T5 B63 State Visa Policy Fdr- 11-7-02 Yorkman- CPO's Background Info for Grassley Meeting 428

8/14/2019 T5 B63 State Visa Policy Fdr- 11-7-02 Yorkman- CPO's Background Info for Grassley Meeting 428

1/43

Date: Thursday, Novem ber07, 2002

To: Clark Kent Ervin, Inspector General

From: Patricia Yorkman, CPO

Re: CPO's background information for meeting with Senator Grassley

You are scheduled to meet with Senator Charles E. Grassley(R-Iowa) on November 13that 4pm in room 135 of the Hart Bldg regarding visa processingand visa express issues.Senator Grassley's primary staffer that we have been interacting with regardingthe visaexpress issue isKathy Nueb el. Although this meeting pertains to our visa work, we alsohave an outstanding request with Senator Grassley regarding U.S. Aid to the ColombianNational Police (for more detailssee reference below). Attachedare the followingdocuments to facilitate your meeting:

1) Senator Grassley's bio from hiswebsite2) Senator Grassley's bio from CQ, including his Politics in America Profile

a. The Senator is a memberof the Budget committee;b. Is the ranking minority mem berof the Finance Comm itteeand sits on the

Health Care and International Trade Su bcomm ittees;c. Is member of the Joint Taxation Com mittee;d. Am ong other Caucuses, Senator Grassleyis also the Co-Chairof the U.S.

Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control; ande. He is a member of the Senate Anti-Terrorism Caucus

3) The follow ing recent press releasesare likely of interest to you:a. September 17, 2002, Grasslev Pushes for Changes to Visa Processing

Procedures (The press release discusses his letter to you requesting a

thorough review of visa procedures. Just to note, among the several pressreleases on his website, this press releasewas not among them.)b. September 6, 2002, Grasslev: Im prove Agen cies Movin gto New

Homeland SecurityDepartment. Am ong issues highlighted,the pressrelease discusses Senator Grassley's amendment to the Homeland Securitylegislation. A copy of the Senator Grassley's amendment and ourcomments to H is referenced below.

c. July 15, 2002, Grassley DescribesNew Developmentson Visa Express.Discusses letter that Senator Grassley sent to you from himself and Rep.Dave Weldon seeking a review of the Visa Express Program and the entiretext of the letter you sent to Senator Grassleyon July 15, 2002.

d. July 10, 2002, Memorandumto Reports and Editors. Re: Visa ExpressProgram, which describes a letter that Senator Grassley and Rep. DaveWeldon sent to you and refers to thevisa program as "willy nilly." It alsostates that the Senator is exploring the best way to structure visa-approving responsibilitiesin the new Department of Homeland Security.


2/43

e. July 2, 2002, Grasslev. Weldon Seek Tighter Visa Restrictions. This pressrelease describesa letter sentto Secretary Powell expressing concern overthe September 11 hijackers receiving visasvia the Visa Express programwithout having been interviewed.The press release also referencesa lettersent to you onJuly2, 2002, (whichis actuallythe July I st letter).

f. May 10, 2002, Grasslev Requests State Department Auditof ColombianAssistance, which includes SenatorGrassley's letter to you in itsentiretyrequesting that we audit all U.S.assistance provided to the ColombianNational Police.

4) The following recent correspondencehas transpired betweenyou andSenatorGrassley:a. September30, 2002, correspondencefrom you toSenator Grassley

acknowledging his September17, 2002, letter requesting additionalinformationbe includedin ourvisa procedures review.

b. September 17, 2002, correspondencefrom Senator Grassleyto yourequesting additional inform ation and a request forOIG's findings by theend of the year.

c. July 15, 2002, correspondencefrom you toSena tor Grassleysubstantivelyacknowledginghis July 1, 2002, letter regarding concerns overthe VisaExpressprogram, includingan annex of questionsand answers.

d. July 2, 2002, correspondencefrom you toSenator Grassleyacknowledging his July1, 2002, letter regarding concerns over the VisaExpress program.

e. July 1, 2002, correspondence from Senator Grassley to you requesting areview of the Visa Express program.

f. June 21, 2002, correspondencefrom you toSenator Grassleyacknowledginghis May 10,2002, letter requestinga reviewof the $2million in US aid to theColombianNational Police(CNP). We briefed

Mr. Akers on July 10, 2002. Althoughin the letterwe agreed to provideareport to the Senatorin August,we later agreedwith Mr. Akers thatwewould provide a report by (Bob Wurster attended thatmeeting...we willfind out details).

g. May 10,2002, correspondencefrom Senator Grassleyto yourequestingareview of the $2 million in US aid to the Colombian National Police(CNP).

5) Senator Grassley proposedan amendmentto theHomeland Security Act.Wecommentedon hisamendmentvia H (Michael Chang), whichwas to bepassed alongto Kathy Nuebeland Matt Reedof the Senator's staff.

Documents concerning this issue include: /a. Senator Grassley's proposed amendmentb. Our comments on theGrassley Amendnfent, which pointout the possible

confusion that could arisefrom section iii of theamendment regardingChief of Mission authority.


3/43


4/43


5/43

CQ MEMBER PROFILE107th CONGRESS

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa)Senior Senator from Iowa

Hometown: New HartfordBorn: September 17,1933; New Hartford, Iowa

Religion: BaptistFamily: Wife, Barbara Grassley; five childrenEducation: U. of Northern Iowa, B.A. 1955, M.A. 1956 (political science); U. ofIowa, attended 1957-58 (graduate studies)Military Service: NoneCareer: Farmer

Elected: 1980 (4th term)Political Highlights: Republican nominee for Iowa House, 1956; Iowa House, 1959-75; U.S.House, 1975-81Committees:

Budget

Finance - ranking member (Health Care; International Trade) Judiciary (Administrative Oversight & the Courts; Crime & Drugs - ranking member;

Immigration) Joint Taxation

Phone: 202-224-3744 | Fax: 202-224-6020 Web: grassley.senate.gov135 Hart Bldg. | Washington, DC 20510-1501

Jump to Section:CQJPoIjtics in America Profile | District or State Description | Contact Information & Staff | CommitteeAssignments | Businesses & Major Employers | Higher Ed. & Media | Elections. Campaign Finance & Votefor President | Voting Studies | Key Votes | Interest Group s | Post Offices & Zip Codes

Link to Archives:106th Congress I 105th Congress I 104th Congress

CQ Politics in America Profile(Updated: May 2001)

Some in Congress may have a smoother delivery, and some may make moresophisticated arguments, but few can match Grassley's persistence.

The Iowa lawmaker may project an aw-shucks image, but underneath he has the tenacityof a bulldog. Once he sinks his teeth into an issue - whether it is stemming procurementwaste at the Pentagon, improving medical care for disabled children or protecting farmers inany number of ways - he will not let go. He is theperson "for whom the word 'dogged' wasinvented," the Des Moines Register wrote in 1999. "Maybe my style is a lack of style,"Grassley told the Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call. But Democrat Joseph R. Biden Jr. ofDelaware counsels observers not to be fooled: "Chuck Grassley is a hell of a lot smarterthan you think he is," Biden told Roll Call.

http ://oncongressxq.com/k2/printDocurnent.jsp?forrnAction=canned&seq= 1 &historyPtr=0 11 /6/02


6/43

As he began his 21st year as a senator, Grassley's persistence paid off.He became thechairman of the Finance Committee, a position from which he should be able to guaranteeat least some legislative action on the many trade, health and taxissues that are paramo untto his farm-state constituents. Wielding the gavel at Finance (after16 years of service on thepanel) allows him also to oversee broader issues such as shoring up Social Security andMedicare and reauthorizing the1996 law that revamped federal welfare programs.

