She can speak to the enhancements to strengthen the Visa Waiver Program. John wagner the Deputy Assistant commissioner for u. S. Customs and Border Protection at the u. S. Department of Homeland Security. He can speak of options and considerations of the waiver program. He will discuss the benefits of preclearance operations. Next witness will be mr. Jussen siberal. Im really bad. Not even 50 . He is the deputy coordinator for the Counterterrorism Bureau at the department of state. He can speak to the existing sharing agreements the u. S. Has with Visa Waiver Program countries. Mr. Mark frey, senior director and former director of the Visa Waiver Program from 2007 to 2010. As former director mr. Frey can speak to the need to enhance the Visa Waiver Program in a sensible way to maintain the benefits of the program at the same time enable dhs. Mr. Frey did provide testimony. It is probably the most succinct summary of the Visa Waiver Program. It would be nice if you could go through in a bullet Point Fashion what testimony you provided and talk about really why the Visa Waiver Program does improve our security and why we should be certainly looking to strengthen it, addressing some of the vulnerabilities, but we dont want to weaken it. We had a hearing on the syrian refugee situation. The reason we are having this roundtable is because one of the outcomes of that, we did lay out there is a pretty strong vetting process. From my standpoint im a little concerned this administration wanting to increase refugees by 21 the first year, 43 the next there might be managerial pressure to cut corners on the certification process. In the hearing we heard there are concerns about the vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the Visa Waiver Program. I want to explore those. If there are holes that need to be plugged, i think we need to plug those holes. The purpose of this roundtable. I come from a manufacturing background. Solve problems, laying out reality, acknowledging reality and setting achievable goals. This is about laying on the reality. By yammering on i have given dr. Frey time to prepare. Can you summarize your testimony and lay out the case for the Visa Waiver Program. Thank you, chairman johnson. I cheated in the assessment because you may have recognized what i provided was an updated version of what i submitted to this committee in march when i testified on the Visa Waiver Program. And so i dont want to makemy my fellow panelists feel bad they didnt get a chance to give testimony. It just wasnt that much work. I like first efficiency. Exactly. Roundtables like this, the hearing you held last spring are all important. The v. W. P. Program needs education and awareness. There remains, despite a lot of efforts, a misunderstanding of what the program is and what the program isnt. There seems to be this perception because the word waiver is in the title somehow security requirements are waived. That is precisely the opposite. Im happy to talk about the four key security components of the v. W. P. It is entirely fitting and appropriate roundtables like this, hearings and the legislation your committee introduced the other day are being talked about. The v. W. P. Like all good Security Programs needs to evolve in light of the current threat involvement. The history of the Visa Waiver Program since 9 11, it predates that before that, but since 9 11 it became a Security Program there has been a history of reforms. Some administratively, some legislatively done. It makes sense and worth doing. We have a couple of colleagues who have joined us. I want this a free flowing discussion. While dr. Frey is talking about this, if you have a question about a particular subject bring it up. Say the same thing about the witnesses. Thank you. So to get into briefly the four main security components of the v. W. P. And why it is a security enhancing program. The first is individualized screening of Visa Waiver Program travelers. The perception that somehow you can you have a european passport and you wave it at the gate agent and show up in dulles or paris is not true. There is an individual vetting system that goes on which is overseen by c. B. T. That, in fact, was part of the last major legislative reform as part of the implementing the recommendations of the 9 11 Commission Act in 2007. We set up the system that requires data from individual travelers and cdp and others in the u. S. Government can run that data against watch lists and watch list date abases and terrorism daysa bases. Is that is same with the fiance visa . Yes. It is the same biographic checks occur. State departments, lookout support systems, class, interpols, database, so it is Law Enforcement, the terrorism screening database. Does it include recent travel . And how far back does it include . Months or years or days . Do you want to talk about that, travel history. What im trying to flesh out how thorough is the individual screening and do we need to take a look at things we need to do. What i will say and john is probably the best person to handle it, there is some screening that goes on through the Visa Waiver Program that is identical to the vetting that goes on for visas. That complements another set of screening protocols that c. B. P. Does on all travelers whether they are visa waiver