In a related development, Grassley and Weldon received a response from the State Department's Inspector General to their July 2 letter seeking a review of the Visa Express program. Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin writes:
I strongly agree with you that consular operations abroad must be conducted to ensure maximum security of the visa issuance process. Accordingly, I have ordered an Office of Inspector General (OIG) survey of all 207 visa-issuing posts worldwide to review current procedures for processing non-immigrant visas, with special emphasis on programs that waive the personal appearance requirement and that accept applications through travel agencies.
In his letter, Ervin also provides data on how many people have been admitted to the United States under 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 letters on Visa Express
July 16, 2002
The Honorable Colin Powell
Secretary
Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Powell:
We are writing to express our concern about the detention and questioning of reporter Joel Mowbray at the State Department on Friday, July 12th. As a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Civil Service, we have concerns that government agencies not take inappropriate actions that cast a shadow over our free press.
Mr. Mowbray recently wrote several articles that brought into question the "Visa Express" program administered in Saudi Arabia. These articles, in part, prompted us to write to you to state that the program must be ended.
As members of Congress who have spent years performing oversight of government agencies, we recognize that many agencies do not cherish scrutiny from the Congress or the media. However, such oversight is critical to the checks and balances that make our government work.
It is for this reason that we are troubled that the actions of State Department security officials effectively chilled the work of the media and the whistleblowers who are so vital to exposing problems in our government.
Also, it is our understanding that the focus of the questions to Mr. Mowbray was about the source(s) of the cable in question and other information he has reported. If this is the case, it is troubling that State Department officials were more worried about finding a whistleblower than actually retrieving the cable.
We would appreciate your providing a full accounting of what took place regarding the incident with Mr. Mowbray on Friday, July 12th. Specifically, we would like to know who (name and title) made the decision to detain/question Mr. Mowbray as well as the legal basis and justification for this action. In your response, include the number of officials involved in the incident, their name and title, what role they played, and whether they were armed. Please note that if a security official did not ask any questions but was present to ensure Mr. Mowbray could not leave, we would consider that official to be involved in the incident.
The comments of State Department officials in media accounts state the action was taken against Mr. Mowbray because contents of a "classified" cable were disclosed. Assuming that your justification for the action against Mr. Mowbray is that the cable was classified, we would note that the information in the cable was reported in other publications. Were other reporters also questioned? If not, why was only one 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 explain why.
In addition, we would appreciate an objective review of the justification of the classification of the cable cited in news accounts. We have seen too often that documents are routinely, and unnecessarily, classified as confidential or above ? particularly in cases where the information does not involve national 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/detaining reporters regarding sources and information. In particular, who decides at the Department of State to take such actions and how often has it been done in the past five years?
As we encourage governments around the world to have a free and open press, it is important that the Department of State support those efforts with words and deeds. Thank you for your time and assistance on this matter. We would appreciate an answer within 14 days.
Cordially yours,
| Charles E. Grassley Ranking Member Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs Senate Committee on the Judiciary |
Dave Weldon Chairman Subcommittee on Civil Service House Committee on Government Reform |
July 15, 2002
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510-0544
Dear Senator Grassley:
I am responding to your letter of July 1, 2002, regarding non-immigrant visa issuance procedures at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and the Consulate General in Jeddah. You have raised serious concerns about the potential vulnerability of the visa issuance process as a result of the "Visa Express" program.
As you may know, on July 2, 2002, Ambassador Robert Jordan advised the State Department (Department) that he has ordered the immediate preparation of a plan to move toward interviewing all adult visa applicants and the elimination of the role of travel agencies in forwarding visa applications to the embassy and consulate. He asked that the Department send its best consular operational expert to Saudi Arabia to help develop this new system and to identify the additional resources needed to implement it. The Department has since responded to the Ambassador's request and a consular management expert departs for Saudi Arabia this week.
I strongly agree with you that consular operations abroad must be conducted to ensure maximum security of the visa issuance process. Accordingly, I have ordered an Office of Inspector General (OIG) survey of all 207 visa-issuing posts worldwide to review current procedures for processing non-immigrant visas, with special emphasis on programs that waive the personal appearance requirement and that accept applications through travel agencies.
In addition, early this Fall, depending upon the availability of resources, I would like to send teams of OIG consular management and security intelligence oversight inspectors to visa-issuing posts in those countries that are of special concern to the United States because of their ties to international terrorism. These teams would conduct on-site reviews of visa processing procedures and the dissemination of intelligence regarding known and potential terrorists to ensure that consular officers have and properly use all relevant data at their disposal when adjudicating visa applications. These reviews will also be conducted at 44 other visa-issuing posts by OIG teams conducting regular embassy and consulate management 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 continue its ongoing efforts to do everything within our authority and capability to bring about a more secure system of non-immigrant visa issuance policies and practices in the interest of national security.
