Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing On The Visa Waiver Program 20151211

Of state and Homeland Security share their thoughts for strengthening the program. Currently individuals from socalled friendly countries are not required to have a visa when entering the u. S. For stays of 90 days or less. This is about an hour and a half. Call to order here. I want to thank the witnesses. There may have been a little miscommunication in terms of the timing. I thought we wanted to start this at 11 00, we had the vote at 10 45. Thats why our attendance is not as strong. Also appreciate we were able to set this up as a roundtable. I want to have Administration People and people from the outside sitting together so we can have a good discussion. This will be pretty much a free flowing discussion which is also nice. Rather than have it structured and seven minutes per senator. When were on a topic ill encourage my colleague to jump in. So its not disjointed. We have four witnesses here, miss kelly parisi. Shes the deputy secretary of the office in the office of policy. She can speak to the enhancements that dhs is thinking of strengthening the currents visa program. Mr. John wagner is here for customers and Border Protection with the u. S. Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Wagner can speak to operational considerations and Visa Waiver Program and how officers make determinations at ports of then cry. He can discuss the benefits of preclearance operations. Next witness will be mr. Justin siberell. He is the Principle Deputy coordinator for the bureau he can speak to the existing information sharing agreements that the u. S. Government has. And finally mr. Mark fry is former director of the visa director program. Mr. Fry can speak to the need to enthanks Visa Waiver Program in a sensible way to allow us to maintain the benefits of the program while at the same time enable dhs to prevent terrorist travel. We did ask people to submit testimony so i dont want to make people feel bad. Mr. Fry did submit testimony. Ill tell you, dr. Fry, probably the most succinct description of the Visa Waiver Program and the advantages of it in terms of enhancing our security. So not to put you onthespot, and i didnt give you warning on this, it would be nice if you can go through in bullet Point Fashion what testimony you provide and talk about really why the Visa Waiver Program does improve our security and why we should be certainly looking to strengthen it, addressing some of our vulnerabilities. We dont want to weaken it. We did have a hearing on the syrian refugee situation and the reason were having this round table is because one of the outcomes of that, because we did lay out theres a strong vetting process. From my standpoint im concerned that with this administration announcing that it wants to increase number of refugees coming to this country by 21 the first year, 43 the next there will be managerial pressure to start cutting corners on that. In that hearing we heard theres some vulnerablist and i want to explore those. If theres holes that need to be plug we need to plug them. I come from a manufacturing background opinion first step is laying out reality, acknowledging reality and start setting achievable goals. This is really about laying out that reality and i think by yamerring on here i gave dr. Fry maybe enough time to prepare. I would like to start there and ask you the question, can you summarize your testimony . Is that on . Talk a little bit more. Is that on . There you go. Thanks. Thank you, chairman johnson for inviting me here. Pleasure to be on this i cheated in a sense of the testimony because you may have recognized what i provided was an updated version of what i submitted to this committee in march when i also testified on the Visa Waiver Program and so i dont want to make my fellow panelists bad that they didnt get a chance to submit testimony because i recite just wasnt that much work. Exactly. I appreciate that. I like efficiency. Exactly. Happy to talk about the it. Roundtables like this, the hearing that you held last spring are allimportant because the Program Needs education and awareness. There remains despite a lot of efforts misunderstanding of what the program is and what the program isnt and this seems to be this perception that because the word waiver is in the title that somehow security requirements are waived when in fact thats precisely the opposite. So im happy to talk about sort of what i see the four security components, but before i do so i i want to note its fitting and appropriate that round tables like this, hearings and legislation that your committee introduced just the other day are being talked about because like all good Security Programs needs to evolve and it needs to evolve in the light of the current program. The history of the visa Program Since 9 11, the program predates that but since 9 11 when it became a Security Program more so than a travel Facilitation Program theres bean history of reforms. Some administratively done, some legislatively done. This makes sense. Because we got a couple of other colleagues that have joined us. I want this free flowing discussion here. So ill encourage even while dr. Fry is talking if you have a question on a particular subject bring it up so its not disjoint. Same thing as the witnesses. Raise your hands and well recognize you. Lets keep this very free flowing. I think it will be more effective. Thank you. To get into briefly the four main security components of the program and why its a security enhancing Program First is individualized screening of Visa Waiver Program travellers. The perception that somehow you have a european passport and you waive it at the gate agent in paris and show up at dulles or jfk is simply not true. Theres an individualized vetting program that goes on by the Electronic System for travel authorization which is overseen by cdp. That in fact was part of the last major legislative reform to the Waiver Program which was the recommendations of the 9 11 Commission Act back in 2007. We set up a system that requires data from individual travellers and others in the u. S. Government can run that data against watch liptss. Is that the same with all visas like the fiancee visa . Yeah. Yes, i think. Sorry. I was going to say make sure your mic is on. Same biographic checks for a visa occur. Its dhs database, state department, look out, support system otherwise we call class, interpol, lots of travel documents, database. So its Law Enforcement, ct databases, of course the terrorism screening database. Excuse me. Were getting ahead. Does it include recent travel, does that individual screening include recent travel and how far back does that travel include for months or years or days . Do you want to talk about the travel history . Well what im trying to flush out the individual screening how thorough is that individual screening and do we need to take a look at things we need to do. What ill say and john is the best person to handle this is that theres some screening that goes on, specific to the Visa Waiver Program and is identical to the vetting that goes on for visas. Compliments another set of screening protocols that cdp does on all travellers to the United States whether visa waiver or visa and that does take more into account travel history. So the Visa Waiver Program fits into this larger Border Security framework how far back does that travel history go . Travel to the United States no speak being more about traveling to iran or iraq or syria. We would not routinely have access to that kind of information. If theres not an access to the United States we wouldnt have that. Thats regardless of a visa. Some information sharing agreements we do have with a few partners that gives us access to travel i in ttineraries. We dont have visibility on the entire world of all the moments of people moving around. If it would help, i mean as mark was just starting out saying, a starting place is educating about what it is and i know hes getting to it. If we could talk about exactly what the program swhat it requires, i personally think we would have i think it might help form the questions. Thats what i was trying to do. Thank you so much. Is there a better way . Youre welcome to. No im very comfortable with mark as well as myself. This is what i want. I really want this to be a relaxed atmosphere. Why dont you go through it. As quickly as possible. Dont go into such great detail because there will be a lot of drilling down. Thank you, senator. We talked about the individualized and recurrent screening of vwp travellers. Because you have one today doesnt mean youll have one tomorrow if derogatory information comes up. Second piece of the Visa Waiver Program is information sharing