Mr. FROST. Well, that I understand, but I was asking about section 730 only. Although there are people-Mr. Waxman, there are people who agree with you and people on our side who agree with you on that, but there really are two separate questions, and it is my concern that this committee, our Select Committee, may ignore the very good work done by your committee in redrafting section 730, and I think that would be a mistake and I think it would be a step backwards in the effort to achieve bipartisanship.

I have no further questions.

Mr. WAXMAN. I agree with you.

Chairman ARMEY. Gentlemen, let me thank you for being here. The chairman of this committee does have some questions he could direct to our panel, but the Chair remains confident that in that event he would still remain more satisfied with his own conclusions than the conclusions of the witnesses. So we will spare you the difficulty of responding to my questions.

Mr. BURTON. May I make one final request, and that is if you or any member of the committee requires any information from our staff or ourselves as far as why we did certain things, we will be very happy to provide those for the committee, and I would like to end up by saying these people behind me and I am sure behind Henry worked their tails off. They worked over the weekend. They worked hours and hours on end and they are the unsung heros on this bill, and I just really appreciate all the hard work they did. Chairman ARMEY. Let me just say, and that is good of you to mention that, we have already our staffs from this committee have already had the privilege of working with your committee. We do feel very well-informed about the background thinking, the chapter and verse discussions you had. I myself sat up until 1:30 in the morning and watched your markup. I found it scintillating. I don't imagine what I was thinking in my life that I would have preferred to watch till 1:30 in the morning. But it has been a very important exercise, what you have done in your committee.

We will take you up on that offer, and we do so much appreciate the time you have been willing to share with this committee, and thank you so much for your hard work.

The Chair recognizes that we are now being joined by the chairman and the distinguished ranking member of the International Relations Committee, and the Chair would like to invite Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos to the dais.

Gentlemen, as you approach, let me just explain that it is our procedure here to by unanimous consent put your formal statement in the record and then ask you if you could to summarize your statement to us under the 5-minute rule, each in your turn, and then following that, we will proceed to try to stay on a fairly rigorous schedule by exercising our own questions under the 5-minute rule.

So with that, let me just say thank you for being here. We welcome you. We appreciate your hard work, and Chairman Hyde, we will begin with you.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. HYDE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of this very important and consequential committee. We will be brief.

Mr. Lantos and I have worked together on this problem, and we are in total accord, as we are on many issues before our committee. The subject of the issuance of visas is a controversial one. There are about 12 million applications for visas every year. The ministerial administration of those 12 million applications for visas is a considerable task.

Some people wanted to take the whole function of issuing visas and transplant it to the Homeland Security Agency or Department, doing away with the State Department's function in this process. We felt that was doing no favor to homeland security, that much of this work, the overwhelming bulk of this work is not connected to homeland security. We felt continuing to use State Department personnel in the consular offices to do the routine work would work, and we would put the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of policy, of training, of discipline, of regulatory activity and have the power and authority to send people out to these consular offices anywhere in the world should the need arise.

This is the best of both worlds. It utilizes what are already in place in the State Department, consular personnel and at the same time hands over the authority to regulate, to oversee, to train these personnel and to make policy to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and so that amendment was comfortably passed in International Relations. I am happy to say that it passed in the Judiciary Committee comfortably, and I am advised it also passed in Government Operations.

So that is what I am presenting to you today, plus one more issue. I was somewhat startled to learn that in Washington, D.C. there are 41 police agencies; that is, agencies who have the right to arrest people and to carry weapons, 41 of them. I have the list here, and neither the left hand knows what the right hand is doing times 41, and so it seemed to me appropriate that in this important subject of homeland security, we advise the Secretary of Homeland Security of this plethora, this proliferation of police agencies and suggest some regulatory language to have them communicate with each other.

It seems to me that having this firepower and not talking to each other is wasteful and counterproductive. So we don't provide how that should happen, but we suggest and require the Secretary of Homeland Security to look at that and to make regulations that will stimulate interfacing communication between these police agencies. And I am now pleased to yield to my colleague, Tom Lantos.

[The statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY HYDE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for permitting me to explain the compromise provision on visa processing in our Embassies and consulates abroad, which was worked out last week among a bipartisan coalition of members representing the three House committees with jurisdiction over this vital issue.

