and who are deeply engaged and who care.
    And I just want to assure you, and everybody on this 
committee----
    Mr. Waltz. Deeply engaged? Forever scarred by the failures 
of our own government, frankly.
    But, please, tell me what little can we do to fix it or to 
make it better?
    Ms. Bitter. We are deeply committed to this program. And 
since the inception of the program, 104,000 Afghans and their 
families, Afghan allies and their families, are living in the 
United States. And since the end of the evacuation in 
September, we have issued more than 22,000 visas to our Afghan 
allies and family members. More than 12,000 of those have been 
issued just in this fiscal year.
    So, we are dedicated----
    Mr. Waltz. But if you look at how long it is going to take 
to process those that were left behind, they do not have 
another year or two to hide from the Taliban. And if we had 
done our job, if you had done--if the State Department had done 
their job, you would not have veterans groups exhausting their 
savings, exhausting their kids' 529 plans, getting divorced, 
committing suicide because of the people we left behind. So, 
please do not paint a rosy picture on this.
    Come to us and tell us what we need--I mean, you are right, 
you do have our commitment. You have our commitment and the 
resources and the authorities you need to move faster.
    Ms. Bitter. Right.
    Mr. Waltz. So, please come to us and let us know what that 
is, so that we do not have more dead Afghans that we left 
behind while waiting on bureaucracy.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time.
    Mr. Mast. I now recognize Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Secretary Bitters, conferences and trade shows support 
over 225,000 jobs and create over $28.2 billion in economic 
impact across Florida each year. They also support countless 
small businesses throughout the 20th district, nationwide, and 
in Florida. Unfortunately, international buyers and exhibitors 
from many countries remain unable to return to the events in 
the United States due to ongoing visitor visa appointment wait 
time delays.
    Wait times for visitor visa appointments currently exceed 
180 days in 70 U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. 
For example, as of today, 737 days in Mexico City; 630 days in 
San Paolo, and 600 days in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. With 
international attendees needing six to 9 months of lead time to 
come to business events in the United States, we remain closed 
for businesses to many who would be buyers and exhibitors who 
not only spend money at these conferences and trade shows, but 
also drive demand for restaurants, hotels, and travel.
    Beyond its normal operations, what is the Consular Affairs 
doing to urgently bring down the visitor visa appointments wait 
times at U.S. outposts in the world?
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you for the question. I appreciate it.
    One thing I just want to highlight is that, today, more 
people can travel to the United States today, get on a plane 
today, than at any other time in our history. That said, we do 
have long wait times for first-time tourist visa applicants at 
certain posts. As I was mentioning earlier, we are working 
enormously hard on that, and we have reduced median wait times 
globally to about 2 months for first-time tourist visa 
applicants. But globally, in every other category of visa 
applicant, wait times are at pre-pandemic level or better.
    We have issued 22 percent more visas year to date than we 
did prior to the pandemic. And, in fact, at our four highest-
producing posts, which have the biggest backlogs as well, we 
have issued 57 percent more visas than we did prior to the 
pandemic. This is a result of extraordinary pent-up demand, and 
we are working through it. We are getting more staff to the 
field.
    And I should also highlight, particularly for the kind of 
events that you are talking about, we have a business visa unit 
here in Washington. We would love to be able to work with these 
organizations to be able to make sure that visas aren't an 
impediment.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Well, you talked about the 
awareness of the issue. Do you have any tangible goals for your 
businesses that you are trying to meet by the end of the year?
    Ms. Bitter. I'm sorry?
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. You said that you have awareness 
of it. What are your tangible goals for reducing these wait 
times? Because, as I mentioned, they are all over 500 days. So, 
do you have any tangible goals by the end of the year that you 
want to see reduced, especially in the cities that I 
mentioned----
    Ms. Bitter. Sure.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick [continuing]. Mexico City, San 
Paolo, Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
    Ms. Bitter. Uh-hum. So, thank you for asking that.
    For some of the places, again, median, we are talking about 
a 2-month wait time. But there are posts where we have--and you 
have mentioned them--much longer wait times. Our goal is for 
everybody, all of our posts, to be below 120 days, and we are 
working to get there. The more staff we get out in the field, 
the more we will be able to do that.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So, specifically, my question was 
about the business communities. You said that you are aware of 
them and you have an office that you are working with. Is there 
any plan to expedite their visas or to make sure they are 
reduced?