The biggest challenge for Chairman Grassley couldbe dealing with his own party

leaders, who will be trying to manage with the slimmest possible marginof control in theSenate.

Grassley is much more open than manytop Senate R epublicansto seeking the supportofDemocrats - and liberal ones at that - in an effort to get things done. He teamed withEdward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., in the 106th Congress to push a proposal to give parentsMedicaid assistance for their disabled children.He also joined with fellow FinanceCommitteemember Bob Graham, D-Fla., to sponsor a bill that would have takena numberof steps to make pensions more portable and increase the incentives for small businesses tooffer retirement programs.

With his farm ties, Grassley's mostfrequent partners have been from other rural statesand include Max Baucus of Montana, now the top Democrat on Finance. With Baucus,Grassley has pressured the administrationto open more foreign markets to food grown orprocessed in the United States and to increase supportfor hospitals in remote areas.

Grassley is theSenate's only working farmer, a distinction in which he takes great pride.Such devotion to the land is revered in Iowa, where Grassley's shareof the vote has notdipped below 66 percent since 1980, when he first won his seat with 54 percent. He servedin the House for three terms before that.

When, as a teenager, he was quizzed about his future plans, Grassley tolda high schoolinstructor that he would run for a seat in the Iowa House of Representatives whenhe was

legally able to do so at age 21 . He was not faroff. He first ran when he was 22 and earned aseat three years later.

The son of thrifty Waterloo-area farmers, Grassleywas not consumed withpoliticalambitions alone. Upon graduationfrom the University of Northern Iowa, he did graduatework at two Iowa universities, workingthe night shift at a factory - where he was aunionmember - to make ends meet. A few years later, he and his wife, Barbara, took over hisfamily's grain and livestock opera tion.

Though his schedule is less blistering thanit was in his younger years, Grassley stillreturns to work the farm on weekends and when the Senate is in recess. He views himself asone of the few farmer-statesmen left in a country foundedby them and is not one to put onairs or attempt to spin. "I'm just a farmer from Butler County," he oncesaid^ "What you seeis what you get."

While he has a consistently conservative voting record, Grassley is not always a friend ofbusiness. He does not mind defending the Davids of Iowa against corporate Goliaths.

In a heated floor speech in 2000, Grassley charged thatthe meatpacking industry had

http.V/oncojigress.cq.com/lc2/printDocument.jsp?formAction=canned&seq=l&historyPtr=0 11/6/02


7/43

secretly scuttledhis efforts to fund an agricultural grant program that wo uld have helpedupstart partnerships build pork-processing plants.The American Meat Institute deniedithad lobb ied against Grassley's proposal. Grassley lambasted the group, saying, "While somemay believe the truth is no longer relevant in Washington, that attitude w ill be given noquarter in dealings with me."

Grassley has expressed alarm at the rate of mergers in the meat-processing industry,andhe has pushed the Agriculture Departmentto take a more aggressive role in investigating

anti-competitive practices.He also has teamed with Iowa's other senator, DemocratTomHarkin, to spur more airline competition in the state. At their behest, the 2000 lawreauthorizing theFederal Aviation Adm inistration contained language openingtwo slotsatWashington's crowded Ronald Reagan National Airportto a carrier that would offernonstop service to Des Moines.

During his career, Grassley has served on a wide range of comm ittees, and in the107thhe holds seats on Judiciary, Budgetand Joint Txxationin addition to Finance. But to makeroom for ajunior GO P senator, he was compelledto relinquish the seat he had held onAgriculture since 1991. He also hasleft the Special Committee on Aging, which he chairedin the 105th and 106th. The panel has no legislative jurisdiction, but it gave Grassley afo'rum for discussing nursing home abuse, Medicarefraud and other issues pertinenttoIowa's rapidly aging popu lation.

Perhaps Grassley's biggest legislativeeffort in the past three Congresses cameout of hisrole as chairman of a Judiciary subcomm ittee, wherehe pressed for an overhaul of personalbankruptcy laws. Despite some heavylifting by the industries involvedand Grassley'spersistent attempts at compromise, eachof his bills ended up dying.

Grassley's most active roleon Finance has come in the area of international trade.Hechaired the Trade Subcommittee beginningin 1995 and pushed hard for bills to further opentrade. He traveled to the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle and was sorelydisappointed when, after daysof violent protests,the fledgling trade bodywas left withouta

clear agenda.

When Iowa cannot go to the world, Grassley is happy to bring the world to Iowa. Everyother year since 1986, about 50foreign officials have taken part inGrassley's"Ambassador's Tour," spending five days in his home state, visiting with farmersandbusiness people,and staying in local residents' homes.

With his new post as Finance chairman, Grassley'spresence on the national scene willgrow, with attention likely to be focused on his penchant for homing in on governmentwaste. In the 1980s, he was the senator who ferreted out outrageous purchases at thePentagon, such as a57,600 coffee maker. He also worked on overhauling the IRS, trimmingthe federal judiciary and cleaning up the Congress itself, both by making sure it is notexempted from the laws it passes and by trying to get senators to make public any "holds"they placed to block legislation. With scandal-proneagencies such as the IRS and theHealth Care Financing Administrationunder the Finance Committee's jurisdiction, Grassleywill have plenty of opportunities to expose government waste.

.. Back to the top

http://oncojigress.cq.com/k2/printDocument.jsp?formAction=canned&seq=l&historyPtr=0 1/6/02


8/43


9/43

UNITED STATES SENATOR IOWA

CHUCK GRASSLEYPRESS RELEASE

[email protected] ey .sen ate .go v www.aen ate.gov/g rassley

For Immediate ReleaseFriday, Sept. 6, 2002

Grassley: Improve Agencies Moving to New Homeland Security DepartmentSenator Says WhistleblowersKey to Success of New Department

WASH INGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley has proposed a number of amendm ents to the homelandsecurity legislation pending in the U.S. Senate.

Grassley said his main focus is on improving federal law enforcement, protecting whistleblowers in thenew federal agency, mak ing the State Department's visa process m ore secure, and strengthening theCustoms Service's ability to monitor international trade.

"While Congress acts to better coordinate the work of the federal agencies involved in homelandsecurity, we also need to improve these agenciesso they actuallydo theirjobs better undertheframework of a new department," Grassley said."M y amendmentsinclude reform s designed to bringabout these kind s of positive changes. I also want to empo wer hom eland securitywhistleblowers, whocan bring to the light of day important information about mishaps and other problems that need to befixed for the public good."

The overall bill would createa cabinet-level Departmentof Hom eland Security to plan, coordinateandimplement activities relating to homeland security. Six areas are covered, including border andtransportation protection, intelligence,critical infrastructure protection, emergency preparednessandresponse, immigrationaffairs, and science and technology.

Grassley's key amendments are described here.

Improv ing FederalLaw Enforcement

Grassley has filed as an amendment to the homeland security billthe FBI reform legislation hesponsored with Sen. Patrick Leahy. The Senate Judiciary Committee gave unan imou s approval totheirbill in April. The proposal, S. 1974, would improve accountability withinthe bureau. It would expandthe jurisdiction of the inspector general for the Justice Department to include internal investigationswithin the FBI; improve protections for FBI whistleblowers; address the disparity in disciplinaryremedies for lower-level FBI employees; and require that certain reports be made to Congress regardingthe FBI's jurisdiction and case statistic reporting.The reform measures reflectGrassley's many years ofscrutiny of the nation's largest law enforcement agency. While the FBI would remain outsidea newDepartment of Homeland Security, Grassley said the bureau"plays a premier role in fighting terrorismand it makes sense to implement these necessary reforms along with creatinga new cabinet-leveldepartment.