or visa. So the Visa Waiver Program fits into a larger Border Security framework. How far back does that travel history go . If they travel to the United States no. Im speaking of traveling to iran and iraq or syria. We would not routinely have access to that information. If there is not a nexus to the United States, we wouldnt have that. Regardless of a visa. Some information sharing agreements that gives us access to travel itineraries, some information we get through the Intelligence Community or Law Enforcement networks. We dont have visibility on the entire world. Im sorry. If it would help, i mean, as mark was just starting out say ing, a starting place is edge kaeding what it is. If we can talk about exactly what the program is, get through those. I personally think we it might help inform the questions. That is what i was trying to do. Thank you so much. If there is a better way, you are welcome. No. Im very comfortable with mark as well as myself. Hold your questions until mark goes through. No. This is what i want. I want this a relaxed atmosphere. Go through it as quickly as possible. Dont go into such great detail. Thank you, senator. We talked about esta, the individual and current screening of travelers. Doesnt mean you have one today necessarily means you will have one tomorrow if derogatory information comes up. The second piece of the Visa Waiver Program itself is information sharing to v. W. P. Countries that participate are required to share information with the United States effectively on citizens or passengers who may be a security risk, known suspected terrorists or serious criminals. And related to that is requirement to share lost and stolen passport data with interpol with is used in screening for all flights coming into the United States. There is information sharing piece. Those two pieces Work Together because the information we get from the v. W. P. Feeds nesta to make the u. S. Database. Including that information sharing, would that have travel from france into iraq or syria . Is it robust enough to figure that out . As i said, the esta system hits against certain databases and is informed by derogatory information on individuals provided by our partners. For example, if there is travel history provides that gives rise to concern from a partner and raises to where a person is a known and suspected terrorist, that individuals name will be given to us and the esta vetting will catch that. As a rule the vetting doesnt hit travel without u. S. Nexus. It relies on the quality of information of the Visa Waiver Program country, right . It relies on the reliability of that. It is not all uniform. It is not all reliability. I would argue it is better than not having the information sharing, ok. Mr. Wagner. Just that it is going to be contingent on does that country collect the information, how long do they store it for and are they allowed to share it with us. If it is not, say, an identified National Security reason can they give us bulk information or bulk data. There are standards under the program that require a certain threshold of information to be shared, correct . Maybe we can get into that in greater detail. Just an example of the folks in the paris talk who were e. U. Citizens. Are you comfortable knowing the folks engaged in that attack, would they have been stopped at the boarder of the United States based on what we have now . Have we looked at that, whether or not the system would have prevented it . Yes. And some of them would have been prevented from traveling here. Some not all . Prefer to discuss more of the details in a classified setting. It has been reported some of them were identified to governments as being National Security risks already. That would have been in the database. There is information we would have received from their travel details that were confident we would have identified had they booked travel to the United States. Without the Visa Waiver Program they would have ended in an embassy. Would they have better or worse information from the Visa Waiver Program and automatic database. The embassy is going to have the same information. It is the same database we check, the same information we check on a visa application or esta application for traveller. Points of contact and a few data fields. We run it against the same types of derogatory databases. We come to the same result. But would a Visa Waiver Program in the information sharing, intelligence sharing requirements of the Visa Waiver Program, would there, you know, again, im trying to compare it. The Visa Waiver Program gives us the structure to exchange that information and provides a platform to share it. If the information exists. That is always the case. As a result of the information sharing, they have shared 9,000 known or suspected terrorists we are using in our vetting. We wouldnt have that if it wasnt for the v. W. P. Program. That is a security of the program. Under the hapd 6 agreement, known and suspected terrorists and identity data, we used that as a requirement for the program. Therefore, being a member of the Program Requires you pass that information to us. In that regard, if you didnt have the Visa Waiver Program, you might not have the incentive or disincentive to not provoid that information. It helps us to push