    Ms. Bitter. So, every post in the world has an expedite 
program where they are able to get in touch with the consular 
section to be able to ask for an expedited appointment. More 
than that, if those businesses are in touch with the commercial 
offices or others in the embassy, we always want to make sure 
that, for travel that is in the U.S. Government interest, like 
important business events, that those people have access to 
quicker appointments.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. In January 2012, President Obama 
issued an Executive Order requiring 80 percent of non-immigrant 
visa applications were interviewed within 3 weeks after their 
application was received. When will the U.S. embassies and 
consulates be able to interview 80 percent of all non-immigrant 
visa applications within 3 weeks?
    Ms. Bitter. Right. Thank you.
    We do remember that Executive Order. The circumstances, of 
course, were quite different.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. But, for time, I'm just 
wondering, when will you guys be able to meet that?
    Ms. Bitter. Right. As I mentioned, we are looking at trying 
to get down--for all of our posts again, we are already at 2 
months median globally. We would like for most of our posts, if 
not all, to get to 120 days by the end of the year.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Do you have a projection? By the 
end of the year?
    Ms. Bitter. That is what our goal is and we are going to 
work toward it.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 
I yield back.
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Mills for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Assistant Secretary Bitter.
    I wanted to note a couple of things. You talked about--and 
so did the ranking member, Mr. Crow, for whom I have a 
tremendous amount of respect and I had served with in Iraq in 
the same brigade--about timeline tipping points, and many of us 
not wanting to leave family behind, when they talk about the 
American citizens trapped in Afghanistan. And you talk about 
the increasing communication with U.S. personnel and even an 
offer of assistance in leaving.
    I want to play a quick video, if I may, if you could direct 
your attention here.
    [Video played.]
    So, I want to tell you what you are looking at right now. 
Right now, you are looking at an American family who was 
sitting outside of Abbey Gate, where the U.S. State Department 
said that we were to go to in order to receive support for us 
to be able to assist--and I'm using your language--assist in 
leaving.
    Now, this wasn't a family who did not want to leave. This 
is a family, as you can see, showing their American passports, 
begging to be able to come inside to have a chance at survival.
    Now, I also want to make mention that this is a significant 
date, August 26th. Do you know where that family is now? They 
are dead.
    Do you find it acceptable that an American family--remember 
what President Biden said when he asked the question, he said, 
``If you want to leave Afghanistan, all you have to do is show 
your blue passport.'' There is a family showing their blue 
passports. Do you find that acceptable that they had no U.S. 
Consulate representative or State Department personnel to help 
them? And do you know why that is?
    I am going to read the statement from the Marines. On March 
8th, we had Marine Sergeant Tyler Vargas-Andrews--from the 
State Department, Department of State--who said that, ``The 
State Department at HKIA would completely shut down processing 
of Afghans and Americans every evening and into the morning, 
leaving ground forces with a nightmare that they did not work 
in reasonable rotations and very much presented an 
unwillingness to work in the situations.''
    A further member, a platoon sergeant in the Marine Corps 
Stated that, ``My biggest gripe''--his biggest gripe, bearing 
in mind 13 Americans were killed in uniform, some of which were 
his Marines--his biggest gripe was ``that the Department of 
State personnel, they would come out to do their shift and 
randomly show up and leave. They were slowing down the entire 
process, and I couldn't understand what the thought process was 
behind this.''
    Can you answer why the U.S. Consulate, one, would not work 
around the clock to ensure Americans were receiving the 
necessary attention they need, like that family who is dead, to 
be able to get out of the country, when it is their right, as a 
blue passport-holding American, to have our government to be 
able to support them?
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that 
question.
    I'm going to just start by addressing, just reflecting on 
my Department colleagues who volunteered from all over the 
globe to go to Kabul to assist their colleagues and to assist 
American citizens. And I am overwhelmed with admiration for 
what they did and gratitude----
    Mr. Mills. Ma'am, that's great, and I appreciate it as 
well. But I'm also the only Member of Congress who actually 
conducted rescues myself of Americans out of Afghanistan, who 
spent 3 years of my life in Afghanistan, 7 years of my life in 
Iraq. I appreciate service as well. And guess what? I also 
served with the Department of State.
