[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 98 (Thursday, July 15, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S8232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 2661. A bill to clarify the effects of revocation of a visa, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
fix a loophole in our visa policies that has and could continue to have 
detrimental consequences on our national security. I have been pressing 
the Departments of State and Homeland Security for the last year to 
make changes to visa revocation certificates so that we can question, 
detain, or deport foreigners who were not supposed to be granted a 
visa. It was one year ago today that the Senate Judiciary Committee 
held a hearing on this problem.
  For example, it is extremely difficult to detain and deport suspected 
terrorists whose visas have been revoked on terrorism grounds after 
those persons have set foot on U.S. soil. The difficulty stems from the 
wording on the revocation certificates, which are issued by the State 
Department. However, by law, the Department of Homeland Security has 
policy authority over visa issuance.
  On June 17, 2003, a GAO report revealed that suspected terrorists can 
stay in the country after their visas have been revoked on terrorism 
grounds because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation 
papers. This loophole came to light after the GAO found that more than 
100 persons were granted visas that were later revoked because there 
was evidence the persons had terrorism links and associations. I wrote 
a letter to the Department of State on June 23, 2003, and both the 
House and Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the matter last 
year.
  Some of us in Congress expected the government to fix this problem 
immediately, especially after GAO brought it to the attention of your 
department and other agencies. Perhaps this expectation was naive. More 
than a month after the GAO report and the hearings on the matter, I 
pressed the issue further with Under Secretary Hutchinson during a July 
23, 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
  We all recognized that a simple administrative fix, such as re-
writing the revocation certificate, would solve the problem. In fact, 
Assistant Secretary Hutchinson personally pledged to me in July of last 
year that the Department of Homeland Security would issue regulations 
to fix it as soon as the Memo of Understanding with the Department of 
State was finalized. The Memo was signed on September 29, 2003.
  On May 20 of this year, a member of the Department of Homeland 
Security confirmed that a regulation was written and being circulated 
internally.
  But, here we are--more than a year after the GAO first revealed the 
loophole--and it appears that the problem still has not been solved.
  This week, the GAO issued a report that said ``additional actions are 
needed to eliminate weaknesses in the visa revocation process.'' The 
GAO recommends that the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State 
jointly develop a written governmentwide policy that clearly defines 
roles and responsibilities and sets performance standards for the 
agencies involved in the visa revocation process.
  Frankly, I think these Departments have had enough time to consult 
with each other. Today, I offer a legislative fix.
  It is amazing to me that such a simple and straightforward solution 
to such a dangerous and well-known problem continues to languish in the 
slow-moving bureaucracy. Promises were made, but the promises have not 
been kept. The visa revocation loophole needs to be fixed.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that 
Senator Grassley and I are introducing that will finally close a 
loophole in our Nation's homeland security. Exactly one year ago today, 
I held a hearing in the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee to 
question why visa revocation is not effective to remove a suspected 
terrorist from the United States. This issue was highlighted in a June 
2003 General Accounting Office report titled, ``New Policies and 
Procedures Needed to Fill Gaps in the Visa Revocation Process.'' 
Subsequently, I held another hearing in the Subcommittee last fall in 
which the Departments of State and Homeland Security assured me and my 
colleagues that the problem would be sufficiently addressed through a 
cooperative agreement.
  Now a year later, we still don't have this problem fully fixed, and 
earlier this month the GAO issued a second report titled, ``Additional 
Actions Needed to Eliminate Weaknesses in the Visa Revocation 
Process.'' The legislation we introduce today will make the needed, 
common sense change to empower the visa revocation process as an anti-
terrorism tool.
  One problem we have realized after September 11 was the lack of 
information sharing across Federal agencies. It is not just keeping bad 
guys out of the United States that is important, but if someone comes 
into this country who has a suspicious background, everyone needs to be 
on the same wavelength with respect to sharing of information on 
individuals in an effective manner. Information sharing and 
coordination between the State Department and the Department of 
Homeland Security is crucial today more than ever. We must continue to 
reshape the government culture, away from old bureaucratic habits, 
toward strong interagency cooperation in order to safeguard our Nation.
  The GAO report exposes how suspected terrorists may remain at large 
even after their visas have been revoked. Last summer, the GAO found 30 
persons whose visas were revoked on terrorism grounds; however, 
revocation gives no legal authority for law enforcement officials to 
remove them. In hearings before Congress, the State Department and 
Homeland Security Department maintained that they were implementing 
methods to resolve the problem by tracking visa revocations more 
precisely, sharing information more efficiently, and hopefully removing 
such suspected terrorists.
  In a report released this month, the GAO found that, although the two 
Departments made some changes, the visa revocation process still lacks 
a timely transmission of information between agencies--not to mention 
the absence of legal authority to remove these suspected terrorists. 
After two GAO reports and two Senate hearings, the Departments still 
don't have their act together.
  Our bill empowers visa revocation as an anti-terrorism tool. First, 
it makes revocation a ground of inadmissibility for a person's 
immigration status. This will give the Department of Homeland Security 
the authority to remove a suspected terrorist from the U.S. Second, the 
legislation forecloses the judicial review process on inadmissibility 
based on a revoked visa, which is consistent with how the U.S. handles 
other visa-related matters.
  With visa revocation, it is difficult to understand why, after a year 
now, State Department action to nullify the visa of a suspected 
terrorist does not translate into the authority for the Homeland 
Security to remove that person. The point is that in a post- 9-11 
world, visa issuance--and revocation--is a homeland security job and we 
must get it right. I encourage the Departments to move forward on this 
issue as we've addressed it in the bill we introduce today.
                                 ______