governments to share the information. Nonperformance could be problematic of that country remaining a member of the program. There are several bills that have been dropped in that deal with the Visa Waiver Program. One is to require that if a person from europe for example has been traveling to syria that that information would be automatically transferred. Let me ask you from the opposite side. If we require that of them, they are going to require that of us, which i dont have any problem with. The question is do we have that information and two, can we legally share it with them . We are taking steps to add to enhance esta further, that was part of an announcement from the white house on november 30. We are already in the process of making those additional changes. That wasnt my question. If we have a Visa Waiver Program person who is an american who has been to syria, do we have that information and can we share it with the country they are going to . Say they are going to france. Can we legally do that . I have to go back and check the legal piece. It is a reciprocal program, any new requirement we put on they will consider and put on to us. Similarly, we are sharing our extracts of our terrorist watch list including a foreign fighter extract with all of our v. W. P. Countries and others. Because we want countries to screen against this data. This is a global Security Program considering beyond just a visa. This is true of any database, you start out with a basic database. It is imperfect. The beauty is you can continue to add to it, improve it. That is part of the attempt here, we have a certain database. There is holes in the data we want to fill. So over time to beauty of technology is it builds upon itself and gets better and better and better. That is certainly you were talking about in your testimony. The information required under the Visa Waiver Program incentivize ds or sometimes the threat of potential punishment can make sure countries are sharing what they should be and if not we are aware and can address it. By definition Visa Waiver Program countries are strong allies to begin with. I dont want to overstate there was never information between the United States and the United Kingdom or the United States and france before we implemented this. Of course there was. Share all the time. This structures it and makes it mandatory and we can potentially take remedial action if a country is not meeting their obligations. And very quickly to finish the other two components. The third element that makes the Visa Waiver Program is documents. Again, this is something that exists for travel under the v. W. P. But not under visas you have a have an electronic passport and incorporates biometric identifiers. Your bill addresses it, there is a small percentage of v. W. P. Travelers who dont have to carry that passport. The bill closes the loophole to make all Visa Waiver Program travelers carry it. Not be able to use a fake passport to use the program. This is a point that sometimes gets overlooked, the law mandates that dhs leads audits. Dhs is working with the state department to continue monitoring developments in these countries. I would like to focus just a minute on the inspections having participated in a number of them. They are unbelievable comprehensive, sort of soup nuts to Border Security, aviation security, passport development and issueance processes. It is way for dhs, the u. S. Government more broadly to have visibility into how a country does security. If we find there are gaps, whether in information sharing or what a country does with respect to its counterradicalization programs or foreign fighter tracking program, we have the ability to know country x is not up to our standards and work collaboratively with them to provide technical assistance, what have you. Without that visibility we wouldnt have as much information. So these inspections are incredibly powerful tools to make sure Visa Waiver Program countries are meeting the standards we set. If they are not, it is a collaborative program, to help them get to those standards. Before i throw it open to other members, in your testimony you talked about requiring v. W. P. Travelers to submit biometrics prior to boarding the flight would not meaningfully enhance security, it would cause diplomatic challenges. Can you talk about that. I would be happy to. My colleagues can weigh in on the security benefit. Let me talk about logistical challenges and resource challenges in doing so. As i see it, there are primarily two ways you could set up such a system to capture biometrics to ensure the person submitting them is actually the person who is traveling. You have to direct the people to embassies and consulates oversees and Visa Waiver Program countries are not staffed to handle the extra flow or set up enrollment centers. Again, how many you would need all over the world would be quite a challenge. Some trusted agent could oversee the submission of fingerprint and i. T. Back to c. B. P. That is one that their doing it. Expensive to have personnel overseas. Some suggest a kiosk at the airport. Again, hard to imagine how it works logistically because it is not just a kiosk at Visa Waiver Program airports. It is kiosks all over the world. If you are a british citizen living in hong kong and want