    Ms. Bitter. I honor your service as well, sir, and I honor 
the service of the Marine who was mistaken when he said there 
were not consular officers at the gates. Consular officers 
worked 24 hours, 7 days a week, on a----
    Mr. Mills. Well, ma'am, that was one of the dates right 
there.
    Ms. Bitter. They worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 
throughout the airport complex, wherever they were needed, side 
by side with their military colleagues and diplomatic security 
on all aspects of identifying and facilitating American 
citizens----
    Mr. Mills. Well, in my last minute, though, you are saying 
that they were at every single gate. I just showed you video 
proof of an American family who was trying to leave at the gate 
that they were text messaged by Task Force Afghanistan, which 
is a State Department task force. ``Meet here and we will show 
your passport to let you in.'' Did you see them getting let in 
or had anyone assisting them in that effort?
    Ms. Bitter. It is really--I think that you are aware of how 
challenging and complex the situation at the gates was. Our 
colleagues were there. They were everywhere they needed to be--
--
    Mr. Mills. So, you are saying that these Marines are lying, 
right, in their testimony where they are saying that they did 
not see the consulate officers staying there, and that, to 
quote him again, he said that they would ``leave every evening 
and come late in the morning.''?
    Now, this is from Sergeant Tyler Vargas-Andrews, who is the 
sniper who could actually have killed the suicide bomber, but 
wasn't given any permissible approvals, and is now an amputee 
and suffers from many other things. So, are you saying that his 
testimony is false, then, that he is not right and saying that 
the State Department and consulate officials were at the gates 
with him?
    Ms. Bitter. I'm saying that he is mistaken.
    Mr. Mills. Well, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Ms. Titus for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to go back to some of the questions about the 
visas. I represent Las Vegas. And so, this visa issue is very 
important to us, not just for visitors, tourists, coming, but 
also for conventions and planning--and conventions have gotten 
more international all the time--and how to plan whether you 
are going to come to a conference or a convention, or you are 
going to be represented at a trade show. So, this issue is very 
important to us.
    We have got 40 million visitors coming to Las Vegas every 
year, $20 billion in wages, $80 billion in overall economic 
outputs. So, if this falls apart, people are devaStated.
    So, I know that we mentioned some of the excess wait times. 
They have gone up and down in India. But other places that have 
a big impact on us are Brazil and Mexico. Mexico and Canada are 
a source of our main visitors. So, if we cannot get from Mexico 
or from Brazil, it is a serious problem.
    So, we are talking about ways to help bring down the 
backlog. I know that President Obama at his time issued an 
Executive Order that 80 percent of all temporary visas would be 
issued in less than 21 days. And that really worked. It brought 
the high of 114 days down to just 2 days in 2012. Now, 
unfortunately, the last President Trump did away with that. And 
I wonder if there are any plans by the State Department or 
President Biden to put that back in place, or if that would be 
a good idea. Or if not, what might work? I know it is a goal, 
but what are some specifics?
    Ms. Bitter. First, we think about Las Vegas a lot. We know 
how important tourism is to Las Vegas. And we visited many 
recent travel shows that have been held there. And so, we 
really appreciate how important this is to you and to your 
constituents.
    Again, just to go to the Executive Order, I think, you 
know, the challenges that were being faced in 2012 are not the 
challenges that we face in 2022. We are already so productive. 
We are already processing so many more visas than we did at 
that time, that what we are looking for is simply more staffing 
in the field. And we are absolutely getting it out there as 
quickly as we possibly can, to be able to conduct these visa 
interviews as quickly as possible.
    Again, for every category that does not require an 
interview, and for every category that is students and others, 
repeat travelers, our wait times are pre-pandemic or better. 
And I would also highlight that we have brought wait times for 
first-time visitor visas down 50 percent since the beginning of 
the fiscal year. So, we are going to absolutely keep at it, and 
with your constituents in mind.
    And the other thing I want to highlight is that we do have 
a business visa unit. If you hear of conventions that are 
taking place, please let us know. I think one of the proudest 
moments I had in this job was when we got a thank you tweet 
from the Consumer Electronics Show----
    Ms. Titus. That is a big one.
    Ms. Bitter [continuing]. Because I think a third of the 
attendees there were international.
    So, again, this is something we think about a lot. We think 
about it all the time. And we are excited because, again, more 
people than ever before are able to travel to the United States 
right now, and we want to facilitate that and be part of the 
future.
