From the senator's office

[kkimm]

http://www.senate.gov/~grassley/releases/2.../p03r01-02b.htm

 

 

For Immediate Release

Thursday, Jan. 2, 2003

 

 

Grassley to Powell: Change Needed in Bureau of Consular Affairs

 

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley has sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell expressing concern with several serious problems in the Bureau of Consular Affairs' non-immigrant visa processes.

 

"Full reform at the Bureau of Consular Affairs is a must. I've been promised that this will happen, but I'm disappointed to learn that more than a year after the tragic events of Sept. 11, we're still waiting," Grassley said. "Visa issuing is one of the first lines of defense against terrorists getting into the United States. A massive change is necessary in the Consular Affairs' visa issuance practices and policies."

 

In September, Grassley requested the Inspector General at the Department of State to conduct a review of the non-immigrant visa issuing policy and procedures. Grassley asked for a thorough and detailed review, stating "we need to get to the bottom of this and figure out how to keep the terrorists out."

 

Here is Grassley's letter to Secretary of State Powell.

 

January 2, 2003

 

Honorable Colin Powell Secretary of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20520

 

 

Dear Secretary Powell:

 

I write to express my concern about a recent State Department Inspector General report that found continued and serious flaws in the Bureau of Consular Affairs' (CA) non-immigrant visa processes, and to seek assurances that the visa issuance process will reflect a greater regard for national security.

 

As you know, I have been concerned about the CA's visa issuance processes and conducted oversight in an attempt to fix the problems. Among other things, I directed my staff to interview Maura Harty, your choice to head CA, before I decided to support her confirmation. I also drafted an amendment to the homeland security legislation that gives the new Secretary of Homeland Security a greater role in overseeing the visa issuance process. This amendment was accepted and is now law. Finally, I requested that the Inspector General investigate the visa issuance process and report to me his findings and recommendations.

 

The findings of Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin's report, entitled "Review of Nonimmigrant Visa Issuance Policy and Procedures," trouble me greatly.

 

The report states that prior to September 11, 2001, "the visa process was seldom considered a major element of national security. . . despite the fact that after the first attack on the World Trade Center, Congress mandated the issuance of machine readable visas and CLASS name checks worldwide . . . [and] the Visas Viper Programs." What concerns me, however, is that even in the post-September 11 world, there were no "immediate and dramatic changes in CA's direction of the visa process. . . . A fundamental readjustment by the Department leadership regarding visa issuance and denial has not taken place," according to the report.

 

In my view, the redacted, public version of the report, which I will confine my remarks to, finds that security aspects of the visa issuance process are fragmented, without standards or oversight and present a continued risk.

 

Personal appearance waivers, which allow an applicant to skip the very important interview with the CA officer, can be a dangerous gap in security. Unfortunately, the policy for granting these waivers is willy-nilly – each post according to its own. I am heartened by Asst. Secretary Harty's written response that new (and hopefully stricter) policies for granting waivers will be issued soon.

 

Visa referrals present an even greater potential danger, and the report finds there is little accountability. The referral system allows other officials at posts to recommend that an applicant's interview and some security checks be waived when the official feels the applicant's admission is "in the government's interest." Essentially, this is a "get into the country free" card, a guarantee.

 

The report also found that officials with no business in visa issuance seek to influence the matter. The report stated this was "common in missions with small consular sections." This is a serious matter that should command the department's attention immediately.

 

When visa issuing posts employ foreign travel agencies, standards for selection, oversight and training are all over the map, or sometimes non-existent. Moreover, some applications processed by travel agencies have received little scrutiny from CA officers.

 

Alarmingly, fraud prevention efforts, databases and personnel are not integrated into the visa issuing process. In light of the search for several foreign-born men who slipped into the United States – who apparently are connected to an investigation of fake identification documents and who may have ties to terrorism – fixing this problem should be a high priority.

 

The portion of the report dealing with the Visas Viper program, which is a watchlist of persons deemed a national security risk, is classified. Suffice it to say, the program has problems and needs to be improved.