Grassley filed another amendment to clarify the transfer of the National Infrastructure Protection Center

http://grassJey.senate.gov/releases/2002/p02r9-06a.htm 11/6/02


10/43

from the FBI to the Department of Homeland Security. The center was created in1998 to watch over theprivate-sector computer networks that control the inform ation flow for the nation's banking, water,power, telecommunications and government. Grassley saidhis amendment is intended to preventtheFBI from keeping in the FBI experiencedcyber-security personnel and necessary equipment and therebythwarting the transfer of important institutional knowledge.

Protecting Whistleblowers

This amendmentfiled by Grassley would ensure that employeesof the Department of HomelandSecurity receive training abo ut their wh istleblower rights. It requires the new department to participatein the certification program sponsored by the Office of Special Counsel and to be certified as compliantno later than 24 mo nths after the bill establishing the new department is enacted.

Securing the Visa Process

Grassley has also filed an amendment to the homeland security legislation that wo uld requirethe newdepartment to place an employee at all U.S. governmentoffices issuing visas unless the new departm entmakes an affirmative decision that it is unnecessary to do so. As it stands now , the pending hom elandsecurity bill makes the new department's day-to-day involv eme ntin the visa issuance processdiscretionary.

Grassley said the new department's involvemen t needs to be mandatory to ensure more accountabilitywith visa issuance proceduresand to prevent problem s suchas the Visa Express program. In July,Grassley and Rep. Dave Weldon prom pted the State Department to dismantle a program that allowedvisa applicantsin Saudi Arabia to receive approvalto come to the United States withou t properin-person interviews. Threeof the 19 September 11 hijackers took advantageof this V isa Express programby going througha travel agent for their visas. They w ere never interview edby an American official.Despite this tie to September 11, the State Departmentwas still operating the Visa Express programwhen Grassley and Weldon spoke out. Grassley said there may be as many as 20similar programs stilloperating in various countries around the world.

Strengthening the Customs Service

Another amendmentfiled by Grassley and Sen. Max Baucusof Montana wou ld pro hibit revenue raisedby the U.S. Customs Service throu gh COBRA userfees from being used by any homeland securityagency of office other than Customs. The amendm ent also dedicatesa portion of the merchandiseprocessing fee collected by Customs to developm ent of the Automated Comm ercial Environment(ACE). The ACE will replace an antiq uated system for processing importsand enable Customs to moreaccurately mo nitor trade flows.

In addition to introducing these am endm ents, Grassley has cosponsored an am endm ent to imp rovefederal whistleblower protections by lowering the burden of proof for whistleblowers. SponsoredbySen. Daniel Akaka, of Hawaii, and co-sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, of Michigan, it provides certainauthority for the Special Counsel to use government attorneys to represent homeland security employeesin some types of proceedings. It also gives all federal circuits jurisdiction to review decisions of theMerit System Protection Boardfor five years.

Grassley is the'Ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction overthe Customs Service.He is a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which overseesthe FBIand immigration issues. In 1989, he co-authored the Whistleblower Protection Act. He's been an

http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2002/p02r9-06a.htm 11/6/02


11/43

outspoken advocate for whistleblowersin the government and private sector.

-30-

iome | Constituent Services | Grasslev News | Legislative InformationKids' Stuff | Biography^Jn Action

http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2002/p02r9-06a.htm 11/6/02


12/43



preee@grasal ey .sen ate .gov vwvw.sen ate .gov/'g rassley

For Immediate ReleaseMonday, July 15,2002

Grassley Describes New Developments on Visa Express

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Dave Weldon today senta letter to Secretary of StateColin Pow ell to express concern about the detention and questioning of a reporter who w rote about theVisa Express program.

In a related development, Grassley and Weldon received a response from the State Department'sInspector General to their July 2 letter seeking a review of the Visa Express program. Inspector GeneralClark Kent Ervin writes:

I strongly agree with you that consular operations abroad mustbe conducted to ensuremaximum security of the visa issuance process. Acc ord ingl y, I have ordered anOffice ofInspector General (OIG) surveyof all 207 visa-issuing posts worldwideto review currentprocedures for processing non-im migran t visas,with special emphasis on programs thatwaive the personal appearance requirementand that accept applications throughtravelagencies.

In his letter, Ervin also p rovid es dataon how many people have been admittedto the United Statesunder Visa Express.

Following are:

(1) today's Grassley-Weldon letter on the reporter(2) the Inspector General's response to Grassley-Weldon July 2 letter(3) two previous letterson Visa Express

July 16, 2002

The Honorable Colin PowellSecretaryDepartment of State2201C Street, NWWashington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Powell:

We are writing to express our concern about the detention and questioning of reporter Joel Mowbray atthe State Department on Friday, July 12th. As a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committeeandchairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Civil Service, we have concerns that

http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2002/p02r7-15.htm 11/6/02


13/43

governmentagencies not take inappropriate actions that cast a shadow over our free press.

Mr. Mowbray recently wroteseveral articles that brought into question the "Visa Express" programadministered in Saudi Arabia. These articles, in part, prompted us to write to you to state that theprogram must be ended.

As members of Congress who ha ve spent years performing oversight of government agencies, werecognize that many agencies do not cherish scrutiny from the Congress or the media. However, suchoversight is critical to the checks and balances that makeour government work.

It is for this reason thatwe are troubled that the actions of State Department securityofficials effectivelychilled the work of the media and the whistleblowers who are so vital to exposing problems in ourgovernment.

Also, it is our understanding that the focus of the questions to Mr. Mowbray was about the source(s) ofthe cable in question and other inform ation he has reported. If this is thecase, it is troubling that StateDepartment officials were more worried aboutfinding a whistleblower than actually retrievingthe cable.

We would appreciate your providinga f u l l accounting of what took place regarding the incident withMr. Mowbray on Friday, July 12th.Specifically, we would like to know who (name and title) made thedecision to detain/questionMr. Mowbray as well as the legal basis and justificationfor this action. Inyour response, include the number of officials involved in the incident, their nam eand title, what rolethey played, and whether they were armed. Please note that if a securityofficial did not ask anyquestions but waspresent to ensure Mr. Mowbray could not leave, we would consider thatofficial to beinvolved in the incident.

The comments of State Department officials in media accounts state the action was taken against Mr.Mowbray because contentsof a "classified" cable were disclosed. A ssuming that yourjustification forthe action against Mr. Mowbray is that the cable was classified, we would note that the information inthe cable was reported in other publica tions. Were other reporters also questioned? If not, why wasonlyone reporter singled out? Also,did security officials attempt to retrieve the cable from Mr. Mowbray,

and if so, what steps were taken to do this? If not, please expla in why.In addition, we would appreciate an objective review of the justifica tion of the classification of the cablecited in news accounts. We have seen too often that documents are routinely, and unnecessarily,classified as confidentialor above - particularly in cases where the information does not involvenational security but instead is embarrassing to a government agency.

Finally, please inform us what the Department of State's policy is in regards to questioning/detainingreporters regarding sources and information.In particular, who decides at the Department of State totake such actions and how often has it been done in the past five years?