    Ms. Titus. Well, is there anything that we can do as a 
committee, or Congress, besides just giving you resources for 
more staff and equipment? For example, a virtual interview 
process or any way to help along those lines?
    Ms. Bitter. I can tell you one priority, and then, two 
legislative priorities I would love to quickly talk about.
    Ms. Titus. Please.
    Ms. Bitter. One priority is--I spoke briefly about this 
when Mr. Kim was talking--we are fee-funded, but we are also 
part of the State Department. So, ensuring that the State 
Department is fully funded and that the management platform on 
which we sit is robust and healthy is really important to us--
to be able to hire, to be able to execute contracts, training, 
getting people out into the field. So, that is really 
important.
    And then, we do have two legislative authorities that I 
would be happy to talk briefly about. One is, one of the things 
that Congress gave us in the aftermath of the pandemic was 
expanded spending authorities, which allow us to move fees more 
flexibly across our global enterprise. Those authorities are 
year to year, and we would be very grateful if they could be 
made permanent. Because some of the things that we want to do--
making investments in IT and really hiring to meet this 
demand--we need to be able to plan on a more long-term basis 
than year to year.
    And then, finally, there is a passport fee, the passport 
application and execution fee, that we were given authority to 
collect in 2022 and to expend that year. But, in subsequent 
years, we are allowed to collect it, but not expend it. That 
money can be used as a source to assist American citizens 
overseas. Right now, we have to move money around and borrow or 
steal from visa money to be able to fund some of the unfunded 
things that we do overseas, like visiting people in prison, for 
example, and other things.
    So, given the fact that 46 percent of Americans now have 
passports, above 30 percent just 13 years ago, we know those 
people are going overseas. So, we want to make sure that we 
have a dedicated source of funding that we can use to assist 
them if they are in trouble overseas.
    And I think I'm out of time. Thank you for letting me get 
through that.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Mast. I now recognize Ms. Dean for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Crow.
    And thank you, Ambassador Bitter, for testifying today.
    I represent suburban Philadelphia, Montgomery and Berks 
Counties.
    I want to, No. 1, say thank you to members of your team who 
came and did a passport processing day on a Sunday. I cannot 
tell you--more than a hundred folks came in and got their 
passports or renewals processed--I cannot tell you how thankful 
my constituents were that your team worked so diligently with 
our. So, thank you for that.
    We are all talking about passports and the increase in it. 
And maybe you can speak to this. And I do not want to belabor 
the point, but my district staff now has seen an incredible 
increase in passports, passport-related issues. So far this 
year, we have worked with about 500 constituents. That is 
normal, and pre-pandemic, we would have worked with that many 
in a full year. So, if you could speak to that? What is going 
on that is driving that?
    And I do want to ground this in what the title of the 
hearing is, which is examining the Fiscal Year 2024 budget 
request by the Bureau. So, if you could speak to that, and 
then, I have a second set of questions.
    Ms. Bitter. Great. Thank you. I really appreciate it.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    Ms. Bitter. First of all, thank you for your kind words for 
our team. And I realize I have gotten through an hour without 
talking about how proud we are of our passport teams, in 
particular, who are extraordinarily hardworking, who have 
worked incredible amounts of overtime to meet the demand for 
passports. So, thank you for saying that, and also, for your 
partnership. Members of Congress and your staffs are the best 
way that we have to reach the American people and your 
constituents. So, thank you for that.
    Ms. Titus. Sure.
    Ms. Bitter. You highlighted--and it is really true--that 
what we are facing is truly unprecedented passport demand. And 
that is creating wait times for passports that are longer than 
we would like.
    I mentioned this before, but it is really worth 
highlighting. I mean, we produced 22 million passport products 
last year, and this year we are likely to produce 25 million, 
which is about a 15 percent increase. So, it is we are really 
working very hard to keep up.
    And because of the trends that we see in the number, the 
percentage of Americans that have passports, we do not think 
that this is an anomaly. We think this is a trend. So, we have 
been hiring and doing our best to bring as many people on as 
possible. We have increased our team by 10 percent this year 
with about 10 percent more in the pipeline.
    So, what you will see in our 2023 ops plan and in our 2024 
budget is where we notified and want to bring on as many new 
passport adjudicators as we can, but also overseas staff.