to travel to the United States for business, you can leave under the v. W. P. From hong kong. We would have to put these kiosks in hong kong, beijing, moscow, not Visa Waiver Program countries and set up a sorting system so the Visa Waiver Program travelers are submitting biometrics and not the u. S. Citizen traveling home. A logistical challenge overseas. That is the logistical and diplomatic side. All Visa Waiver Program travelers submit their biometrics at the port of entry already when they arrive. Fingerprints are taken, digital photograph is taken. I will defer to my colleagues here, but im not aware of a lot of people being turned away every day at ports of enter because biometrics are overwise identifying threats we didnt know about. The watch list we have are biographically based. Submitting a biometric is not as far as i know turning up hundreds and thousands of people we didnt have derogatory information on. I will turn it over to senator carpenter. With colleagues just joined us, i want this to be free flowing. Feel free to particularly on something we are talking about, rath it be disjointed. I apologize for being late. I senator feinstein, as you know has a bill, drafted, i dont know if it is introduced, to require for the gathering of biometrics before people get on a plane on the Visa Waiver Program. You explain why that is impractical, maybe counterproductive. The idea of she has a fiveyear implementation period for that. The idea of doing a pilot in lieu of her approach, try and see what we can learn from that pilot or what doesnt work and maybe what does work. The other witnesses just briefly say your response to that, your reaction to maybe a pilot that would set up over the next year . Is it ms. Barisi. Yes. Nice to see you. Well, we are open to any requirements that are adding a practical security value to the program. Whether it is be something you are referring to biometrics or others. We are trying to work very hard to address any security gap that may arise as a result of the changing environment. Ok. Lets hold it at that. Im sorry. I want a reaction to the pilot. We are open to a biometric pilot. Of course. We are looking to expand preclearance. Just hold it there. You will have a chance to say that. I want reactions to the pilot, please. Take me to the pilot. Lead me to the i think we are contemplating some pilots in some of the preclearance discussions we are having and perhaps some other ways looking at preclearance that could involve biometric pilot. More in the context of that. Your reaction to a pilot . The program is based on a concept of reciprocity. To the degree a pilot is begun in a country, that could be reciprocal to u. S. Citizens seeking to travel to that country. That is the only reaction. Mr. Frey, just a quick reaction. I would agree in general a pilot can make sense. I dont know, i guess, in my view what a pilot would potentially show us in that i dont think it is a question of technology. The technology exists to capture fingerprints overseas and send them back so you can show that it works. I think you probably still find you are not getting a lot of hits out of those pilots because we are not getting them today at the ports of entry. If you establish the system works you are still faced with a scaleable Program Going forward. Im not so much for how you address the overall limitation with a successful pilot. Someone in the audience, george, would you raise your hand . Thanks. George im told you are the head of the Community Partnership in dhs . At some point i will ask you to take that seat and talk about that program. It is a hugely important initiative. I will yield for now. Senator peters. Senator portman. First, thanks for having this roundtable. A lot of things that came up today will cause congress to act. My question goes to this fundamental issue of the fact that our security in this country is only as good as the data provides by our Visa Waiver Program partners. These 38 countries have different databases. Some are better than others as you all said this morning. Drilling down a little further on that, lets assume the numbers are right, there are about 5,000 foreign fighters from western european country, the bulk from france, u. K. , belgium. That means there are more than 5,000 total from 38 countries. I dont have a good number. If you have one, i would like to have it. I have heard 8,000, we dont know, more than 5,000. Let me ask further question and you can give me the answer on how many people we are talking ability. The question i have is a simple one. If you have a porous border with turkey, as we have in our borders, with mexico and canada, and you have the ability to go back and forth without being identified through that porous borders and you have thousands of foreign fighters leaving europe to go into the battle, they are walking across a border. We see refugees going the other way. Can you comment on that . I would like to hear from mr. Wagner. Anybody jump in. How do you account for that and how good is the data . So when we are looking at the esta program and background checks and vetting we do with that, we are not looking at a specific trip. This is before they book their travel. This is authorization basically to book travel to come to the u. S. So looking at a persons travel