program. Companies that participate in the program are required to share information with the United States effectively on citizens or passengers who may be a Security Risk known as suspected terrorists or serious criminals. And related to that as well is a requirement to share lost and stolen passport data with interpol. So theres an information sharing piece, those two pieces Work Together because the information that we get from our partners in the vwp feeds into the database to make it more effective and better. Senator tester was talking about that information sharing would that have travel from france into iraq or syria. Is it robust enough to figure that out . Well, as i said the system hits against certain databases and has information on certain individuals. For example if theres travel i believe if theres travel history provided that gives terrorize a concern from a partner and raises to a level where a person is known as a suspected terrorist that individuals name is given to us and after vetting well cast that. The vetting itself as john said doesnt hit travel without a u. S. Nexus. It relies on the quality of the information of the visa waiver country, right . It relies on the reliability of that. Not all uniform. Not all reliable. I would argue its better than not having the information sharing, okay. Yes. Just that its contingent does that country collect the information, how long do they store it for and domestic laws and privacy laws can they share it with us. If its not say an identified National Security reason can they just give us bulk information or bulk data for us then to determine whether this is a National Security implication. There are standards on the program that requires certain threshold of the information that can be shared, correct . Yes. We can get into that in greater detail. Just an example of the folks in the paris attack who were all eu citizens are you comfortable knowing what you know the folks engaged in that attack would they have been stopped at the border of the United States based on what we have right now. Would the system have prevented that . Yes. Some of them would have been prevented from traveling here to begin. Some. Not all . I would prefer to discuss more of the details in a cla clarificlarif classified setting. Theres information that we would have received from their travel details that were confident we would have identified had they booked travel to the United States. But should point out without the Visa Waiver Program they would have shown up at an embassy and Embassy Personnel have information on these individuals better or worse . The embassy will have the same information well have access to. Same database we check. Same basic biographical information we collect whether its any type of visa waiver application. Its your basic biographical information and your basic points of contact and a few other data fields. We run it against the same types of derogatory databases, the same u. S. Government holdings and how its best back and forth we come to the same results. Without a Visa Waiver Program and information sharing and intelligent sharing requirements, again im trying to compare. If you didnt have a Visa Waiver Program would we not have access to information if this Law Enforcement information thats specific to those countries those visa waiver countries the visa waiver gives us the structured format and formalities to exchange that type of information preen individuals a platform to share it. If that information exists. Correct. Right. Thats always the case. As a result of the, i think it is, maybe im not talk loud enough. As a result of the information sharing arrangements required for the vwp they have shared over 9,000 known or suspected terrorists with us that were using in our vetting as a result. We wouldnt have that if it wasnt for the vwp program. Thats an excellent security value of the program that wouldnt exist. Under the agreement in which the framework for sharing of this data known and suspected terrorist identity data, we use that as a requirement in the program and being a member of the Program Requires you pass that information to you, so in that regard if you didnt that have Visa Waiver Program you might not have the incentive and disincentive to not providing that information. It actually helps us in that structured framework to push governments to share that information because nonperformance could be problematic for that country to remaining a member of the program. There are several bills. One is to require that if a person from europe, for example, has been traveling to syria that that information should be automatically transferred. Let me ask you from the opposite side. If we require that of them they will require that of us which i dont have a problem of that. The question is do we have that information and two can we legally share it with them . Were taking steps to enhance it further that was part of an announcement from the white house on november 30th. And were already in the process of making those additional change. That wasnt my question. My question is if we have a visa waiver person thats an american, thats been to syria, do we have that information and can we share it with the country that they are going to, say they are going to france . Can we legally do that . I have to go back and check the piece of it. But if it is very much a Reciprocal Program to get your first point. Any new requirements we put on they will consider and legal will have to put on to us and similarly were sharing our extracts of our terrorist watch list including foreign fighter exing tract with our vwp countries and others because we want countries to screen against this data. This is a global Security Program considering beyond just the perimeters. Isnt i want also true and this is true of any database you start out with the basic database and its imperfect and then beautive a database you can dont add to it. You can continue to improve it. We have a certain database and were seeing theres maybe holes in the data that we want to fill. So over time the beauty of technology is it just builds upon itself and gets better and better. Never perfect but it gets better and better. Certainly some things you were talking about dr. Fry in your testimony. To reinforce a couple of these points. The information thats required under the Visa Waiver Program, either incentivizes or can sometimes the threat of potential punishment can make sure countries are sharing what they should be sharing. If they are not were aware of it and can address it. I want to point out by definition, the Visa Waiver Program countries are strong allies. There are good allies. This structures it as my colleague says it and makes it mandatory. We can potentially take remedial action if a country is not meeting their obligations. Very quickly to finish the other two components, the third element that makes the Visa Waiver Program a security tool is secure travel documents. Again, this is something that exists as a requirement for travellers around the vwp but not for travellers that come under visas that you have to have an electronic passport which is much more fraud resistant. As you know your bill addresses it theres a small percentage of vwp travellers that dont have to carry those passports and the bill closes that loophole. So thats a good thing. A much better assurance of not being able to use a fake passport to use the program. Finally this is a point i think sometimes gets overlooked the law mandates dhs lead inspection and audits of these countries every other year. In practice dhs is working with the state department and other partners and continuing their Monitoring System of developments in these countries. If i cuss just a minute on the inspections having participated in a number of them. They are unbelievably comprehensive sort of soup to nuts reviews of a countrys Border Security, aviation security, passport development and issuance process, counterterrorism capabilities and its a way for dhs, for the u. S. Government more broadly to have visibility into how a country does security. And if we fine that there are gaps, whether information sharing or whether in what a country does with respect to its counter radicalization programs for foreign fighter tracking programs, we have the ability to know that country x is not up to our standards and we can work collaboratively with that country to fix it, maybe sharing Additional Information with them, providing Technical Assistance what have you. Without that visibility, we wouldnt have as much information and so these inspections are, i think incredibly powerful tools to make sure the Visa Waiver Program countries are actually meeting the standards that we seat and if they are not, because its a Collaborative Program