    Ms. Titus. Do you have any idea of the number of folks, of 
staff, you are talking about, whether nationally or overseas?
    Ms. Bitter. Sure. It is--I hope that you do not make me do 
math in public--but it is 177 new passport adjudicators.
    Ms. Dean. OK.
    Ms. Bitter. And then, I think it is 285 total.
    Ms. Titus. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Bitter. Don't make me do the math.
    Ms. Titus. No.
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you. I appreciate it.
    Ms. Titus. Yes. And finally, in the time remaining, I, too, 
want to take a look at the SIVs and Afghanistan. What were some 
of the challenges for the Special Immigrant Visa Program in the 
leadup and during the evacuation of Afghanistan? And what is 
the current State of the SIV pipeline?
    We are all--I do not care what party, what color; you know, 
you could be purple--we all care about making sure that those 
folks are processed as quickly as possible, and we are 
devaStated that so many have not been able to access that. What 
is the status? What was the challenging coming into it, and 
what is the status now?
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you.
    I am going to focus on where we are now, just because I 
started just as the evacuation started. And so, the challenges 
that the program faced prior to that, I do not have as much 
direct knowledge on, although we are very happy to talk to you 
and your staff separately about it.
    But I do kind of want to focus on where the program is 
today.
    Ms. Titus. Please.
    Ms. Bitter. We share your commitment and dedication to 
this; truly, we do. Since the evacuation ended, we have been 
able to adjudicate or to issue 22,000 Afghan allies who are now 
living in the United States. And we have been able to increase 
our efficiency. Just 12,000--12,000 of that 22,000--is just in 
this Fiscal Year to date.
    So, we are working really hard to be as efficient as 
possible.
    Ms. Titus. How many are in the pipeline?
    Ms. Bitter. I'm going to pause for 1 second. It is a little 
bit hard to say how many are in the pipeline because the 
program is still open. The ones that we focus on are ones that 
are approved for the program. There are several different 
steps.
    The Special Immigrant Visa Program is, at base, an 
immigrant visa program. And so, the folks who are applying for 
it have to show that they are qualified for the visa before 
they can even apply for the visa. And then, once they apply for 
the visa, which is when we start working with them, they have 
to meet the same regulatory and the same documentary and the 
same kinds of requirements that any other immigrant visa 
applicant has to meet.
    And some of these cases are complex. We have a national 
security responsibility, as well as a facilitation 
responsibility. But, again, there are a lot of steps that are 
dependent on the applicant.
    Where we are focused--one thing I should also say is, to 
the extent that we have the authority to streamline the 
process, we have done so and we are looking for more ways to do 
so.
    But what we are really looking for is, once people are 
approved for the visa and it is time to apply, that is where we 
want to do more to just expand our capacity and to create more 
platforms where we can see more applicants.
    Ms. Titus. OK. I know I have gone way over. I thank you.
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you.
    Ms. Titus. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, also. I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Mr. Issa for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to start off by telling you a story to set the 
stage for my question. Just less than 3 weeks ago, the Governor 
of one of our larger States flew in the Governor's plane to 
Toronto with his staff. He arrived in Toronto. As he prepared 
to board that flight to Taiwan from Toronto nonstop, one of his 
staff with a passport with in excess of 5 years left on it was 
refused because of a technical error--an error caused by your 
Department, or at least the State Department, that had flagged 
it, even though it had been repeatedly verified not as missing, 
as missing.
    OK, fine. What can we do about it? It is a valid passport. 
The person did not get on the plane.
    He began talking to the State Department in Toronto--
obviously, a key member of the Governor's staff. They said, 
``There's nothing we can do. It's midnight. It's Saturday.'' 
There was nothing they could do on Sunday. In fact, the 
individual came back to here, and in Washington, at eight 
o'clock in the morning, they made an application, got a brand-
new passport, and were out the door at nine o'clock.
    And I want to thank you for that. I want to thank the 
entire team that facilitated it.
    But, just like the 60 or so requests a month that my office 
makes that your people accommodate on an expedited basis, we 
know that a passport, particularly a renewal of an existing 
passport, can be done in an hour. The question is, why do we 
have a backlog of 13 weeks that is not, as you said in your 
opening statement, surged to get from 13 weeks to 13 days or 13 
hours?