The President's proposed legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security included important changes in the way in which the U.S. government processes the 10 to 12 million visa applications that stream each year into more than 200 U.S. embassies worldwide. The vast majority of these visa applications are from people who are visiting relatives, touring the country, or doing business in the United States.

The President's plan transfered ultimate authority over visa issuance and refusal to the Secretary of Homeland Security, while continuing to rely on U.S. foreign service officers to perform the day-to-day work of reviewing applications and conducting interviews.

Some expressed concern that the President's plan did not go far enough to ensure that security would come first in the visa adjudication process. In our examination of H.R. 5005 as introduced, we determined that these concerns arose primarily from ambiguity or uncertainty in the language of the legislation. We were able to draft an amendment to clarify and fortify this language, and our amendment was adopted (with minor variations) by three separate Committees during their markups last week.

The amendment which my colleagues-Tom Lantos, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Howard Berman-and I proposed, included several important new provisions: First, our amendment makes clear that ultimate authority rests with the Department of Homeland Security. No visa will be issued over the objections of the new Department.

Second, our amendment makes clear that the new Department has authority to place homeland security officers in our embassies not only to review individual visa applications, but also to oversee consular activities, train and advise consular officers on homeland security issues, and conduct investigations relevant to these issues.

Finally, our amendment includes a very important provision clarifying that a decision denying a visa is not subject to judicial or administrative review.

Other members proposed more radical changes to the President's plan. While eliminating any role for the State Department in the visa process might be satisfying to those who seek to punish the Department for past failures, over the long run this approach could weaken, not strengthen, our efforts to protect the American homeland. In my judgment, we would not be doing Homeland Security any favors by requiring it to assemble a new overseas bureaucracy to adjudicate 10 to 12 million applications a year, the overwhelming majority of which present no homeland security issues. Our compromise proposal will allow Homeland Security officers to spend more time—as long as it takes on identifying and dealing with those applications that do present risks to the security of the United States.

The Hyde-Lantos-Berman-Ros-Lehtinen compromise is endorsed by the Bush Administration and by the three Committees of jurisdiction. It will preserve the essence of the Administration's proposal-the sensible division of labor under which homeland security officers will be allowed to concentrate on homeland security functions-while helping to ensure that security concerns will be central to key decisions made abroad.

We would like to thank the Select Committee for its time, and we hope our recommendations will be helpful in its drafting of the final proposal.

Chairman ARMEY. Thank you, Chairman Hyde. Tom Lantos, it is my pleasure, my friend, to have you here.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Pelosi, ladies and gentlemen. Let me first say that one of the great joys of my 22 years of service in Congress has been to work with Henry Hyde on the International Relations Committee. I think I can say without any possibility of contradiction that under Henry's leadership, this has been by far the most bipartisan committee of the House of Representatives and probably of either Chamber and that, as Henry stated, we in the International Relations Committee, Mr. Chairman, adopted the Hyde-Lantos proposal unanimously which enjoys the full support of the administration.

I do not serve on the Judiciary Committee, but the Judiciary Committee adopted essentially the same proposal. I do serve on Government Reform, and in Government Reform again overwhelmingly, with Republican and Democratic votes, we accepted this proposal.

So I can only echo Henry's statement, but I would like to take a minute, because I know how precious your time is, to spend a little time on the culture of the Foreign Service as it relates to this issue, because I think this is a very important item. When you are 24 years old and take the Foreign Service examination, at the end of your personal rainbow, Mr. Chairman, there is not the item of issuing visas to Turkish housewives. That is not what you are aiming at. You are aiming at becoming an ambassador 25 years from now and to participate if not in the formulation, at least in the implementation of U.S. foreign policy.

And what we have today is really a 2, 3, 4-year bootcamp for bright young people who do their kitchen police duty in the State Department issuing visas, and they can hardly wait to get a good grade on that so they can move on to other things.

Now, the notion of hiring a whole new bureaucracy of people whose lifetime occupation will be the issuing of visas is an absurdity. The State Department has been issuing visas for over 200 years, and we clearly, following September 11th, need to readjust our priorities and our focus. So the Hyde-Lantos amendment to the administration's proposal recognizes the primacy of the Homeland Security Secretary in all aspects of this process, but handling the issuing of the visas via the State Department. The Homeland Security Secretary will have the opportunity of assigning as many of his people as necessary who will have full authority over the issuance of every single visa that is issued, but it would be absurd to have this whole new department take over a function which on the whole is very well performed. I am fully cognizant of the horrendous failures that have occurred in recent years, the security lapses, and that is why the placement of homeland security people trained for that job in whatever embassy or consular office the Secretary of Homeland Security determines will be done.