to help them get to those standards. Before i throw it open to other members here. In your testimony you talked about requiring vwp travellers to submit biometrics, photographs and fingerprints prior to boarding a flight would not meaningful improve security. There could be diplomatic challenges. Can you talk about that. Yes. Let me talk about the logistical challenges and resource challenges. As i see it, there are primarily two ways you can set up such a system to capture biometrics to ensure the person submitting them is actually the person thats traveling. You either have to direct the people to embassies and consulates overseas and they are not staffed to handle that extra flow or set up enrollment centers, again how many you need and all over the world would be quite a logistical challenge so some trusted agent can see this. Then i. T. Connecting it back. Thats one method of doing it. Notoriously expensive to have personnel doing this overseas. Some folks suggested you do a kiosk at the airport. Again very difficult for me to imagine how this works logistically in part because its not just a kirch osk Visa Waiver Program country airports its kiosks at every airport all over the world. Youre a british citizen living in hong kong and you want to travel to the United States for business, you can leave under the vwp from hong kong. We have to put these kiosks in hong kong, in beijing, in moscow, in all sorts of places and somehow set up a sporting system so the Visa Waiver Program travellers are submitting biometrics and not the u. S. Citizen returning home et cetera. Logistical challenge to do that overseas. So thats the logistical and diplomatic side. The Security Side is all these Waiver Program travellers they submit their biometrics at port of entry already when they arrive. Fingerprints are taken, digital photograph is taken. And ill defer to my colleagues but im not aware of a lot of people being turned away every day at ports of entry because biometrics otherwise identifying threats that we didnt know about. What we have is biographically based. The vetting is casting some folks and submitting a biometric is not as i know turning up hundreds or thousands of people who we otherwise didnt have derogatory information on. So ill turn it over to the senator. I want this to be free flowing, so feel free to particularly on something while ago were talking about it rather than have it be disjointed i want an open discussion. I apologize for being late. Senator feinstein has a bill, i dont know if its been introduced but required for gathering of biometrics before you get on a plane under the Visa Waiver Program. You explained why thats impractical or maybe counter productive. She had a five year Implementation Program for that. The idea of doing a pilot in lieu of her approach, try it and see what we can learn that pilot or it doesnt work what does work. The other witnesses just briefly your response to that, your reaction to maybe a pilot we would set up over the next year. Well, i mean were open to any requirements that are adding a practical security value to the program. Whether it be something thats referring our nexus to biometrics or others. Were absolutely, you know, were trying to work very hard to address any security gap that may arise as a result of changing the environment. As far as i just apartment reaction to a pilot biometric collection site and youre open to that. Were open to a biometric pilot, of course and looking to expand preclearance. Thats fine. Hold it. Youll have a chance to say that. Im trying to get reaction the pilot please. Take me to the pilot. Were contemplating some pilots in the context of some of the preclearance discussions were having and perhaps some other ways looking at preclearance that could involve some type of biometric collection, apart from what weve done traditionally. More in the context of that. Your reaction . Generally to say the program is still in the concept of re reciprocity. Mr. Fry, quick reaction. I would agree. In general, a pilot can make sense. But i dont know, i guess in my view what a pilot would potentially show us in that i dont think its a question of technology. I think technology certainly exists to be able to capture fingerprints overseas and send them back. I think the question you can show it works. You still fine youre not getting a lot of hits out of those pilots because were not getting today at the ports of entry. Even if you establish the system works youre still faced with a scaleable Program Going forward. Im not sure how you address the overall implementation even if you had a successful pilot. George, would you raise your hand . Thanks. George, im told you are the helped of the Office Department at the dhs. I think thats a hugely important issue and we would welcome your participation but ill yield for now. I apologize for being late. Senator peters. Senator portman. Thanks for having this round table. I think its really important. A lot of things that have come up today helped clarify what were going to do legislatively. I think congress will act and the house has acted overwhelmingly in a bipartisan basis. My question goes to the fundamental issue that our security in this country is only as good provided to us by these countries. These 38 countries have different databases, some better than others, as you all said this morning. And so going further on that, lets assume the numbers are right, there are about 5,000 foreign fighters from western european countries, the bulk from france, the u. K. , belgium. That means theres more than 5,000 total from the 38 countries. I still havent gotten a good number on that. If you have one today i would like it. Ive heard 8,000. Ive heard we dont know. Ive heard more than 5,000. Lets, if you dont mind, let me ask you another question on how many people were talking about. The question i have is really a Pretty Simple one. If you have a porous border with turkey, as we have with mexico and canada, and you have the ability to go back and forth without being identified through that porous border and you have thousands of foreign fighters who are leaving europe to go into the battle, a number have come back, were told. We have a number on that. I dont know if its accurate or not. How do we know the information is accurate . They wouldnt show up, right, in the preclearance or the data necessarily because theyre walking across a border and weve seen the refugees going the other way. Could you comment on that . I dont know who is the right person to start. Anybody jump in. How do you account for that and how good is the data . Looking at the program and the background checks and the vetting we do with that. Were not looking at a specific trip, this is authorization to book travel to come to the u. S. So looking at a persons travel history is going to be a little complicated at that point if its not including previous routes to the u. S. Where we see the most value are the data sets that we collect, the biographical information, the contact information, some of their points of contact and a few other pieces and trying to draw associations to other known pieces of information that we know does give us National Security concerns. In drawing any link analysis or type of associations we can to other people and then bouncing it through a lot of the Intelligence Committee to see the holdings they have if any of these data sets show up in any of the information that they have. We pull it back into our data holding to see who is connected to this email address. The testimony before this committee seven weeks ago approximately the director of the fbi and Counterterrorism Center said the same thing, we have gaps and they were referring to the gaps in syria because we have nothing on the ground, we dont have a relationship with the government even as compared to iraq. I guess my question is im not suggesting this is necessarily a large number of people but as weve learned with terrorism it doesnt matter that its a large number or a small number, any number is significant. We have to be right every time. They have to be right once. People going across this border thats porous. Theres no means to identify them come back to a visa waiver country and we dont have that data in our system. Are you saying, commissioner wagner, because we use other data sources including our own that is unlikely to occur, or are you saying that weve only got what weve got and it will be based on the best information we get from these countries and there will be some gaps . We use what we have access to and is provided to us. Its a mixture of the Law Enforcement community can provide to us and then the data we do collect, what associations can we draw to other pieces of information that we have. The problem youre identifying