As we encourage governments aroundthe world to have a free and open press, it is important thattheDepartment of State support thoseefforts with words and deeds. Thank you for your time and assistanceon this matter. We would appreciate an answer w ithin14 days.- -

Cordially yours,

Charles E. GrassleyRanking Member

Dave WeldonChairman



14/43

Subcommitteeon Crime and Drugs Subco mm ittee on Civ il ServiceSenate Committee on the Judiciary House Committeeon Government Reform

July 15, 2002

The Honorable Charles E. GrassleySubcommittee on Crime and DrugsU.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

United States SenateWashington, D. C. 2051.0-0544

Dear Senator Grassley:

I am responding to your letter of July 1, 2002, regarding non-immigrantvisa issuance procedures at theU.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and the Con sula te General in Jeddah. Y ou hav e raised seriousconcerns about the pot entia l vuln erab ility of the visa issu ance process as a result of the "Visa Express"program.

As you.may know, on July 2, 2002, Ambassador Robert Jordan advisedthe State Department

(Department) that he has ordered the immediate preparationof a plan to move toward interviewingalladult visa applicantsand the eliminationof the role of travel agencies in forwarding visaapplications tothe embassy and consulate. He asked that the Department send its best consular operational experttoSaudi Arabia to help develop this new system and toidentify the additional resources needed toimplement it. The Departmenthas since respondedto the Ambassador's requestand aconsularmanagement expert departs for Saudi Arabia thisweek.

I stronglyagree with you that consular operations abroad must be conducted to ensure maximu msecurity of the visa issuance process. Accordin gly,I have ordered an Office of Inspector General (OIG)survey of all 207 visa-issuing posts worldwideto review current proceduresfor processing non -immigrant visas, with special emp hasison programs that waive the personal appearance requirementandthat accept applications through travel agencies.

In addition, early this Fall, depend ing u ponthe availability of resources, I would like to send teams ofOIG con sular managem ent and security inte lligenc e oversigh t inspectors to visa-issuing posts in thosecountries thatare of special concern to the United States because of their ties to international terrorism.These teams would conducton-site reviews of visa processing procedures and the dissemination ofintelligence regarding know n and p otential terrorists to ensure tha t consular officer s have and prop erlyuse all relevant data at their disposal when adjud icating visa applications.These reviews will also beconducted at 44 other visa-issuingposts by OIG teams conducting regular embassy and con sulatemanagement inspections in FY 2003.

I have enclosed an annex that answers the specific questions you posed regarding the Visa Express

program at Embassy Riyadh and related issues.

I wish to assure you that this office will continueits ongoing efforts to do everything within ourauthority and capability to bring about a more secure system of non-immigrant visa issuance policiesand practices in the interest of national security.

Very truly yours,



15/43


16/43

- Of that smaller figureof 12,966 third-country nationals gettinga visa through VisaExpress, 28 percent - or 3,630 - were no t interviewed.)))

What is the current policy at Consular Affairs with regard to visa application interviews?In whatcircumstances are Foreign Service officers allowed to waive an interview?

Section 222(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, provides the specificauthority for a waiver of personal appearance. The Foreign A ffairs Manual,9 FAM 41.102

(a), provides guidance on when a waiver is appropriate. PAWs are discussed in detail in theConsular Best Practices Handbook. Basically, a PAW is specifically authorized for childrenunder 14, diplomats, airline crews, certain United States Governme nt-financed exchangevisitors, and applicants for B (tourist), C-l (transit), H-l (skilled worker), or I (journalist)visas. Applicants for other categories of visas also can obtain a waiver if a consular officerdetermines that it is warranted "in the national interestor because of unusual circumstances,including hardship to the visa applicant."

What other similar visa wa ive r programs, asidefrom the congressionally-approved Visa WaiverProgram, are operating throughoutthe world under the jurisdiction of the State Department?

To be exact, the Visa Express program and other PAW programs are not visa waiverprograms. Instead, theyare programs under whichan applicant need no t personally appearat the embassy or consulateto be interviewedbefore being issued a visa. No visa w aiverprograms other than the one authorized by Congress are operating anywhere. Under theCongressionally authorizedplan, Canadian citizensare exempt from needing visas for anypurpose and citizens of 27 other countries are exemptfrom having to obtain 90-day touristor business travel visas(Bl/B). 2

Provide any reviews of the "Visa Express" Program since its inception.

The OIG has never reviewed the Visa Express Program specifica lly. PAW s are reviewedwhenever a visa-issuing embassy or consulate is inspected, as a part of our standard review

of consular operations.

What are the standards by which the private Saudi travel agencies were allowedto participatein theprogram? Who developed and approved these standards? Providethe written documentation that showsthat each of the participating travel agents was properly certified.

The qualifications of the travel agencies that participated in the original solicitation (theparameters of which were set out in a meeting the consul general held with interestedtravelagencies) were judged in the ten categories listed below:

prior visa experience;geographic range within Saudi Arabia;current contracts with other embassies/corporations;fees charged;delivery time to return passports to clients;computer facilities;designated staffing;reputation within local community;security systems in place; and



17/43

commitmentto advertising/promotion

The ten travel agencies that best met the ConsularSection'sexpectations based on theparameters set out above were contacted and given a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)which set out both the C onsular Section's and the travelagency'sobligations. Priorto implementation, travelagencies signed the MOUs and returned themto the embassy,where they were signed by a consularofficial. The consular off icials at post m eet withrepresentatives of the ten travel agencies p articipating in the Visa Express programmonthly

to discuss travel agency pe rformance, security concerns,and newprocedures, suchas therevised DS-157*, new photograph requirements(i.e., men must pose without Arabheaddress),and clearance waiting periods imposed since 9/11.The chief of thenon-immigrantvisa unit is in e-mail contact several times weekly w ith the travel agenciesanswering questions and adv ising them of embassy closings and training schedu les. Inaddition to personal interviews requiredfor condor clearance applicants (i.e.persons fromcertain countrieswho are subjectto new security checks)and those applicants appearingtohave questionableties to Saud i Arabia, consularofficers randomly select another10% forpersonalinterviewsto determine whetherthe informationprovidedon the applicationformsis accurate and, if it is not, to determine whether the applicant or the travel agency is atfault. More detailed inform ationon the selection processis containedin cable Riyadh02326, da ted June19, 2001. OIGhas reviewedthe MOU s mentioned above,and theoperationalma nual providedto each participating agencyand is forwa rding themto youunder separate cover.

How much money havethe privateSaudi travel agents mad efrom this program ?

Travel agents were permitted to charge a fee of either 50 SaudiRiyals (SI3.33) or 90 SaudiRiyals (S24), depend ingon whetherthe applicantwas residentin the greater RiyadhorJeddah areasor in other regionsof the country.No recordof the specificfee collectedwassubmitted to the embassy. Between June1, 2001 and May 31, 2002, approx ima tely 46, 694visa applications were subm itted by travel agents. The fees collected for those applicationswould be a minimum$622,431or a maximumof $ 1,120,656.

* Non-immigrant visa applicationform.

For ImmediateReleaseTuesday, July 2, 2002

Grassley.Weldon Seek Tighter Visa Restrictions

WASHINGTON- Sen. Chuck Grassleyand Rep. Dave W eldon , M.D., tod ay asked Secretaryof StateColin Powellto terminatea State Department program that allows visa applicantsto receive approvaltocome to the United States with ou t proper in-person interviews.

The Visa Express programwas implemen ted three m onths priorto the September11 attacks. Threeofthe nineteen September11 hijackers took advantageof the Visa Express program by going to a travelagent for their visas. They were never interviewedby an American official.