    Any business, particularly one that is able to derive 
revenue from each and every application, at least in the case 
of those which require, with all due respect, no adjudication, 
but, in fact, are purely administrative, would find a way to 
contract for additional services, in addition to the services 
you have, to get caught up. Can you please answer that 
question?
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you. And I'm also very sorry to hear that 
we were unable to assist in Toronto, and I intend to look into 
that. So, thank you for letting me know.
    I will tell you a little bit about what we are doing to try 
to keep up with the unprecedented demand that we are 
experiencing.
    Mr. Issa. Ma'am, my question was much more narrow than 
that. My question was, why are you not using--or asking 
Congress if you do not believe you have the authority--a 
technique to surge to get caught, at least as to the mundane 5-
plus million renewals?
    In your opening statement, you--rightfully so--said, ``Oh, 
we're going to make this to where it's online.'' Online, and 
then, wait 13 weeks isn't going to be much better, particularly 
when, as you know, most Americans--because it is not written on 
the passport--do not know, is this passport going to be 
accepted? Because it is not electronic. It does not tell you 
when somebody at INTERPOL has a problem.
    On top of that, it does not say, if you have less than 6 
months left, good luck, you're screwed. The reality is that a 
big chunk of those people who come to us for expedited service, 
they have got 5 months and 25 days when they show up, and they 
get told, ``I'm sorry, you cannot go to this country because 
you do not have `X' amount of months left.''
    These kind of errors on renewals, in addition to the 
regular renewals, beg the question. And like I say, I want to 
make it a very--I'm the last to ask, so I want to make it a 
narrow question, only one question.
    Ms. Bitter. Uh-hum.
    Mr. Issa. If it were my business, if I were the CEO of your 
enterprise, I would be asking, why can I not move that from 13 
weeks to 13 hours? I can tell you that the Governor of Virginia 
moved from all day to a matter minutes at DMV, and he did not 
even have to hire additional people. He simply had to start 
accounting for how they do it.
    In your case, you are talking about this demand. But I have 
to tell you, Google faced a doubling of its business every 
year. Lots of people face massive increases. I understand that 
adjudication by Federal officers that are trained to take time, 
that all of that are complex questions. And I have been working 
as a member of the Foreign Affairs for 22-plus years with your 
folks. And I have got to tell you, there is plenty of 
dedication.
    But this one, finally, has caused me to say, can you please 
ask me--or answer, where is your plan? If you do not have it 
today, I think this committee has every right to ask that you 
have it in the near future. Where is your plan to take the 
mundane renewal of existing passports and get them down as fast 
as you did for that young staffer who needed to fly back from 
Toronto, get it, and catch up with her boss, the Governor?
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you, Congressman.
    There is a little bit to unpack in there. And the one thing 
I want to highlight is that every passport adjudication is a 
national security adjudication, and we take that very, very 
seriously.
    There is a lot to unpack in there in that. I think you are 
talking about things like automation. You are talking about 
things like, what is our--I'm happy to talk to you about our 
plans to surge to address the current wait times.
    But, in the future, what we are trying to do is we 
recognize that this demand is a trend, and that it is not an 
anomaly. So, we are trying very hard to hire more of these 
national security professionals to be able to address future 
demand.
    And then, also, to make investments in our technology. We 
do not want to hire our way out of this. We do not want to 
overtime our way out of it. We want to be able to take 
advantage of all of the kinds of technology that is available 
to us to be able to get ahead of it.
    Mr. Issa. OK. I'm going to have to cut this off because the 
chairman has limited patience.
    But I have been doing this, like I say, for over 22 years. 
I will give you an extensive, in-writing request. And the 
request is for you to answer the question that I am afraid you 
were not able to answer today, which is, I do not accept your 
statement about national security when it comes to the 
administrative process of the renewal. You have the existing 
passport. You have all that you need. It is an administrative 
process to take the picture, put them together, and so on.
    We contract out to private contractors security clearances 
at the TS level. If we can find a way to do that, then we, 
certainly, could find a way to get your 13-week backlog done, 
in addition to the clear need on an ongoing basis to have the 
service personnel in order to stay caught up.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence. I will 
followup with a couple of paragraphs. And with your indulgence, 
I will ask you to answer it in writing.
    Ms. Bitter. I look forward to it. Thank you.
    Mr. Issa. I thank you. Thank you very much. And I apologize 
if the question never really got understood, but I will 
endeavor to do better in writing.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Bitter. Thank you.