transcends the Visa Waiver Program but this is a common concern of governments globally even those outside the Visa Waiver Program, this idea of getting a handle on who is going off to these conflicts already radicalized, gaining network techniques and capabilities they could bring back to their home countries so there has been a tremendous concentration by intelligence services, Law Enforcement and it is to try to get a handle on this and Exchange Information. We used the Visa Waiver Program for those countries that are participants and, again, as noted by dr. Frey, these are 38 countries that, generally speaking, share a fairly high level of capability and share the concern we do on the foreign fighter problem. So theyre probably our best partners and theres a wide diversity countries in the program japan, luxembourg, france, all different capabilities, chile, have a more acute foreign fighter program, and the numbers youve cited are the kind we hear. What is the number of foreign fighters . I dont know that i have the number and i think its the best source of that data for estimates, but the important point here if you think the 58 is roughly accurate . From western europe so it extends beyond western europe but this is the larger numbers come from those visa waiver countries. Not so much from east asian participants. This is the critical problem. How do we build the watch list . We probably have the best of all and thats why we provide whats called foreign partner extract of about 90,000 names and then we have an even smaller number which is the fighter and were giving that to countries even that arent participants because we want them to have that watch list so they can bounce that name. Ive taken probably more time than i should. Were glad it has given us better information and better data. I dont think you can tell us that it requires a more strenuous screening. Its to facilitate travel and Business Travel and so on. Given the fact theyre not as stringent, what do we do about this potential gap . And specifically the foreign fighters that can go back and forth without identification. It will be the same issue if we dont have access to the information, the state department doesnt have access to the information either if it doesnt exist. You think theres no difference . This is not much of a difference between the visa vetting and waiver vetting as far as the biographic Data Collected in the systems that theyre run against to identify risks. If the travel information doesnt exist in the government holdings, neither one of us will get to it. They are the same, the biometric checks are the same. Interviews with the Government Official for both albeit one is state department and one is cvp and they would have occurred at a different time, thats a big distinction. In terms of the biometrics, we have biometrics on threequarters of the traveling population so that is when they get the manifest data we see if we have biometric holdings on those. Full checks are done so it is not that there is distinction. Some of it is when and really the differential would be the first time travelers. For first time visa aplicant for business purposes, which is the equivalent, you get an interview and a biometric. Even state Department Upon renewal for a visa, you dont get an interview or your biometrics taken again. You do it once and you dont get it again. And theres lots of reasons for that and most of our derogatory information is associated with biographic information, and the biographic checks as youve heard us i think all of us at this point have said are the same between a visa. To define the reality its important to make that comparison. Where will we be at had there never been a visa program . What would the system look like . There will be gaps in information. Are we better off today because of the visa waiver or are we worse off . What is the difference right now in the current state of play between getting a visa, going to the consulate and having an interview . Thats the reality im trying to lay out. And the number of denials. People are screened out. Right, for various reasons. Theres National Security reasons. Are they going to comply with the terms of that visa depending on the visa theyre applying for and that could be establishing ties to their home country, that theyre not registered for school. Various reasons depending on the visa. The National Security vetting based on the biographic Data Collected and the queries run. A percentage of initial visa and applications and we take the visa database and run the entire contents perpetually for any type of National Security information and then we can feed back any security concerns that we uncover and that we can request a revocation of that information just like we do the esta database. Its the same data thats run consistently between the two at that point from a National Security perspective. And you have to get an esta every two years. That is typically the validity period for an esta. Not only is it vetted for that entire period of time, but then an individual has to resubmit their information every two years. Well know in real time and thats the same for a visa as well. Not every two years. Better than a visa that every two years that aplicant is providing us that information. Senator portman, i dont want to lose your point about the other security benefits marc outlined initially. Not only do countries have to meet certain security elements to be in the Waiver Program, the robust reviews marc was talking about earlier last about six to nine months, we do them at least every two years. We are sitting in their Border Agency booths, at their borders. We are in their passport issuance facilities. No other Program Allows the u. S. Government to go in and do such an intrusive review. I dont believe we provide that. It is without fail adding those additional layers of security that just dont exist. A couple of followup questions to this immediate discussion, the differences between people who go through a visa process and a visa waiver process, ive heard the total number per year is roughly 20 million. Is that accurate . What are the aggregate numbers of folks who secure visas to come in . Just roughly. Within a million. I wanted to follow up on what kelli said, apples to apples, the Visa Waiver Program is really only waiving b1 and b2. Thats where i was getting theres a whole list, student visas, employment visas, fiancee visas. The biographic vetting were talking about to have a true comparison is b1, b2 that the state department issues. Including those in Visa Waiver Program countries that dont qualify. On this point its about your intent moving forward not looking in the background prior that you have amassed prior, so i want to come to study or i want to come to go to a funeral of an extended Family Member and i will only be there x number of days and ill leave again that we dont capture the intent. The presumption or requirement is youre there for 90 days or less for business or tourism purposes. But its a presumption . But there are ways. Why are you coming here, those types of questions. And then the aggregate number, do we have a rough 14 million visa applications. 1. 6 million denials. And how many denials in the Visa Waiver Program . So we denied about 60,000 last year. 60,000 out of 20 million . About 13. 8 million applications. Now, remember, theyre good for two years. Nearly 22 million visa waiver travelers last year. We had 112 million commercial air passengers. So visa waiver is maybe 18 most travelers will come to the u. S. Via commercial aviation. About 18 come through the Visa Waiver Program. About 50 of u. S. Citizens, permanent residents and then the visa holders. Dr. Frey, you talked about a couple ways if one wanted to collect it prior to arrival in the United States. You talked about sort of adding that function to embassies and consulates. You talked about new centers and kiosks at every airport, every international airport. Im curious to know whether following up on senator carpers question about piloting. Would it be useful for us to pilot all three depending on the country just to gain some expertise, gain some insight into how those would work . With respect to the pilots its not about whether it could work. I think its a could. Its a question of benefit versus cost. Biometrics were taken every day at consulates all over the world. Theyre capable of doing it. Some of these visa waiver countries havent been issuing regular b1, b2 via sasse foreclose to 30 years. The state Department Staffing and resources just doesnt exist in paris, for example, for all the visa waiver travelers who came from france. You have to ramp up the Foreign Service significantly and buy more office space or set up a satellite location staffed either by