Grassley, a senior mem ber of the Judiciary Committee, and Weldon, chairman of the Com mittee onGovernment Affairs Subcommitteeon Civil Service and Agency Organization, also sent a letter to StateDepartment Inspector General Clark KentIrvin asking for a thorough review of the Visa Express



18/43

Mr. Clark K entErvinInspector GeneralDepartment of State2201 C Street, NWRoom 6817Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Ervin:

We are very troubledby recent reports that suggest that the Department of State's Office of ConsularAffairs is conducting programs that allow visa applicantsto receive approval to come to the UnitedStates w ithout properin-person interviews.

Th e program recentlyin question is Visa Express, implem ented three months priorto the attacks ofSeptember 11. Residents of Saudi Arabia, including non-Sau di citizens are eligible for this program andthree of the nineteen hijackers, took advantageof the program by going througha travel agent for theirvisas and were never interviewed by an American official. Equally troublingis that the program is stillin operation today despitethe tragedy of September 11.

Reforms to the Visa Express progra mare not needed. Rather, there needsto be completetermination ofthis and other similar programs that give our national security a low priority.

We are seeking y our assistance in conductinga review of Visa Express. We would like a f u l lexplanation of the following within the next 14 days:

1) Was Visa Express re-authorizedby the Secretary, or done so by the Director of Consular Affairs?

2) What was the reasoning behind the 2001 re-authorization of Visa Express?

3) How man y Saudi Arabian applicants were able to obtain visas through the Visa Express programwithout an interview with a Consular Affairs officer? In your response, providethe numberof Saudi

Arabian citizens and non-citizens who gained en try to the United States through the program. For eachcategory, how ma ny have been adm itted to the U.S. through the programfrom its inception throughSeptember 10, 2001? How many since September11, 2001?

4) What is the current policy at ConsularAffairs with regard to visa app lication interviews?In whatcircumstances areForeign Service officers allowed to waive an interview?

5) What other similar visa waiv er programs, asidefrom the congressionally-approved Visa WaiverProgram, are operating throughoutthe world underthe jurisdiction of the State Department?

6) Provide any reviews of the Vis a Ex press Program since its incep tion.*

7) What are the standards by which the priva te Saudi travel agencies were allowed to participate in theprogram? Who developed and approved these standards?Provide the written documentation that showsthat each of the participating travel agents was properly ce rtified.

8) How much money have the private Saudi travel agencies madefrom this program?

We appreciate your investigation into this matter, and look forward to hearingfrom you regarding the



19/43

program. Grassley and Weldon's lettersfollow.

July 2, 2002

The Honorable Colin PowellSecretaryDepartment of S tate2201 C Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20520


We are very troubled by recent reports that suggest thatthe Department of State's Office of ConsularAffairs is conductingprograms that allow visa a pplicants to receive app roval to come to the Unite dStates without proper in-person interviews.

The program recentlyin question is Visa Express, impleme nted three mon ths priorto the attacks ofSeptember 11. Residents of Saudi Arabia, including non-Saudi citizens,are eligible for this programandthree of the. nineteen hijackers took advantage of the program by going through a travel agent for theirvisas and were never interviewedby an American official. Equally troublingis that the program is stillin operation today despite the tragedy of September 11.

Reforms to the Visa Express program are not needed. Rather, ther e needsto be complete termination ofthis and other similar programs that give ou r national securitya low priority.

Foreign Service officers have a difficult job as agentson our first line of defense. They are approvingan d denying visas to potentiallyharmful individualsand well-deserved v isitors. However,we believethat diplomacy an d terrorist trackingmay be conflicts of interest thatwe should investigate

We have asked the Department of State's Inspector General, Mr. Clark KentIrvin, to c onduct a reviewof Visa Express. We are seeking information on how and why this program was re-authorized,ho wmany Saudi Arabian applicants w erenot interviewed becauseof this program, and what the currentpolicy is at Consular Affairs with regard to visa application interviews,particularly what circumstancesForeign Service officers are allowed to waive an interview. We are also very interested in knowing ifother visa waiver programs, aside from the congressionally-approved V isa Waiver Program,arecurrently operating around the w orld under the jurisdiction of the State Department.

Again, we strongly urge you to dismantle the Visa Express program which is putting the Americanpeople at risk. We have attached a copy of my letter to the Inspector General for your benefit. We lookforward to hearing from you very soon regarding the above-mentioned matters.

Sincerely,

Charles E. GrassleyUnited States Senator

July 2, 2002

Dave Weldon, M.D.United States Representative



20/43


21/43



preee@graasl ey sen ate .go v www.aen ate.gov/g rosaley

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Reporters and EditorsRe: Visa Express programDa: Wednesday, July 10, 2002

On July 2, Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Dave W eldon wroteto Secretary of State Colin Powell to urgetermination of theVisa Express program. Grassley m adethe following comment today on the VisaExpress program.

"Terrorism has changed the way we look at visas.After September 11, we can no longer grant visaswilly nilly. These days, the American officials who process visas have one of the most importantjobs inthe government. They can make the difference between a thug setting up shop in the United Statesandstaying a thousand miles away. I look forward to exploring the best way to structure visa-approvingresponsibilities in the newDepartment of Hom eland Security."

Home | Constituent Services | Grassley News | Legislative InformationKids' Stuff | Biography / I n Action

http://grass.ley.senate.gov/releases/2002/p02r7-1Oa.htm 11/6/02


22/43



prese@graasl ey .sen ate .go v www.sen ate .gov/g ra&sley

For Immediate ReleaseTuesday, July 2, 2002

Grasslev. Weldon Seek Tighter Visa Restrictions

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D., today asked Secretary of StateColin Powell to terminate a State Department program that allows visa applicants to receive approval tocome to the United States without proper in-person interviews.

The Visa Express program was implemented three months prior to the September 11 attacks. Three ofthe nineteen September 11 hijackers took advantage of the Visa Express program by going to a travelagent fo r their visas. They were never interviewed by an American official.

Grassley, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, an d Weldon, chairman of the Committee onGovernmentAffairs Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization, also sent a letter to StateDepartment Inspector General Clark Kent Irvin asking for a thorough review of the Visa Expressprogram. Grassley and Weldon's letters follow.

July 2, 2002

The Honorable Colin PowellSecretaryDepartment of State

2201 C Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20520


We are very troubled by recent reports that suggest that the Department of State's Office of ConsularAffairs is conducting programs that allow visa applicants to receive approval to come to the UnitedStates without proper in-person interviews.

The program recently in question is Visa Express, implemented three months prior to the attacks ofSeptember 11. Residents of Saudi Arabia, including non-Saudi citizens, are eligible for this program andthree of the nineteen hijackers took advantage of the program by going through a travel agent for theirvisas and were never interviewed by an American official. Equally troubling is th'at the program is stillin operation today despite the tragedy of September 11.

Reforms to the Visa Express program are not needed. Rather, there needs to be complete termination ofthis and other similar programs that give our national security a low priority.

Foreign Service officers have a difficult job as agents on our first line of defense. They are approving



23/43

and deny ing visas to potentially harmful individualsand well-deserved visitors. However,we believethat diplomacy and terrorist tracking may be con flicts of interest that we sho uld investiga te.

We have asked the Department of State's Inspector General, Mr. Clark Kent Irvin, to conduct a reviewof Visa Express. We are seeking information on how and why this program was re-authorized, howmany Saudi Arabian applicants werenot interviewed because of this program, and what the currentpolicy is atConsular Affairs with regardto visa application interviews, particularly what circumstancesForeign Service officers are allowed to waive an interview. We are also very interested in knowingif

other visa waiver programs,aside from the congressionally-approved Visa Waiver Program, arecurrently operating aroundthe world under the jurisdiction of the State Department.