history is going to be a little complicated at that point if it is not including previous routes to the u. S. Really, where we see the most value is looking at the data sets we do collect. The biographical information, contact information, some of their points of contact and a few other pieces and trying to draw associations with that to other known pieces of information that we know does give us National Security concerns. Drawing any link analysis or associations we can with other people and bouncing through a lot of Intelligence Community to see the holdings they have if any of these data sets show up in any of the information they have. We pull it back into our data holding and see, well, who is connected to this email address. I guess what im getting at is the gaps. In testimony before this committee seven weeks ago, approximately, the director of the f. B. I. And director of the Counterterrorism Center said the same thing, we have gaps. They were referring specifically to the gaps in syria because we have nothing on the ground to collect information, we dont have a relationship with the government. Compared with iraq we dont have the data. My question is im not suggesting this is necessarily a large number of people. As we have learned with terrorism it doesnt matter if it is a large number or small number, any number is significant. We have to be right every time. They have to be right once. Are there people who are going to go across this border that is porous where there is no means to identify them, come back to a Visa Waiver Program country and us not be able to have that data in our system . Are you saying, commissioner wagner, because we use other data sources including our own, that is unlikely to occur or are you saying that weve only got what weve got, which is our security is going to be based on the best information we get from these countries and there is going to be some gap . We use what we have access to and what is provided to us. It is a mixture of what the Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement community can provide to us through information sharing agreements. And the data we collect, what association can we draw on other pieces of information that we have. I would just say the problem you are identifying it transcends the Visa Waiver Program. Sure it does. This is a common concern of governments globally, even those outside of the Visa Waiver Program. Right. An idea of getting a handle of who is going on to get networking techniques they can bring back to their own country. There is intelligence service, Law Enforcement to get a handle on this and exchange information. We use a Visa Waiver Program as a lever, really, for the countries who are participants. As noted by dr. Frey, 38 countries that share the fairly high level of capability and the concern on the foreign fighter program. They are our best partners. There is a wide diversity of countries in the program, japan, luxemborg, france, chile. Some have acute foreign fighter programs particularly western european countries. What is your number of foreign fighters from Visa Waiver Program countries . I dont know if i have the number. Nctc is the best source of that data for estimates. But the important point here do you think 5,000 to 800 . The Visa Waiver Program extends beyond western europe. The larger come from Visa Waiver Program countries this is the critical program, how do we build those watch lists. We probably have the best watch list. Through hspd6 we provide foreign partner extract of about 90,000 names and smaller number foreign fighter extract, giving that to countries en that are not participants because we want them to have that watch list to bounce those names look, i have probably taken more time than i should. We are glad the Visa Waiver Program has resulted in better information and better data. I dont think you can tell us the Visa Waiver Program requires a more strenuous screening than the visa program. In other words Visa Waiver Program is there for a reason. It is to facilitate travel. We support facilitate Business Travel and so on. What we are asking is given the fact that the requirements are not as stringent even though more data was collected because of it, what do we do about this potential gap and specifically the foreign fighters who can go back to a certain extent without identification. It is the same issue if they apply for a visa. You think there is no difference . The biographic checks we are doing are the same. I will be at one they occur at a different time. That is the big distinction. In terms of the biometrics, we have on the metrics on 3 4 of the traveling population. We see if we have biometric holdings on those. Full checks are done, so it is not that there are distinctions. Some of it is when and really the differential would be the first time travelers. So for firsttime visa applicants for business purposes you get an interview and a biometric collected on your first application. Even state departments upon renewal for a visa, you dont get in interview taken again. You do it once, then you dont get that again. There are lots of reasons for that. Most of our derogatory information is associated with the biographic information. Checks, i think all of us at this point have said they are the same doing the visa. I