    Mr. Mast. I thank you, ma'am, for your valuable testimony.
    And I thank the members of the committee for their 
questions.
    Ms. Bitter. Mr. Chairman, I'm so sorry to interrupt you. I 
apologize, but there is one thing that I forgot to mention, and 
I'm kicking myself. And if you do not mind, I would like to get 
it in the record.
    Mr. Mast. Please.
    Ms. Bitter. And that is to thank Representative Crow and 
other members of this committee for putting forward the Afghan 
Allies Protection Act. It is just another example of how 
grateful we are for the partnership of Congress in supporting 
our Afghan allies and, also, for members of this committee. So, 
my apologies, and thank you for letting me put that on the 
record.
    Mr. Mast. We are happy to give you the opportunity to 
speak. We want your answers. I know the members appreciated it 
when they received answers, and they would appreciate receiving 
answers in the future to questions that they have, questions 
that they may submit in writing and plans that they would like 
to see on how to deal with this.
    You did hear from nearly every member, I believe, on issues 
related directly to what all of our constituents--maybe the 
only time that they actually come in contact with the State 
Department is when they need a passport; when they need to 
travel; when they need to get to a family event. It is a 
priority for every person that goes in and out of the Capitol. 
And so, we do hope that you will get back to us on plans, and 
plans rapidly, to address the issues that Americans are seeing.
    And we understand your statement that you do not want to 
necessarily overtime your way out of this, but sometimes when 
you are in a serious situation, you have to do what you can to 
get through the moment. And I think this is one of those 
situations. In my opinion, we need to get through the moment. 
We need to get caught up. We need to get people into a 
situation where they are not waiting months upon months to get 
a renewal of a passport that they may have held for years.
    The members of the subcommittee, as I mentioned, may have 
some additional questions for you, and we ask that you do 
respond to those in writing.
    And I now recognize Mr. Crow for any closing remarks that 
he may have.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman, for calling this hearing 
today. It was a robust discussion.
    And thank you, Ambassador Bitter, for your service and your 
testimony, and for answering the questions.
    A few just very key takeaways for me today.
    One is recognizing the service of those State Department 
officials that, again, at great personal risk, all volunteered 
to go into Afghanistan to try to come to the aid of their 
friends and our partners and our allies. And I join you in 
recognizing that service.
    No. 2, the State Department's After Action Review of 
Afghanistan did reference the need for some holistic looks at 
how we handle contingency operations. Because there is never a 
scenario ever where you do not experience a contingency or a 
crisis. And you learn from it. That is a natural part of 
military and government becoming better.
    When we were in the military, we did an AAR after every 
mission, and there were always lessons learned. So, we would 
love to work with you to look at some of those lessons learned 
and what type of structural reforms and resources we can put 
into play to make sure we are doing things better going 
forward.
    Next is your call for overall State Department funding, 
since your Bureau, which is very forward-facing and interfaces 
with the American people, and does very critical work, relies 
on those platforms of the State Department for your technology. 
Making sure that we are making the investments to modernize 
that technology, so that the American people can get the 
service that they deserve and that they expect. And we can 
continue to improve on those systems.
    And then, finally, thank you for mentioning the Afghan 
Allies Protection Act, which is something that we have worked 
on in a bipartisan and bicameral manner for several years. The 
Coalition of the Honoring Our Promises Working Group, which is 
a bipartisan working group that I co-founded, along with some 
of my Republican friends, has done great work passing 
legislation.
    And for those who share our commitment, and continuing to 
do everything possible to bring our partners and our friends to 
safety, we have to pass this bill. Because we are almost out of 
visas. We have almost exhausted the number of allocated visas, 
and the Afghan Allies Protection Act will increase the number 
of allocated visas by 20,000.
    But, also, just as importantly, it will help us get those 
folks out of Afghanistan by making very important reforms to 
that system, such as allowing for remote processing and remote 
interviews. So, we, obviously, do not have boots on the ground 
right now, and having the ability to conduct that remote 
interview and processing is essential for continuing to keep 
that pipeline for our friends open.
    So, with that, I thank you for your testimony today. We 
look forward to following up on all of those issues and work 
with you to serve the American people.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 
5 days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous 
materials for the record, subject to the length limitations.
    Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]