Again, we strongly urge you to disman tle the Visa Express program w hich is puttin g the Americanpeople at risk. We have attached a copy of my letter to the Inspector Generalfor your benefit. We lookforward to hearing from you very soon regarding the above-mentioned matters.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley Dave Weldo n, M.D.United States Senator United States Representative

July 2, 2002

Mr. Clark Kent IrvinInspector GeneralDepartment of State2201 C Street, NWRoom 6817Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Irvin:

We are very troubled by recent reports that suggest that the Departmentof State's Office of ConsularAffairs is con duc ting programs that allow visa applicantsto receive approval to come to the UnitedStates w ithout proper in-person interviews.

The program recently in question is Visa Express, implemented three months priorto the attacks ofSeptember 11. Residentsof Saudi Arabia, including non-Saudi citizensare eligible for this programandthree of the nineteen hijackers, took advantageof the program by going through a trave l agent for theirvisas and were never interviewedby an American official. Equally troublingis that the program is stillin operation today despite the tragedy of September11.

Reforms to the Visa Express program are not needed. Rather, there needs to be complete terminationofthis and other similar programs that give our national security a low priority.

We are seeking your assistancein conducting a review of Visa Express. We wou ld like a fullexplanation of the following within the next 14 days:

1) Was Visa Express re-authorized by the Secretary, or done so by the Director of Co nsularAffairs?



24/43

2) What was the reasoning behind the 2001 re-authorization of Visa Express?

3) How many Saudi Arabian applicants were ableto obtain visas throughthe Visa Express programwithout an interview with a Consular Affairs officer? In your response, providethe numberof SaudiArabian citizens and non-citizens who gained entry to the United States throughthe program. For eachcategory, how many havebeen admitted to the U.S. through theprogram from its inception throughSeptember 10, 2001? How many since September 11, 2001?

4) What is the current policy at Consular Affairs with regard to visa application interviews?In whatcircumstances are Foreign Service officers allowed to waive an interview?

5) What other similar visa waiver programs, aside from the congressionally-approved Visa WaiverProgram, are operating throughoutthe world under the jurisdictionof the State Department?

6) Provide any review s of the Visa Express Program since its inception .

7) What are the standards by which the private Saudi travel agencies were allowed to participatein theprogram? Who developed and approved these standards? Provide the written documentationthat showsthat each of.the participating travelagents was properly certified.

8) How much money have the private Saudi travel agencies madefrom this program?

We appreciate your inve stigation into this matter,and look forward to hearing from you regarding theabove-mentionedmatters.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley Dave Weldon , M.D.United States Senator United States Represe ntative

-30-

Honie | Co nsti tuen t Services| Grassley..News. | Legislative.InfgrmationKids' Stuff | Biography/ In Action

http://grass.ley.senate.gov/releases/2002/p02r7-02.htm 11/6/02


25/43



[email protected] ate gov www.sen ate .gov/g rasaley

For Immediate ReleaseFriday, May 10,2002

Grassley Requests State Department Audit of Colom bian A ssistance

WASHINGTON- Sen. ChuckGrassley, co-chairmanof the Senate Caucuson International NarcoticsControl,today requested thatthe inspector generalat theU.S. State Department conductan audit of allU.S. assistance providedto the Colombian National Police. Grassley senthis letter in lightof reportsthat $2 million in U.S. aid to Colombia's Counter-Narcotics Police wasfound missing. Grassley's letterfollows:

May 10V 2002

Clark KentErvinInspectorGeneralDepartmentof State2201 C Street,NWWashington,D.C. 20520

Dear Inspector Ervin:

Recently,a news story has come to my attention that has raised serious concerns regarding theoperations of the Department of State. Yesterday a story in El Tiempo inBogota, followed by additionalstories todayin several major U.S. newspapers reportedthe United Stateshad suspended administrativefunding to Colombia 's Counter-Narcotics Police in March. This was the first I heard of the suspensioaid, and calls to theDepartment revealed they were unawareof the issue as well. But accordingto thestory, six of theunit's top officers werefired and anestimated 52 million in U.S. aid was missing.

My interestin this matteris furthered because just over2 years ago I wrote youroffice expressingasimilar concern over questions involvingthe possible mishandlingof certain U.S. assistancetoColombia.The results of that review, as they were reported back to mystaff, stated that the records keptby theColombian NationalPolice were such thatit was impracticalat that timeto determine whetherany diversionof funds had taken place.As a result of this review, youroffice recommendeda series ofreforms that were to be implemented by the U.S. Embassy inBogota.

In light of these facts, I amasking that youroffice undertake an audit of all U.S.assistance provided tothe Colombian National Police. In addition, I would like you to determine what was reported toWashington regardingthe missing funds,and when. Finally71 would likea review of thestatus of therecommendations of the reportOO-CI-029that was sent to me in September of 2000. As you know, thePresidenthas proposed additional assistancefor Colombia,as well as lifting the current restrictionsonhow the aid can beused.



26/43

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have further questions, please contactmy staff on theCaucus on International Narcotics Control at 202/224-9032.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

CEG/eja

-30-

Home [ Cons tituent Services | Grassley Ne ws | Legislative InformationKids' Stuff | Biography / In Action



27/43

United States Depar tment of Stateand th e Broadcasting Board of Governors

Inspector General

S e p t e m b e r 30 , 2002

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley135 Hart Senate Office BuildingUnited States SenateWashington, DC 20510-1501


Thank you for your letter of September 17 , 2002, expressing your continued interest inOIG's current review of visa processing procedures. I have carefully noted yourparticular interest in (1) processing variations that may go beyond what is dictated bylocal conditions, (2 ) controls implemented when interviews are waived, (3 ) controls that

ensure identity an d entitlement when only paper applicat ions an d supporting documentsare provided, (4) a description of how U.S. interests are served when travel agencies areinjected into the process, and (5) my recommendations fo r improving the overall visaissuing process, particularly current personal appearance waiver programs. I can assureyou that my final report will focus on these areas.

I am pleased to note that ou r initial phase of post on-site surveys is now complete. Fourteams are departing the week of October 7, 2002, an d will conclude the final phase inapproximately three weeks. W e have made some key preliminary findings, an d will testtheir validity during the second half of our survey.

Let me assure yo u that this matter is one of my highest priorities. I look forward toevaluating all survey results an d providing a full report later this year. In the meantime, Iwould be pleased to brief you on our work to date. Therefore, I have asked SandraLewis, Acting Director of Congressional/Media Affairs, Policy an d Outreach, to contactyour staff within the next few days to determine whether a briefing would be of interestto you. Should yo u have any questions prior to our staffs' discussion, please feel free tocontact me at (202) 647-9450. ^

Address correspondence to : U.S. Department of Slate. Office of Inspector General. Washington, D.C . 20520-6817


28/43

Drafted: OIG/CPO-PYorkmanM\2 Ext. 75015Clearance: CPOrSLewisOIG:ASigmund


29/43

Y To:

J35 HABT SENATE 0iC BUILDINGWASHINGTON. DC 20510-150112021224-37.14TTY: 1202) 2241J79e-mail: cnuck_grassiev"grassiev.senaie.gov

721 FEOEAL BUILDING210 WALNUT STREETOES MCI.NES. IA 50309-21-10IS 151 284


30/43

assessed in a face-to-face interview with a consularofficer rather than throughpaperwork. When, if ever, might those factors be assessed reliably through a paperapplication and supporting documents?