think it is important to make that comparison. Where would we be at if there had never been in Visa Waiver Program . What was the system look like . There is no perfect information, but are we better off or worse off because of the Visa Waiver Program . What is the difference right now between getting a visa and having and diversity Visa Waiver Program. That is the kind of reality i am trying to figure out. The number of denial system the people that are screened out. Right, they are screened out for various reasons. Comply with the terms of the visa depending on what kind of visa they are applying for. I can be establishing ties to their home country. Then i registered for school, very different that the visas. The National Security vetting based on the biographic data will be comparable between the two. We are involved with the state in atment and ice percentage of the applications to make sure all consistent and are checks are run similar. With a visa database and run the entire contents perpetually for any kind of National Security information we can feedback to the department of state. We can then request the replication of the information just like we do, but it is the same queries that is run consistently between the two. Nafta everyto get a two years. Is it recurrently vetted for that entire. Of time that entire time, but the individual then must resubmit that information. We will know if anything is setting the database. That is the same for the visa as well. With a 10 year visa, your every 10 years thank you, state department. It is better than a visa in that sense. They are providing is that information. I dont want to lose your point of the other security question that mark outlined initially. To only to countries have meet certain security standard in order to be in the Visa Waiver Program, they have to maintain them. The intrusive robust reviews and mark was talking about earlier last about 69 months and we do them at least every two years. Sitting in their Border Agency boots. Were looking at how they do this. We are in the passport issuance facility. No other Program Allows the u. S. Government to go in and do such an intrusive review. I dont believe we provide that. It is without fail adding those additional layers of security that just dont exist in other a couple of followup questions. This immediate discussion, the differences between the visa process,ny visa waiver i have for the total lumber per year for visa waiver countries is roughly 20 million, that accurate . What of the aggregate numbers of folks who receive visas to come in . Just roughly. Within a million. Just so were all on the same page, the Visa Waiver Program is b1 visas. Waving there was a whole list of other visa categories, student visas, employment visas, fiancee visas that are different. That weraphical vetting are talking about to have a true comparison is be one or be too visas. They can qualify. On this point, when you get a visa part of it is about your intent to moving forward not looking in the background prior. Go to ao come to funeral of an extended family member. I will only be there for x number of days and i will be begin. We dont capture any of that in visa waivert in the program. Without the inaccurate statement . Would that be an accurate statement . It is a presumption. It is, but there are ways where are you going, what are you doing . Those types of questions. To be have a rough aggregate number . 14 million applications, 1. 6 million denials. We denied about 60,000 as stuff applications esta applications last year. Remember, theyre good for two years. Were nearly 22 million visa waiver travelers last year. We had 112 million commercial and passengers. Maybe 18 ofakes the total population of commercial air travel. Most travelers will come to the u. S. Via commercial aviation. About 18 come to the Visa Waiver Program. 50 are u. S. Citizens, the difference alters. I wanted to get back to the biometrics. You talk about a couple of different ways if one wanted to arrival inprior to the United States. He talked about adding that function to embassies and consulates, and setting up new kiosks atd about every airport. I guess im curious to know whether im following up on the senators question about piloting. Would it be useful for us to pilot all three, depending on the country just to gain some expertise . Work . To pilots, it is not about if it could work. It is benefit versus cost. Biometrics are taken every day at embassies across the world. Waiver these visa countries they have not been issuing these leases for close to 30 years. To do that for all of the Visa Waiver Programs, for example, that come from france. Probably have to buy more office space and set up a satellite location staffed by either Government Employees or contractors to oversee biometric. Enrollment it is not that it would not work, it is just a massive undertaking. From what i am seeing is that we are getting minimal security from the biometric points of entry. It is not that it is not worth while, it is not worthwhile compared to the costs of doing so. Even on a pilot scale . Theut would you do when pilot says we are able to do it, how do you scale it to the 20ically to capture million Visa Waiver Program travelers . I do not know if theres a good answer. Is it the fact that