Government Employees or some sort of contractor. Its not that it wouldnt work. Its just that its a pretty massive undertaking and, again, from what i see at the moment to be minimal security benefits with both the biographic vetting that goes on at the ports of entry when the travelers arrive. Its not worthwhile compared to the cost of doing so. At least thats my view. Even on a pilot scale . I think the pilot could work. What do you do when we have the technology to do it . How then do you scale it realistically to actually move to capture the 20 million travelers . I dont know theres a good answer. What would we hope to gain by doing this . Is it the fact that an impostor might be applying for the benefit using different biographical information and we might have a fingerprint record, the fingerprints associated with National Security. Compared to what we have access to in the biographical information. If its a concern that a wrong person is going to board the plane using somebody elses document, i think that concern is going to transcend against all travelers that they could board a plane as a different person. And then youre looking at the biometrics would have to be collected pretty much on board flight which is a whole different set of issues. We have the discussion, okay, we can collect biometrics. Right now, were collecting when they arrive in the u. S. This is after they have gone through the application, the biographical information thats been vetted through all different holdings, including the intelligence chunty and it perpetuates. Its after they booked travel to the United States and then weve received the reservation information with the airline manifest information, run that through a very intensive series of vet inquiries to look at known pieces of information and then travel patterns that would give us concern that looking at intelligence reports of real life events, what about this persons itinerary would raise some red flags for us . Weve set conditions in our data base to flag this type of information. Then when they af rival in the United States, they go through the interview and we collect a full set of biometrics. What type of information are you really trying to get . As an operator, we wanted them. Wheres the right place in the process to get them that we dont shut down air travel. We dont harm ourselves, versus the more good that were trying to do. The question i have relates to several things that we talked about. What is the biometric information versus the person standing in front of me . Do we have any way to be able to track the number or a guess of how many people would try to come through and have a document thats false . So for visa waiver travelers, last year, it was about 201 . Its 476. So the question is, then, we caught theyre entry for all of those . That was upon entry upon arrival in the u. S. Based on facial recognition, i would assume that looking at the passport of what we see and taking the photo as well . Taking the fingerprints and comparing them against the information which is our biometric watch list, which includes criminal information and other types of data base. Okay. Go ahead if its on that topic. Well, it sort of is. I hadnt heard that 476 number before, but i think it speaks to your point about piloting effectiveness. Were collecting biometrics now. If the end result of all of those things is 476 hits, none for National Security concerns, it seems to me thats an awfully small data base to deploy worldwide biometric data systems in advance of travel. What if that number were 470,00 . Well, maybe you can make the argument if were doing this in advance. But if were doing it already and its resulting in 476, none of which were National Security, thats telling me that doing it in advance is not going to give us a security benefit. Right, we denied entry to over 9,000 visa waiver entry last year after denying 60,000 vested applications. Theres the numbers. Okay. We talked about before about travel. I heard a lot of conversation about well have a higher prior hosting on individuals that have traveled to known terror safe havens in iraq and syria. Very few are checking in to say oh, your passport is stamped syria. Theyre coming from lebanon. Theyre coming from turkey. Do you have a sense of confidence that when someone throws around were going to try to kick out individuals that travel to iraq and syria, that were catching the individuals or were not tracking someone who went to visit a dying grandfather. Were not getting a passport stamped from syria . We would look at whether or not the Intelligence Community or the Law Enforcement community has provided any information to us through their classified holdings that we could bounce our information that we collect on the traveler against that to draw any associations, more than just a name check. If youre using a cell phone or email address that we could connect to something somebody else picked up that we could relate to that would probably be the most capable way of doing that right now. If they booked travel that was continuous through there or if they had, you know, if they were leaving from the u. S. And going to a certain part of the world for six months, eight months with a return back and they have certain characteristics, that might also cause us to look closer at that one. But someone traveling thats a French National, someone thats a French National traveling to lebanon and is in lebanon for 90 days and then returns back to france is not going to show up and we dont know if that individual crossed the border from lebanon to go fight in syria and then crossed back and is now returning. No, that wouldnt show up. It might not. Those who seek to enter syria knowing that governments are watching out for that are going to break their travel, disguise their travel effectively. This is why you have to rely upon the Intelligence Community which is working cooperatively with partners across europe to identify those persons that may be suspect in that regard. Sure. So thats one area because we hear that kicked around all the time. Now you talk about this reciprocal agreement several times about relationships and how were going to other countries. Kelli, you mentioned active inspections. Do we have others coming in and inspecting our facilities and our checking processes that are doing rigorous checks on us and our systems . Not even nearly, not close to what we do. I mean, it is not considered thats a yes other nations do come check our system . No, no, they do not. Thats not a requirement. What we do do, we offer to share best practices and show how we do things. We have our International Allies come and have those conversations. These are ongoing dialogues but, no, they have not come in to inspect our facilities and our cvp inspection booths or anything similar. Were the big dog on the block. Senator ayotte . Thank you. So in the San Bernardino situation, that was a fiancee visa issue. Are you able to speak to that issue in terms of what type of vetting we do in that instance . Because i think people want to understand what happened there and how that visa system programs differs from what were talking about today on the visa waiver system. Can anyone speak to that . Sure. My colleague from consular affair services can speak to that. Thank you, senator. Im edward ramotowski, assistant secretary of state for Visa Services at department of state. With respect to the San Bernardino case, yes, indeed, that was a fiancee visa which is a type of visa issued to the fiancee of a u. S. Citizen for the purpose of coming to the United States to get married within 90 days. And i can confirm the department has already said all applicable security checks were done for that individual, ms. Malik. That includes a visa interview, facial recognition screening. It includes interagency counterterrorism screening. It included a review by the visa Security Unit of immigration and Customs Enforcement which has a detachment in islamabad in our embassy there. It included full biometric fingerprint checks. And in all cases, the results of those checks were cleared. There were no indications of any ill intent by that individual at the time the visa was issued. There have been public reports there was some information that was wrong on the application, i believe on an address. Can you share what type of information or investigation are done on applications that are submitted to verify what the applicant is saying is true . That varies by application and by location, if we have doubts about a particular part of a visa application, we have fraud units that can verify the data on an application form. With respect to this case, i will have to defer to an investigation in progress by the fbi. We have shared details and records with them