Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Chambliss):

S. 2661. A bill to clarify the effects of revocation of a visa, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to fix a loophole in our visa policies that has and could continue to have detrimental consequences on our national security. I have been pressing the Departments of State and Homeland Security for the last year to make changes to visa revocation certificates so that we can question, detain, or deport foreigners who were not supposed to be granted a visa. It was one year ago today that the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this problem.

For example, it is extremely difficult to detain and deport suspected terrorists whose visas have been revoked on terrorism grounds after those persons have set foot on U.S. soil. The difficulty stems from the wording on the revocation certificates, which are issued by the State Department. However, by law, the Department of Homeland Security has policy authority over visa issuance.

On June 17, 2003, a GAO report revealed that suspected terrorists can stay in the country after their visas have been revoked on terrorism grounds because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation papers. This loophole came to light after the GAO found that more than 100 persons were granted visas that were later revoked because there was evidence the persons had terrorism links and associations. I wrote a letter to the Department of State on June 23, 2003, and both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the matter last year.

Some of us in Congress expected the government to fix this problem immediately, especially after GAO brought it to the attention of your department and other agencies. Perhaps this expectation was naive. More than a month after the GAO report and the hearings on the matter, I pressed the issue further with Under Secretary Hutchinson during a July 23, 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

We all recognized that a simple administrative fix, such as re-writing the revocation certificate, would solve the problem. In fact, Assistant Secretary Hutchinson personally pledged to me in July of last year that the Department of Homeland Security would issue regulations to fix it as soon as the Memo of Understanding with the Department of State was finalized. The Memo was signed on September 29, 2003.

On May 20 of this year, a member of the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that a regulation was written and being circulated internally.

But, here we are-more than a year after the GAO first revealed the loophole-and it appears that the problem still has not been solved.

This week, the GAO issued a report that said "additional actions are needed to eliminate weaknesses in the visa revocation process." The GAO recommends that the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State jointly develop a written governmentwide policy that clearly defines roles and responsibilities and sets performance standards for the agencies involved in the visa revocation process.

Frankly, I think these Departments have had enough time to consult with each other. Today, I offer a legislative fix.

It is amazing to me that such a simple and straightforward solution to such a dangerous and well-known problem continues to languish in the slow-moving bureaucracy. Promises were made, but the promises have not been kept. The visa revocation loophole needs to be fixed.