it am pastor implying for this benefit using different biographical have ation and we may fingerprint record . That number will be very low that the fingerprint is associated to National Security concerns compared to what we have access to with the biometric information. If there is a concern about someone entering the plane with the wrong documents, that would go to all travelers that they you wouldd, and then have to look at biometrics for everyone boarding a flight, which is a different set of issues. Collect biometrics, but where do we collect them so they are meaningful . Collecting the biometrics from the visa waiver traveler when they arrive in the u. S. , this is after they have gone through the information that has been vetted through our holdings. It is after they had booked travel to the United States, we have looked at the reservation and airline manifest aformation, run that through very intensive series of vetting pieces to look at known of information, and travel patterns that would give us concern. Looking at intelligence reports and reallife events, what about this persons itinerary would raise red flags . A male with a certain type of passport from certain parts of the world would give us more concerns than others. We said and our databases to flag this type of information. We have an intensive set of information we apply. They go through that level of vetting and review. Go throughrive, they the interview, we collect the full set of biometrics. It is the point in time, where do you do that when they go through this review . Predeparture through the department of state like a reseller . What information are you trying to get . As biometrics are helpful, an operator we want to them, but where is the right place in the process to get them so we dont shut down air travel and harm ourselves with the good that we are trying to do . The question that i have is related to several things. One is the biometric information validating that this is the person standing in front of me that i will sign the document for. A we have a way to track number or a guess of the number of people that would try to have a document that is false . For visa waiver travelers, of 1 ,ar it was 2 100 476. Where we had biometric hits. Upon arrival. Upon arrival, they arrived, they are showing you a document. All for immigration admissibility issues in relation to entering under the Visa Waiver Program, none for National Security. We caught it there at entry . Upon entry and rival in the u. S. Facial recognition we have looking at the passport and taking their photo . Based on us interviewing the passenger, reviewing the passport, reading the passport in our database, doing the system choir use come using the system queries, and taking their fingerprint. Go ahead if it is on that topic. The 476e not heard number, but i think it speaks to your point about piloting effectiveness. We are collecting the biometrics. 470 sixnd result is hits, none for National Security concerns, it seems that that is to deploy afit worldwide biometric Collection System in advance of travel. If it were 470,000 and some are National Security you can make the argument it was worth doing it in advance, but if we are doing it already and it is only 476, none with National Security, that tells me that doing it in advance would not give us a benefit. Entry to over 9000 fils a waiver travelers for various reasons. As we pair the numbers down. Ive heard a lot of conversation about we will have a higher priority of focusing on individuals that have traveled to known terrorist safe havens. The term has been used multiple times, but it into being iraqi in syria. A few people are going to syria and saying that your passport is stamped syria. They are coming from lebanon and turkey. You have confidence when someone throws around that we will kick out individuals that have travel to iraq and syria, that we are tracking all of them, or we are not tracking someone that went there to visit a family member. Talk us through how someone would evaluate this person has traveled to a known terrorist safe haven area when we are not getting a passport stamp from syria. Look at if the intelligence or Law Enforcement community has provided information to us through their classified holdings that we could bounce the information we collect on the traveler against that to draw any associations more than just a name check. A cell phone or email a dress that someone else picked up that we could relate to that with probably be our most capable way of doing that right now. If they booked travel that was continuous through there, or if they were leaving from the u. S. Going to a certain part of the world for six months or eight months with a return back, and they had certain characteristics , that may also cause us to look closer. To someone that is a French National traveling to lebanon, is in lebanon for 90 days, then returns to france wont show up. We dont know if that individual cross the border from lebanon to syria to fight and is now returning . No, that would not show up. Those that seek to enter syria knowing that governments are watching out for their travel,k disguise their travel effectively. This is why you have to rely upon the Intelligence Community, which is working cooperatively with partners across europe to