To what extent, if at all, is it_in the U.S. interest to involv e comm ercial p roviders oftravelrelated services ( i . e . travel agencies) in any aspect of the US visa process? I am not

indifferent to issues of resource management, but am more interested in the security ofthe process.

Finally, I would appreciate your recommendations fo r improving visa processingprocedures, particularly personal appearance waiverprograms, at our consu lar postsabroad. Also, what changes can be made in gathering informationon po ten tial terroristsan d then relay ing that importantinformation to consular officers?

Once again, I appreciate you r involvem ent in this important m atter. I look forw ard to hearingmore about your teams'preliminary findings, an d seeing the results of your official inquirybythe end o'f the vear.

Sincerely,



31/43


32/43

-7.

I have enclosed an annex that answers the specific questions you posed regarding theVisa Express program at Embassy Riyadh and related issues.

I wish to assure you that this office will continue its ongoing effortsto do everythingwithin our authority and capability to bring about a more secure system of non-immigrantvisa issuance policiesand practices in theinterest of national security.

Very truly

Clark Ke:

Enclosur


33/43

ANNEX

Was "Visa Express" re-authorized by the Secretary, or done so by the Directorof Consular Affairs?

The "Visa Express" personal appearance waiver program (PAW)was never

specifically authorized or re-authorized by either the Secretary or AssistantSecretary Ryan. It may be used at the discretion of the visa-issuing po_st iflocal circumstances (e.g.,low incidence of fraud, lowoverstay rate, etc.)aredeemed to make implementation feasible.

What was the reasoning behind the 2001 reauthorization of"Visa Express?"

As noted above, it was neither specifically authorized nor reauthorized.

How many Saudi Arabian applicants were able to obtain visas through the"Visa Express" program without an interview with a ConsularAffairs

Officer? In your response, provide the num ber of Saudi Arabian citizens andnon-citizens w hogained entry to the US through the program. For eachcategory, how many have been admitted to the US through the program fromits inception through September 10, 2001. How many since Septem ber11,2001?

These figures represent our besteffort to extrapolate the figures requestedfrom the available information, which informationis not kept in exactly theform required. There is always a slight discrepancy between issuancesandactual admissions into the United States since INS can andoften does refuseentry to visa holders.

June 1, 2001, (the date that"Visa Express" began) through September 10, -2001 Total issued = 36,018Visa Express issued toSaudis(64%of total x 97% wi thout interview) =22,360Visa Express issued to Third-Country Nationals (TCNs)--(36% of total x 28%not interviewed) = 3,630

September 11, 2001, through June 25, 2002 (latest date available.)Total Issued = 18,628Visa Express Issued to Saudis (59% of total x 40% without'interview>=4,396Visa Express issued to TCNs (41% of total x 28% not interviewed) = 2,138

What is the current policy at ConsularAffairs with regard to visa applicationinterviews? In what circumstances are ForeignService officers allowed towaive an interview?


34/43

Section 222(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, providesthe specific authorityfor a waiver of personal appearance. Th e ForeignAffairs Manual,9 FAM 41.102(a), provides guidance on when a waiver isappropriate. PAWs are discussed in detail in the Consular Best PracticesHandbook. Basically, a PAW is specifically authorized for children under 14,diplomats, airline crews, certain UnitedStates Government-financed exchangevisitors, and applicants for B (tourist), C-l (transit), H-l (skilled worker),or I(journalist) visas. Applicants for othercategories of visas also can obtain awaiver if a consular officer determines that it is warranted "in the nationalinterest or because of unusual circum stances, includin g hardshipto the visaapplicant."

What other similar visa waiver programs, aside from thecongressionally-approved Visa W aiver Program,are operating throughout the world under thejurisdiction of the State D epartment?

To be exact, the Visa Express program and other PAW programs are not visawaiver programs. Instead, theyare programs under whichan applicant neednot personally appear at the embassy or consulate to be interviewed beforebeing issued a visa. No visa waiver programs other than the one authorizedby Congress are operating anywhere. Under theCongressionally authorizedplan, Canadian citizensare exempt from needing visas for any purpose andcitizens of 27 other countriesare exempt from having to obta in 90-day touristor business travel visas (B1/B2).

Provide any reviews of the "Visa Express" Program sinceits inception.

The OIG has never reviewed the Visa Express Program specifically. PAW sare reviewed whenevera visa-issuing embassyor consulate is inspected, as apart of our standard review of consular operations.

What are the standards by which the private Saudi travel agencies wereallowed to participate in the program? Who developed and approved thesestandards? Provide the written documentation that shows that eachof theparticipating travel agents was properly certified.

The qualifications of the travel agencies that participated in the originalsolicitation (the parametersof which were set out in a meeting the consul

general held with interested travel agencies) were judged in the tencategorieslisted below:

1. prior visa experience;2. geographic range within Saudi Arabia;3. current contracts with other embassies/corporations;4. fees charged;


35/43

5. delivery time to returnpassports to clients;6. computerfacilities;7. designated staffing;8. reputation within local community;9. security systemsin place; and10. commitmentto advertising/promotion

The ten travel-agenciesthat best met theConsular Section's expectationsbased on the parametersset out above were contactedand givenaMemorandumof Understanding(MOU)which set outboth the ConsularSection's and the travel agency's obligations. Prior to imp lementation , travelagencies signed the MOUs and returned them to the embassy, where theywere signed by a consularofficial. The consular officials at post meet withrepresentativesof the tentravel agencies participatingin the Visa Expressprogram monthlyto discuss travel agency performance, security concerns,andnew procedures, such as the revisedDS-157*, new photograph requirements(i.e., men m ust posewithoutArab headdress), and clearance wa iting periods

imposed since9/11. The chiefof the non-immigrant visa unitis in e-mailcontactseveral times week lywith the travel agencies answering questionsandadvisingthem of embassy closingsand training schedules.In additiontopersonal interviews requiredfor condor clearance applicants (i.e. personsfromcertain countries who are subject to new security checks) and those applicantsappearing to have questionableties to Saudi Arabia, consular officersrandomly select another 10% forpersonalinterviews to determine whetherthe informa tion providedon the application formsis accurate and,if it is not,to determine whether the applicant or the travel agency is atfault. Moredetailed information on the selectionprocess is contained in cable Riyadh02326, dated June19, 2001. OIG has reviewed the MOUs mentionedabove,

and the operational man ual providedto each participating agencyand isforwardingthem to you und er separate cover.

How much money havethe private Saudi travel agents m adefrom thisprogram?

Travel agents were permittedto charge a fee ofeither 50 Saudi Riyals(SI3.33) or 90Saudi Riyals($24), dependingon whether the applicantwasresident in the greater Riyadhor Jeddahareas or in other regions of thecountry. No record of the specificfee collectedwas submittedto the /embassy. Between June1, 2001 and May 31,2002, approximately46V694visa applications were subm itted by travel agents. The fees collected for thoseapplicationswould be a minimum$622,431or a maximum of$1,120,656.

* Non-immigrant visa application form.


36/43


37/43

of ttje (HmtetiC 20515

Ju ly 1.2002

Mr. Clark Kent Irvininspector GeneralDepartment of State2201 C Street, N WRoom 6817Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr.. Irvin:

We are very troubled by recent reports that suggest that th e Department of State's Office ofConsular Affairs is conducting programs that allow visa applicants to receive approval to cometo th e United States without proper in-person interviews.