Very truly yours,
Clark Kent Ervin
Enclosure
ANNEX
Was "Visa Express" re-authorized by the Secretary, or done so by the Director of Consular Affairs?
The "Visa Express" personal appearance waiver program (PAW) was never specifically authorized or re-authorized by either the Secretary or Assistant Secretary Ryan. It may be used at the discretion of the visa-issuing post if local circumstances (e.g., low incidence of fraud, low overstay rate, etc.) are deemed 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 Consular Affairs Officer? In your response, provide the number of Saudi Arabian citizens and non-citizens who gained entry to the US through the program. For each category, how many have been admitted to the US through the program from its inception through September 10, 2001. How many since September 11, 2001?
These figures represent our best effort to extrapolate the figures requested from the available information, which information is not kept in exactly the form required. There is always a slight discrepancy between issuances and actual admissions into the United States since INS can and often does refuse entry to visa holders.
June 1, 2001, (the date that "Visa Express" began) through September 10,2001 Total issued = 36,018
Visa Express issued to Saudis?(64% of total x 97% without interview) = 22,360
Visa 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 = 18,628
Visa Express Issued to Saudis (59% of total x 40% without interview) = 4,396
Visa Express issued to TCNs (41% of total x 28% not interviewed) = 2,138
(((Note: Sen. Grassley's staff sought an explanation of these numbers. Here's the explanation.
36,018 total visas issued to Saudi Arabian applicants (citizens and third-country nationals) from June 1, 2001 through Sept. 10, 2001.
- Saudi Arabian citizens getting a visa through Visa Express made up 64 percent - or 23,051 - of that total number of visas issued.
- Of that smaller figure of 23,051 Saudi Arabian citizens getting a visa through Visa Express, 97 percent - or 22,360 - were not interviewed.
- Third-country nationals [people in Saudi Arabia but from other countries] getting a visa through Visa Express made up 36 percent - or 12,966 - of that total number of visas issued.
- Of that smaller figure of 12,966 third-country nationals getting a visa through Visa Express, 28 percent - or 3,630 - were not interviewed.)))
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 interview?
Section 222(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, provides the specific authority for a waiver of personal appearance. The Foreign Affairs Manual, 9 FAM 41.102(a), provides guidance on when a waiver is appropriate. PAWs are discussed in detail in the Consular Best Practices Handbook. Basically, a PAW is specifically authorized for children under 14, diplomats, airline crews, certain United States Government-financed exchange visitors, and applicants for B (tourist), C-1 (transit), H-1 (skilled worker), or I (journalist) visas. Applicants for other categories of visas also can obtain a waiver if a consular officer determines that it is warranted "in the national interest or because of unusual circumstances, including hardship to the visa applicant."
What other similar visa waiver programs, aside from the congressionally-approved Visa Waiver Program, are operating throughout the world under the jurisdiction of the State Department?
To be exact, the Visa Express program and other PAW programs are not visa waiver programs. Instead, they are programs under which an applicant need not personally appear at the embassy or consulate to be interviewed before being issued a visa. No visa waiver programs other than the one authorized by Congress are operating anywhere. Under the Congressionally authorized plan, Canadian citizens are exempt from needing visas for any purpose and citizens of 27 other countries are exempt from having to obtain 90-day tourist or business travel visas (B1/B). 2
Provide any reviews of the "Visa Express" Program since its inception.
The OIG has never reviewed the Visa Express Program specifically. PAWs are reviewed whenever 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 allowed to participate in the program? Who developed and approved these standards? Provide the written documentation that shows that each of the participating travel agents was properly certified.
The qualifications of the travel agencies that participated in the original solicitation (the parameters of which were set out in a meeting the consul general held with interested travel agencies) 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
commitment to advertising/promotion
The ten travel agencies that best met the Consular Section's expectations based on the parameters set out above were contacted and given a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which set out both the Consular Section's and the travel agency's obligations. Prior to implementation, travel agencies signed the MOUs and returned them to the embassy, where they were signed by a consular official. The consular officials at post meet with representatives of the ten travel agencies participating in the Visa Express program monthly to discuss travel agency performance, security concerns, and new procedures, such as the revised DS-157*, new photograph requirements (i.e., men must pose without Arab headdress), and clearance waiting periods imposed since 9/11. The chief of the non-immigrant visa unit is in e-mail contact several times weekly with the travel agencies answering questions and advising them of embassy closings and training schedules. In addition to personal interviews required for condor clearance applicants (i.e. persons from certain countries who are subject to new security checks) and those applicants appearing to have questionable ties to Saudi Arabia, consular officers randomly select another 10% for personal interviews to determine whether the information provided on the application forms is accurate and, if it is not, to determine whether the applicant or the travel agency is at fault. More detailed information on the selection process is contained in cable Riyadh 02326, dated June 19, 2001. OIG has reviewed the MOUs mentioned above, and the operational manual provided to each participating agency and is forwarding them to you under separate cover.