and are working closely with them on any of the data that was provided. So as i understand it in terms of verification, it depends on the circumstances, so its not something done consistently on each application of, for example, the information i would fill out on a form where ive lived, connections like that . We verify information if the officer has reason to believe there might be something incorrect or inaccurate. The officer has to get a flag . In other words, its not routinely done. I wanted to follow up on the paris attacks one of the attackers reportedly came through greece in a visa waiver as a refugee, obviously. And that raises the vetting of our Refugee Program upon which many of us have raised concerns. But greece is a visa waiver country and so, presumably, had that individual come through the refugee process and how do we understand are we confident in the information we get from greece because how confident are we and im going to use greece as an example in the information we get from greece because, as i hear the testimony here today and one of the things weve collectively been concerned about is that there seems to be a difference of what were getting from certain countries and the breadth of the intelligence sharing and the depth upon the knowledge that we get and id like to know if theres a difference and inconsistency and if you can answer the greece question as well. Just to level set the start of your question is that refugees cannot travel under the visa program. Its citizens of the vwp countries that can utilize the traveler for business or tourist reasons to fly to the United States. I understand that. I use it for people going through countries. I am confident that all vwp countries have signed sharing information arrangements, that they are sharing that information that we, the United States, are sharing our list to other countries. Im traveling to greece next week. I leave saturday. As part of our review process. Weve signed all the forms among the countries. Were relying on the situation senator portman and lankford have talked about where youve admitted to us that and i think its consistent with what our fbi director said, essentially with the porous borders we saw in the Charlie Hebdo attacks that some of the attackers actually had traveled to yemen. And then we see the situation where europe is frankly overwhelmed in terms of the number of foreign fighters who have joined up with isis and then returned to their shores. Weve seen the fbi director say if you havent made a ripple in the water in syria, we may not know. We could query our databases until the cows come home but if the information never gets in the database then were not going to know and someone may not get the same level of scrutiny they should receive. I want to get to the issue where are the countries were having the most problem with with a lack of robust intelligence to make sure its not so much filling out a form, well provide you what youve got. Who is giving us the most who is not giving us the most . I find it hard to believe that theyre providing us every single country in this program all that they can and should do. Are you telling us theyre doing all they could and should do to provide Us Intelligence . For those migrants that do come in whether it be greece or wherever, how long do they have to remain in the country before they get a passport from that country . Do we have a consistent system or do we know what the system is for individuals that go into greece as a migrant, do they stay there two years and then get a passport. When could they get a greek passport. I apologize. I appreciate that. That generally speaking varies by country according to their own citizenship laws and processes. That is something thats reviewed very closely by the Visa Waiver Program inspections that weve been talking about. By my recollection greece has a fairly robust process for that. Its actually very difficult in greece to come in as a refugee and get a greek passport. That may be but it various according to their own internal law. The inspections require that the from degrees or the processes dont show up one day and then a week later have that countrys passport. It does vary. Specific countries and where they are i dont think its appropriate in an open setting to discuss the level of sharing. Can you answer me yes or no, are we receiving all that we can receive and full cooperation of robust with every country in this Visa Waiver Program . Is the answer yes or no to that . I believe if they know someone is a bad individual that are they sharing all the information they can share . They will. They will or are they . This is what were trying to get at. We dont have to get into specific countries but is there more that we need to push on on a gap of intelligence that will make this program stronger . So heres where the enhancements announced in august, we have the information sharing arrangements. Thats not the issue. What we would like is and would help and appreciate where these are codified in statute is using that information for their border decisions and letting the United States know when they have an encounter of those individuals. Thats the piece we are focusing on and pushing to strengthen the program. I think my understanding is theres a minimum threshold to qualify for the Visa Waiver Program. Because the audits if youre not meeting the minimum threshold we can suspend and weve done that. Weve done that with argentina and belgium. Are there any countries right now under review . We dont have to name the countries that we arent satisfied with that we may be evaluating for suspending the Visa Waiver Program because theyre stipulating theres a variety of information in 38 different countries. I always go back to the point whats the alternative . 38 countries are all for sure meeting the minimum threshold or where are we at . We do about 19 reviews a year. Each one of those reviews is accompanied by an intelligence assessment. Im not sure if we remembered to mention that important part earlier. Countries that may change their posture that gives us concern at all we have a lot of different options. We can review them more regularly. We can suspend them and certainly the last resort would be terminating them. If everybody fails the security measures and that doesnt help our Global Community and that wouldnt help the United States either so there are a few countries that have provisional status today. They get significant additional oversight, monitoring, questions can you name those . Visits. Im happy to do that in a different setting. Im happy to do that in a different setting. It is more classified in terms of well, if theres any type of security issue, i hesitate to announce it. Its not public stat us. No. Okay. Could i just jump in here . To the chairs point, this is a process ongoing. Its not like we take a photograph and a couple years later we take another photograph of their procedures. The audits dont last a day or a week or a month. They last an extended period of time. And i think we need to be mindful we dont we havent we have in place someone who is more committed to when the folks join us in the Waiver Program we want to make sure we know theres been a change and if they do change, its to their advantage to be in this program. They want to be in this program. We want to be fully compliant with the conditions. As do i. And thats one of the benefits of the Visa Waiver Program. They have to meet standards. So not only are we doing vetting that is identical but in different places in the visa, theyre meeting additional standards and we get to go in and review them to make sure theyre maintaining those standards and we currently vet the estas when were talking about the vetting on the individual traveler and were collecting their biometrics every time they travel. It could be a twoyear esta, but every time they travel theyre meeting up with an officer, taking their prints, having them checked, theyre having an interview. That is a continuous process. Let me ask this question and see if anyone disagrees with it. Continuing to improve, nothing is ever perfect but are we less safe or more secure because the program after 9 11, have we continued to build the databases . Have we continued to improve it . Are we better off because of it or are we worse off . My sense is were better off. Im not saying its perfect. I do want to get to the point what are the things that have to be improved . Anybody disagree with the fact . No, sir, and id like to make a followup point to that. Theres always room to do better. Its always evolving and the reviews are on going. Countries want to be in the program, both countries in the program who want to keep their status but we serve as an incentive to raise their security