The program recently in question is Visa Express, impl eme nte d three months prior to th e attacksof September 11. Residents of Saudi .Arabia, includ ing non-Sau d iciti?.en.s are eligible for thisprogram an d three of die ninet een hijackers took advantage of the program by going through atravel agent fo r their visas and were never interviewed by an American official. Equallyt roubl ing is that the program is st i l l in operation today despite th e tragedy of September 1 1 .

Reforms to the Visa Express program arc not needed. Rather , there needs to be completetermination of this and other similar programs thai give our national security a low priority.

We are sesicing your assistance in conducting a review of Visa Express. W- would like a fullexplanation of the following within the next 14 days:

1) Was Visa Express re-authorized by the Secretary, or done so by the Director of ConsularAffairs?

2) What was the reasoning behind the 2001 rcauthorizat ion of Visa Express?

3) How many Saudi Arabian applicants were able to obtain visas through th e visa express

program w ithout an interview with a Consular Affairs officer? In your response, providethe number of Saudi Arabian citizens and non-citizens who gained entry to the USthrough the program, h'or each category, how many have been admitted to th e U.S.through th e program from its inception through September 10, 2001? How many sinceSeptember 11,2001? " .

4) What is the current policy at Consular Affairs with regard to visa application interviews?In what circumstances are Foreign Service officers allowed to waive an in terview?


38/43

702/02 TUE 11:23 FAI 202 223 0544 SEN. SUBCOM CONSTITUTION 003

5) What cither similar visa waiter programs, aside from the congressionally-approvedVisaWaiver Program, are operating throughout the world under the jurisdiction of the StateDepartment?

6) Provide any reviews of the Visa Express Program since its inception.

7) What arc the standards by which the private Saudi travel agencies were allowed toparticipate in theprogram? Who developed and approved these standards? Provide thewrincn documentation that shows that each of the participating travel agents was properlycertified.

8) How much money have the private Saudi travel agencies made from this program?

We appreciate your investigation into this matter, and look forward tohearing from youregarding the above mentioned matters.

Sincerely,


--Dave Wcld on, M.D.United States Representative


39/43

un e s a es ep ar m en o a eand the Broadcasting Board of Governors

Inspector General

June 21, 2002

The Ho norable Charles E. GrassleyCo-Chairman, Caucus onInternational

NarcoticsControl

United States SenateWashington,DC 20510-9070


In your May 10,2002, letter to me, you expressed your serious con cerns related to press reportsthat an estimated $2 million in L:.S. aid to theColombian National Police(CNP) was missingandthat the State Department had suspendedfurther aid in March. In light of these concerns, youasked us to conductan audit of all U.S. assistanceto the CNP; determine whatwas reportedtoWashington regardingthe missing funds, and when;and follow up on recommendationswe hadmade.in a September 2000report.

In response to your letter, we condu cted some preliminary w ork on these issues and m etwith EricAkers of your staffon June 12, 2002, to discuss the scope of the review. At that meeting,weagreed that, in light of the auditwork performedby Embassy Bogotaand the investigationsbeingconducted by the Colombian governm ent, a detailedfinancial aud it would not be necessary atthistime, but that as we conducted our review , we wouldaddress the need for such an audit. Thefollowingare the review questionswe agreed to answer.

(1 ) Whendid the Departmentof Statediscoverthe allegedfraud? Whom di d they notify an dwhen?

(2) What is the total amoun t tha t has been lost tothis alleged fraud?(OIG will examine indetailthe workof the embassy's auditor.)

(3 ) What is the status of investigationsby the governmentof Colombia?

(4 ) Sincethe audit in 2000, what actionshas Embassy Bogota takento improve its systemsandinternal controls?

To address these questions, my staff will travel to Bogota this weekendand upon returning,willbrief Mr.Akers on the results of our work. We also agreed to provide a written report in Augu st.

\f you have furthe

Assistant Inspector General for Audits,at (202) 647-9450.

Clark Ken

Address correspondence to: U. S. Departm ent of State , Office of Inspector Genera l , Washington , D.C. 20520-6817


40/43

.cce^-* *iu~ j- o~. o-

"EniccdCAUCUS ON INTERNATIONALNARCOTICS CONTROL

WASHINGTON. DC 20510-3070

May 10.2002

Clark Kent Er/inInspector GeneralDepartment of State2201 C S crest. NWWashington, D.C. 20520

Dear Inspector Ervin:

Recently, a news story hascsme to my attention that has raised serious concerns reeardine theoperations of th e Department of State. Yesterday a story in El Tie.mpo in Bogota, followed by

additional stories today in several major U.S. newspapers reported th e United States had suspendedadministrative funding to Colombia's Counter-Narcotics Police in March. Tnis wa s the first I heardof the suspension in aid, and calls to the Department reveale d they wereunaware of the issue as well.3u: acc or din g co the story, six of theunit 's co p officers were f i r e d and an istimated 52 million in U.S.aid was missing.

My interest in this matter is furthered because JUST over 2 years age I wrote your office expressing asimilar concern over questions involving the possible mishandlingof certain U.S. assistancecoColombia . The results of that review, as they were reported back to rny staff, stated that the recordskept by che Colom bian National Police were such c h a t i t wa s impractical at that time to determinewhether any diversion of funds had token place. As a result of this review, your office recommendeda series of reforms that were co be implemented by the U.S. Embassy in Bogota.

In light of these facts, I am asking that your office undertake an a u d i c of all U.S. assistancs^provided tothe Colombian National Police. In addition, I would like you to determine what was recanted toWashington regarding the missing funds, and when. Fin all y, I wo uldlike a review of the status of therecommendations ofthe report OO-CI-029 that was sent to me in September of 2000. As you know,the President has proposed additional assistance for Colombia, as well as lifting the currentrestrictions on hew the aid can be used.

Thank you for your attention :o this matter. If you have further questions, please contact my staff onche Caucus on InternationalNarcotics Control at 202/224-9032.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

CEG/eja


41/43

O:\MDM\MDM02.611

AMENDMENT NO. Calendar No.

Purpose: To provide for the assignment of employees of the

Department of Homeland Security to each diplomaticarid consular post at which visas are issued, as requiredto protect homeland security.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES107th Cong., 2d Sess.

H.R.5005

To establish the Department of Homeland Security, and forother purposes.

Referred to the Committeeonand ordered to be printed

Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

AMENDMENT intended to be proposed by Mr. GRASSLEY

Viz:

1 On page 22, strike lines 1 through 16 and insert the

2 following:

3 (A) Ix GENERAL.The Secretary- shall as-

4 sign employees of the Department to each dip-

5 lomatic and consular post at which visas are

6 issued, unless the Secretary determines,''based7 upon homeland security considerations, that

8 such an assignment is not required at a par-


42/43

O:\MDM\MDM02.611 S.L.C.

9

1 ticular post. Employees so assigned shall per-

2 form the following functions:

3 (i) Provide expert advice to consular

4 officers regarding specific security threats

5 relating to the adjudication of individual

6 visa applications or classes of applications.

7 ( i i ) Review any such applications, ei-

8 ther on the initiative of the employee of the

9 Department or upon request by a consular

10 officer or other person charged with aclju-

11 dicating suchapplications.

12 ( i i i ) Conduct investigations with re-

13 spect to matters under the jurisdiction of

14 the Secretary.

15 (iv) Appraise the performance of con-

16 sular officers with respect to the processing

17 and adjudication of applications for visas

18 in accordance with performance standards

19 developed by the Secretary. Such apprais-

20 als shall be given great weight by the Sec-

21 retary of State in assessing the perform-

22 ance of such officers.


43/43