How much money have the private Saudi travel agents made from this program?
Travel agents were permitted to charge a fee of either 50 Saudi Riyals ($13.33) or 90 Saudi Riyals ($24), depending on whether the applicant was resident in the greater Riyadh or Jeddah areas or in other regions of the country. No record of the specific fee collected was submitted to the embassy. Between June 1, 2001 and May 31, 2002, approximately 46, 694 visa applications were submitted by travel agents. The fees collected for those applications would be a minimum $622,431 or a maximum of $1,120,656.
* Non-immigrant visa application form.
For Immediate Release
Tuesday, July 2, 2002
WASHINGTON ? Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D., today asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to terminate a State Department program that allows visa applicants to receive approval to come to the United States without proper in-person interviews.
The Visa Express program was implemented three months prior to the September 11 attacks. Three of the nineteen September 11 hijackers took advantage of the Visa Express program by going to a travel agent for their visas. They were never interviewed by an American official.
Grassley, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, and Weldon, chairman of the Committee on Government Affairs Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization, also sent a letter to State Department Inspector General Clark Kent Irvin asking for a thorough review of the Visa Express program. Grassley and Weldon's letters follow.
July 2, 2002
The Honorable Colin Powell
Secretary
Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Secretary Powell:
We are very troubled by recent reports that suggest that the Department of State's Office of Consular Affairs is conducting programs that allow visa applicants to receive approval to come to the United States without proper in-person interviews.
The program recently in question is Visa Express, implemented three months prior to the attacks of September 11. Residents of Saudi Arabia, including non-Saudi citizens, are eligible for this program and three of the nineteen hijackers took advantage of the program by going through a travel agent for their visas and were never interviewed by an American official. Equally troubling is that the program is still in operation today despite the tragedy of September 11.
Reforms to the Visa Express program are not needed. Rather, there needs to be complete termination of this 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 and denying visas to potentially harmful individuals and well-deserved visitors. However, we believe that diplomacy and terrorist tracking may be conflicts of interest that we should investigate
.
We have asked the Department of State's Inspector General, Mr. Clark Kent Irvin, to conduct a review of Visa Express. We are seeking information on how and why this program was re-authorized, how many Saudi Arabian applicants were not interviewed because of this program, and what the current policy is at Consular Affairs with regard to visa application interviews, particularly what circumstances Foreign Service officers are allowed to waive an interview. We are also very interested in knowing if other visa waiver programs, aside from the congressionally-approved Visa Waiver Program, are currently operating around the world under the jurisdiction of the State Department.
Again, we strongly urge you to dismantle the Visa Express program which is putting the American people at risk. We have attached a copy of my letter to the Inspector General for your benefit. We look forward to hearing from you very soon regarding the above-mentioned matters.
Sincerely,
| Charles E. Grassley United States Senator |
Dave Weldon, M.D. United States Representative |
July 2, 2002
Mr. Clark Kent Ervin
Inspector General
Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Room 6817
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Mr. Ervin:
We are very troubled by recent reports that suggest that the Department of State's Office of Consular Affairs is conducting programs that allow visa applicants to receive approval to come to the United States without proper in-person interviews.
The program recently in question is Visa Express, implemented three months prior to the attacks of September 11. Residents of Saudi Arabia, including non-Saudi citizens are eligible for this program and three of the nineteen hijackers, took advantage of the program by going through a travel agent for their visas and were never interviewed by an American official. Equally troubling is that the program is still in operation today despite the tragedy of September 11.
Reforms to the Visa Express program are not needed. Rather, there needs to be complete termination of this and other similar programs that give our national security a low priority.
We are seeking your assistance in conducting a review of Visa Express. We would like a full explanation of the following within the next 14 days:
1) Was Visa Express re-authorized by 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 many Saudi Arabian applicants were able to obtain visas through the Visa Express program without an interview with a Consular Affairs officer? In your response, provide the number of Saudi Arabian citizens and non-citizens who gained entry to the United States through the program. For each category, how many have been admitted to the U.S. through the program from its inception through September 10, 2001? How many since September 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 interview?
5) What other similar visa waiver programs, aside from the congressionally-approved Visa Waiver Program, are operating throughout the world under the jurisdiction of the State Department?
6) Provide any reviews of the Visa Express Program since its inception.
7) What are the standards by which the private Saudi travel agencies were allowed to participate in the program? Who developed and approved these standards? Provide the written documentation that shows that each of the participating travel agents was properly certified.
8) How much money have the private Saudi travel agencies made from this program?
We appreciate your investigation into this matter, and look forward to hearing from you regarding the above-mentioned matters.
Sincerely,
| Charles E. Grassley United States Senator |
Dave Weldon, M.D. United States Representative |