standards. Countries are looking in who sign the information agreements because they want to get in even though that may not happen for another five years. But theyre making theyre working hard. Its a powerful incentive. It just is. I would agree entirely. We are continually assessing and improving upon makes us safer. To remain a member, there is the issue of the incentives and disincentives to losing membership. Thats important and there are selfinterests there. These 38 countries are the ones we should be partnering with and whereas 9 11 hit us and required us to break down stove pipes and break down Border Security, these are galvanizing those governments and theyre pushing the threat as we are. Its a global phenomenon not limited to one or two countries. Just getting to one of the questions that senator ayotte asked, for instance one of the things weve been pushing on is for governments to be better about sharing with interpol, for instance and thats a new innovation to stress and push and were seeing real improvement there and thats something that has to continue to build out so that we sharing what kind of information . Beyond passports or including passports . Yeah, lost and stolen passport databases is the first one but theres also sharing that can occur through other interpol databases. Were working with fbi. The fbi has agents at interpol to help set up a foreign fighter database, and were pushing countries to share their own watch list data to build up that interpol database. These are opportunities to strengthen the whole network of information sharing. Vwp countries provide 70 of the records that are in the lost and stolen travel document database. Working with members of the house, i mo they just passed a visa waiver bill to strengthen ive introduced the companion bill with some enhancements. Can i go through the provisions and see if anybody wants to comment on some of these things . Will deny visa waiver protection stat to us individuals who have connections to terrorist hot spots. If you have dual citizenship with iraq and syria, youre not going to be able to utilize the program or if you traveled to countries with significant terrorist activity. I think in the current threat environment that makes sense and anybody disagree with that is this but, again, also understanding its not a perfect system as we talked about people going back and forth over the Turkish Border. We may not have the information. Isnt this a common sense enhancement . Yes, verifying it can be difficult as we discussed but what it does give us, it gives us a binding declaration of what that person says and if they do come here and we can determine otherwise that they have been to these zones and they said no, we have the ability to charge them with fraud misrepresentation. Now its a lifetime bar from ever even getting a visa. Can i make a comment or ask a question about this point just to think about when were advancing legislation. I had the honor of traveling with colleagues in my first year in the senate to the Turkish Border with syria and this was obviously a different situation than isil wasnt as prominent as it is now. But one of our briefings was with a range of individuals, many of them u. S. Citizens but many european who are parts of ngos going in to provide humanitarian relief who were briefing us on sort of the status of the civil war at that point in time. There were we got to talk to some journalist who is were venturing in to try to do war correspondence basically. How would we keep our country safe but also encourage that type of, if we want to encourage that type of humanitarian activity . Let me also note one other important sector of people, folks who are trying to participate in the political discussions to get a new government in syria and so trying to reach out to moderate syrians to form that new government. How do we deal no one is denying access to people coming in the country who have done that. Its not allowing the visa waiver not waiving the interview. Just generally, how do you deal with that . Denial of the Visa Waiver Program allows us to push people over to the embassy for the consular interview and the collection of the biometrics and if they can overcome that reason and are eligible for a visa, the state department can issue one. I think we would look for some flexibility in those cases to look at the persons purpose or intent to travel to that region and if theres flexibility in the legislation or if not theyll go over to the embassy. Weve had discussions with our European Partners and they did mention the same categories, humanitarian workers, journalists in particular. Theres one other category that has been noted and those would be employees of international organizations, for instance, opcw, those that went into syria, for instance, to ensure the Syrian Government did away with the chemical weapons. The bill does have that flexibility built in acknowledging that fact. It demands stronger intelligence which is already occurring but requires people getting kicked out if theyre not again, thats a powerful incentive to improve the process. Nobody do we agree with that . Enhance the screening of all travelers for these visa protection countries, there are a number of enhancements. I do want to hop down to preclearance because we havent talked about that. Thats one of the things weve added and hopefully can get that passed relatively quickly. Can anybody speak to the advantage of kind of pushing out our borders into these preclearance countries . Preclearance gives us the best ability to, i think, address most of these concerns because were able then to negotiate the authorities to operate on foreign soil and do our complete inspection as if the person had flown here. So what we can do, we can do the admissibility determination, the interview of the person, the checking of documents, the fingerprinting, the searching of them, of their baggage. Before they step onboard that aircraft, the u. S. Government can put their hands on people and their belongings before they do get onboard that transportation and fly here to the states. So thats why it gives us the best and then the information sharing and relationships we build with the host authorities because were working sidebyside with them is a benefit of that. So, again, i imagine youre all familiar with the houses passing and have taken a look at our legislation. Any cause for concern in any of those . No, senator, i think i would say from my perspective there arent and it gets back to one of the points i made earlier that this is an evolving program. It should be. There are a number of sensible ways to improve security, some of which dhs has done such as esta and data fields and some of the other things kelli ann talked about and statutory authority. Ole. But there was something in the legislation that said dpsh it was june 30th, i believe, 2009, that hadnt itch plemted the system at all of our airports. When they were closed, then the Waiver Authority we believe the away. So, since 2009, its been back 3 . One of the questions, if you think about it, ask george to join us at the end of the table, please. George is the head of the dhs office of community partnerships. I want to ask him a couple questions. The person i would ask each of my witnesses here to think about it. Lets say you have responsibility to craft legislative changes to the Waiver Program. And perhaps different pieces of legislation that introduce here. And so my question, for gods sake, at least do this. Hi, mr. Slatin. Weve spent a lot of time talking about holding out of our country and weve not talked very much about the efforts of department of Homeland Security to reach out to the Muslim Community and see how we like partnering with them. Weve worked very hard to make ever more secure and effective Visa Waiver Program. Were going to continue to do that but what i think were seeing is the greatest threat to our security and safety in the country comes not from people being vetted or even folks coming through the Visa Waiver Program. There is an effort going onto address that in a couple ways. Tom freedman said recently, the folks that are most likely to be radicalized and want to go to syria or iraq to be part of this effort with isis, he described them this way. Im paraphrasing. A lot of them are guys who have never been part of a winning team. A lot of them, they never held a womans hand, never had a date, never had a job, never been part of a winning team. They see this as an opportunity to be part of a winning team. And to be able to have money, to have stature, to have a job and to be able to women, to put it bluntly. If they get killed in the meanwhile, they go to heaven. They have more value and their family gets money as well. Thats appealing to a number of people. I think part of what we need to do is make sure that isis is not seen as a winning team. The president said again and again and again, degrade and defeat. To the extent right now the effort is on the iraqi forces are standing up and being effective in ramadi. I finally have encouragement there. The kurds have done some good work. Were doing the air part. We are being joined by the brits and french. Were starting to get our act together. Theres a chance as we continue to compress the amount of land that territory that isis has jurisdiction over, frankly take more of their lives, kill more of them. Its a tough way to say but thats what is happening. Taking out their leadership. They will be seen less and a winning team. They have to convey that change here effectively through social media or otherwise more effectively than we have done. Why dont you tell us about you are doing in your office. Tell us a little about it and how your operation works. What we can do, if anything, to be supportive. Thank you, senator. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for the support of legislation. Within the first weeks of coming on my new role, which is the new centrally focused effort to consolidate the cve efforts at large, so thanks for the support from your staff. I met with them within first ten days i was in the office and have given staff an overview of how im getting there. Thats been incredibly helpful. The office was announced by secretary johnson on september 28th of this year. As an opportunity to consolidate the departments programs and functions and personnel and cve at large. Our focus not Everybody Knows what cve is. The u. S. Governments efforts to counter extremism. We issued the First National strategy on this issue titled empowering local partners to prevent violent extremism in the United States. Various departments and agencies have aligned themselves in different ways. In the past several years the department of Homeland Security has consolidated. My new office has further consolidated into a streamlined effort in which all the departments functions are focused out of the office which have i been appointed to lead. This new office has a remit for preventing violent extremism in the homeland and administering programs to do that. We lay out very clearly that this office focus will be run on senator johnson you mentioned earlier your comment on from your experience in manufacturing. Were taking a lesson from the private sector in this regard and structuring the function of this office as an stakeholder model. Mayors, county council members, civic officials as well as ngos and community leaders, those are the stakeholders. The function is to create products and service stakeholders across the country that can play a role in preventing or intervening in the radicalization process at some point. Happy to go into further detail. Okay. Very briefly i thank you. Just very briefly, one or two things if were going to make legislative changes, what should we do . Maybe what should we not do . Thank you. I honestly think that the collection and analysis of passenger name record and recognition is the most important thing that countries can do to enhance global security, enhance the awareness of who is coming into their country. Im really encouraged by the steps that i have seen the eu take. I hope it goes the full way and that they take those measures. And that is the number one thing. That advance notice is made possible by the Visa Waiver Program . Those agreements, that cooperative sharing . Right. We get i keep wanting to say api, pnr. We get that information and use it for all the flights that were vetting against that are coming into the United States. We would recommend it as one of the enhancements secretary johnson announced to have that codified in statute would be fantastic because. Of course, as you know, when they are trying to get through their legislative challenges to point to u. S. Statute to move forward, that certainly would be big. Appreciate it. I would look to strengthen and leverage the partnerships we have built with the programs. This provides the format to Exchange Information and encourage more sharing which helps us close blind spots we have discussed today. I would echo that. To view this program really as a point of strength. Its a strong baseline for us to improve our collective Border Security. So the codifying these enhancements in legislation, as kelli noted, is important in our dealings with foreign partners, because they understand that they also have to enact changes in their own systems to include passage of legislation domestically. So this is a very useful way to approach the project. Thank you for it. How would you craft your legislation . I would agree with my colleagues, that i do think the legislation passed yesterday and introduced by this committee strikes a right balance between taking what is a successful Security Program and improving it in light of the current environment. In terms of the one thing i would do i mentioned this the last time i testified. Im deadly serious about it. You need to change the name. I mentioned it at the beginning that a lot of the problems of the Visa Waiver Program have to do with misunderstandings. A lot of that its a complicated program. We have spent two hours getting into the details and different nuances of it. Visa waiver sounds like were waiving security requirements when were precisely doing the opposite of that. I think that contributes to the misunderstandings we have been having. The program that george is here representing has done this. Counter violent extremist you changed it to . The function is to create partnerships. The name change. The name is the office for community partnerships. You could call this the secure travel partnership. That would by the way, you are right. Words matter. The reason we had this was to lay out the reality. I would ask anybody, whats the alternative . Were vulnerable. Theres no such thing as perfect information. There are going to be gaps. Its my belief that even though there may be woow trying to fill, not going to fill them perfectly, those gaps that exist in the visa system as well. Theres information gaps. I do believe the main strength of this are the agreements, that information and intelligence sharing between ourselves and these partner country and the fact that we have this codify and we have this database and we build on it. Its really important. This is something we continue to build on and improve. I come from manufacturing. Continuous improvement. Again, i do have to move this along. I do appreciate this has been very helpful. I hope the American People have seen this as helpful as well. Appreciate your support, appreciate your testimony. With that, the record will remain open for 15 days until december 24th at 5 00 p. M. For the submission of statements and other material for the record. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you. Really do appreciate it. On the hill friday morning, nancy pelosi will hold her weekly press conference. Well take you live at 10 45 a. M. Eastern on cspan 2. Following terror attacks, syrian refugee have come under increased scrutiny. Thats live at 1 00 p. M. This weekend on cspan, saturday night at 9 00 eastern, executives from pandora and spotify on technology from this years aspen forum. Are there certain parts of the day where music is not the only thing you want to listen to. So morning commute is one hypothesis that were testing right now. If youre on the subway and youre in your car, et cetera, maybe you dont only want mulic. Maybe you want news, weather report, maybe like a clip of jimmy fallon or Something Like that. Theres some other content you want to experience throughout that period of time. Thats what were testing right now to see if people are interested in experiencing that. Then, sunday even at 6 30, Ohio Governor john kaisich on rebuilding international aliengss. Thanks to my 18 year, 18 years on the House Arms Services committee, i knew many months ago that the only way to solve this problem is to call for an International Coalition to defeat isis and syria in iraq. We have to join with allies in the region, jordan, egypt and the gulf states in saudi arabia to organize and defeat isis on the ground and to deny them the territory that they need to survive. Those with long experience know that an air qualm pain on its own is simply not enough. The administrator of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Association testified on a house subcommittee. They discussed some of the managemented challenge is facing noah, issues of transparency and the role of the commercial sector in aiding weather forecasting. This hearing on space and Technology Subcommittee is an hour and a half. T