 

Until I was informed of Asst. Secretary Harty's written response to the report, the only change that I was aware of at CA was that the former director, Mary Ryan, resigned, and the Visa Express program was terminated.

 

I appreciate Asst. Secretary Harty's pledge to implement the recommendations, and in some cases even to go beyond what the report calls for. I am concerned, though, that an attitude of unproductive finger pointing persists. Asst. Secretary Harty, in her response to the report, writes: "CA and at times the Department are faulted in isolation for actions or inactions that are but a piece of a total picture that includes the entire national security and immigration policy apparatus of the United States government."

 

I did not request a report to examine the total picture, or even the national security and immigration policy apparatus of this government. I requested the Inspector General to investigate the visa issuance process. The numerous problems found were not the result of legislative action or regulations imposed by other agencies. The problems were in the practice, process and protocols (or lack thereof) of issuing non-immigrant visas by CA officers.

 

Whatever CA has done since the attacks of September 11, 2001, I think we both can agree that there is much more to do to improve national security.

 

My concern about the Inspector General's report brings me to the confirmation of Maura Harty as Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs. My staff was promised by Assistant Secretary Harty, prior to Senate confirmation, that she was a force for reform and an agent for change in the CA bureau. Specifically, she promised that she fully understood the importance of visa issuance in the post-September 11, 2001 world, and promised that she would use General Accounting Office reports as a blueprint for change in the CA office.

 

I will hold Assistant Secretary Harty to these assurances, and I think a serious change is necessary in the CA bureau's visa issuance practices and policies. Although Assistant Secretary Harty has been in her position for only a few months, I expect to learn of reforms in the near future. In any event, based on Assistant Secretary Harty's assurances, I expect her to embrace the Inspector General's recommendations, and that she will begin to implement serious change at CA.

 

I appreciate that in Assistant Secretary Harty's response she agreed with most recommendations, and that some are already underway. To reassure me, however, I ask that you direct her to respond to me, in writing, explaining which of the 19 recommendations she will undertake or already is; the time line for implementing these recommendations; and an explanation for why she is not carrying out any recommendations.

 

I anticipate that such a response can be made by Monday, January 20, 2003. If department officials feel a briefing for my staff, in addition to the written response, would be fruitful, I would appreciate that as well. Your office should contact Kathy Nuebel, at (202) 224-3744, or John Drake, at (202) 224-5315, of my staff if there are any questions.

 

Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs

 

cc: The Honorable Maura Harty

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs

[rfsun]

This is crazy, I just met my Congressman and he probably knew about this.

[owenkrout]

OK. Sounds great. However, did they answer him or just blow him off? The fact that he demanded specific answers and gave them a deadline is a great change. It is about time that some of the Senators starting acting like they are the bosses instead of allowing the public servants treat them like underlings.

 

According to what they do, they could improve the process or make it even more difficult for those currently seeking visas.

[beishan4]

Aloha from Beijing,

Sounds like much ado about nothing. The references to non immigrant

visas is only a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and does not deal with our

immigration problems. We need changes that will make the system

work on a proper time frame. The previous statements only cloud the

issue.

Myles aka Annakuen'GG

[chinadave2001]

When I read this I thought that the Senator was much more concerned about terrorists slipping throught the system than he is about reforming the process in order to expedite family visas.

It seems to be than he is determined to make the process more difficult/thorough. I would like to see the corruption cleaned up.

Just my thoughts....dave

[kkimm]

I don't know if this is the "normal" or 'regular" format or length of letters from Congress to gov't officials...I am reading a sense of dis-satisfaction about the progress/recommendations that Maura Harty is supposed to make...

 

I have faxed him and the committe chair a letter about my "on-hold" situation don't know if that will help though

 

Charles Grassley (202) 224-6020

Sen. Orrin Hatch, Chair Judiciary Committee, US Congress (202) 224-6331

[owenkrout]

Hey, since he is already unhappy with them and already is aware that there are problems with the process, I would say feeding his office information can only help.