There is only one exception in our scheme to the primacy of homeland security, and I think we as members of Congress will appreciate it. If the State Department official rejects a visa application, then Homeland Security cannot overrule him. If the State Department wants to issue a visa, then Homeland Security has full authority to review it, and this I think in more ways than one protects us as Members of Congress, because constituents come to us and say an individual was rejected for a visa, can you use some pressure to get that visa done? If the State Department says no, that is the end of the rope.

I personally believe that our proposal, which has the approval of three committees and the administration, should be probably the easiest provision for your distinguished committee to approve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement of Mr. Lantos follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM LANTOS, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you, Ranking Democratic Member Pelosi and other members of the Committee for receiving our testimony here today on this critical endeavor, establishing a Department of Homeland Security. I have an extensive written statement, and I ask unanimous consent that it be made part of the record. Mr. Chairman, nothing this House will do this session is more important than to move forward successfully this gargantuan undertaking, and I believe we must do it in the most expeditious and bipartisan manner possible. It was in this spirit, Mr. Chairman, that Chairman Hyde and I worked together on a bipartisan basis with other members of the Committee to craft a sensible proposal relating to the division of labor between the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the visa function. I am very pleased that the White House has announced its support for this proposal, and that last week it was adopted by all three House committees that considered it. Moreover, I understand that Governor Ridge confirmed the Administration's support for the Hyde-Lantos Amendment in testimony before your Committee earlier this week.

Under our proposal, which builds on the President's proposal in H.R. 5005, the Secretary of Homeland Security would have all authorities relating to issuing regulations, enforcing and administering the laws on processing visas at United States diplomatic and consular posts abroad. The Secretary would also have the authority to confer this authority on other officials and employees of the U.S. Government. Absent such delegation, however, these authorities would be exercised through the Secretary of State and his highly trained cadre of consular officers. The Secretary of Homeland Security can overturn decisions of consular officers to grant a visa, alter visa procedures now in place, and can develop programs of training for consular officers.

In addition, in the spirit of a bipartisan compromise with those who would like to move the entire visa function to the new Department, the Hyde-Lantos amendment explicitly authorized the assignment of Homeland Security employees in U.S. diplomatic and consular posts abroad. Consular officers would continue to have the primary responsibility for reviewing visa applications. Rather than assume all visa processing functions, Homeland security employees would concentrate on identifying and reviewing cases that present homeland security issues. Homeland Security officers will provide expert advice and training for consular officers, investigate threats and ensure that these officers have access to all the homeland security information necessary to perform their function.

I want to stress again the bipartisan nature of this amendment and its wide-ranging support. It was unanimously adopted by voice vote in the International Relations Committee. Chairman Hyde and Congressman Berman sponsored it in the Judiciary Committee, where it prevailed on a combination of Republican and Democratic votes. And Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen and I sponsored the amendment in the Government Reform Committee, where it prevailed by an overwhelming voice vote. Late in the Government Reform Committee markup, Congressman Weldon, who had opposed the Ros-Lehtinen-Lantos Amendment, slipped in a further amendment that was inconsistent with some key provisions of the Ros-Lehtinen-Lantos Amendment. I understand that the Administration opposes this amendment. Thus, while I agree with the intent of the provision, that there be more interviews and careful scrutiny of visa applicants from Saudi Arabia, I think the Select Committee either make substantive revisions to the amendment or consider not including it in its mark.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Pelosi, I want to take a brief moment to tell you why I feel so strongly about this amendment. The Department of State has some of our Government's finest civil servants, trained in over 60 languages with decades of experience in dealing with foreign cultures. Their continuation in the Foreign Service is predicated on carrying out their responsibilities successfully if they don't, they will not get promoted and will be forced out of government service altogether.

I believe that the current system can be improved, particularly through additional resources for the State Department to allow more detailed interviews of visa applicants. But I do not agree with those who suggest that the answer is moving the entire visa function to the Homeland Security Department. I do not believe that standing up a whole new bureaucracy, with little experience in foreign languages, cultures, or conditions, and with little opportunity for advancement to higher level posts, will draw the kind of quality people needed to advance our national security. Even more important, the proposal transferring the entire visa function to Homeland Security would risk overwhelming Homeland Security personnel with non