identify those persons that might he suspect. Might be suspect. We hear that kicked around all the time, the reciprocal agreement with our relationships with other countries. You have mentioned rigorous inspection. Do we have other nations coming ing us and our systems . Merely not close to what we do. Other nations do come to check our system . No, it is not a requirement we offer to share best practices, how we do things, we have had those conversations. To inspectot come in our facilities and our inspection booths, or anything similar. We had a big dog on the block. We are the big dog on the block. In the San Bernardino situation, that was a fiancee visa issue. Are you able to speak to that ofue in terms of what kind wedding we do in that instance. People want to understand what happened there, and how that visa system perhaps differs from what were talking about today on the visa waiver system. Can anyone speak to that . Thank you, senator. I am the Deputy Assistant secretary of services at the department of state. With respect to the San Bernardino case, that was a visaee visa, a type of issue to the fiancee of the u. S. Citizen for the purpose of coming to the United States to get married within 90 days. I can confirm that all applicable security checks were ms. For that individual, ik, including an immigrant interview, facial recognition, enter agency counterterrorism by the visa review Security Unit of immigration and Customs Enforcement with a detachment in our embassy in islamabad, and a full biometric fingerprint check. In all cases, the results were clear. There were no indications of ill intent by that individual at the time the visa was issued. There have been public reports that information was wrong on the application, and address an address. Can you share the information that is used to verify if an applicant is true . A particular part of the visa application, our embassies and consulates have antifraud units to verify the data on an application form. With respect to this case, i will have to defer there is an investigation and progress done by the fbi. We have shared their details and records with them. Were working with them on any of the data. Of verification, it depends on the circumstances. It is not done consistently on every application . Example, where i live, my connections, things like that . We verify information that the officer believes might be incorrect or inaccurate. The officer has to get a flag, it is not routinely done . Thank you. Followup, in the paris attacks one attacker reportedly came through greece as a refugee, obviously. That has raised a discussion we in thisiously had committee about the vetting of our refugee program, upon which many of us have raised concerns. Visa waiver country. Presumably, had that individual come through the refugee process how do we understand are we confident in the information we get from greece . How confident are we and im using greece as an example and the information that we get from greece. Im hearing the testimony here today, and some of the prior hearings on the Visa Waiver Program, we have been collectively concerned that there seems to be a difference of things we are getting from certain countries and the depth and breadth of intelligence sharing. I want to know if you disagree with the characterization that there is a difference, and and consistency an inconsistency . Just to level set the start of your question, is that refugees cannot travel under the Visa Waiver Program. It is citizens of the vwp countries that can travel for business or tourist reasons to the United States. I understand that, im using it as an example of how people are going through countries. I am confident that all vwp countries have signed information sharing agreement and are sharing the information. Ourthe u. S. , is sharing list with other countries, in particular with greece. I leave four there on saturday. I will get a greater insight firsthand from greece. We have signed all of the forms among the countries. We are relying on the situation that senator langford has talked about. It is consistent with what the fbi director has said. With the porous borders. We saw with the Charlie Hebdo attack that some of the attackers had traveled to yemen for training before committing the attacks. We see the situation where europe is overwhelmed in the terms of foreign fighters that have joined with isis then returned to their shores. You seen the fbi directors say that if you have not made a ripple in the water in syria, we might not know. We can query our database is until the cows come home, but if the information isnt in our databases we wont know and someone wont get the extra level of scrutiny that they should. I want to get at the issue, where are the countries we are having the most problems with with a lack of robust intelligence to make sure that it is not so much filling out a us the who is giving most, who is not giving us the most, where can we do better . Everyhard to believe that country is providing us all they can and should. Are you telling me that every country in the program is doing all they can and should to provide intelligence . For those migrants that do come in, how long do they have to remain in that country before they get a passport from that country . Howave a consistent many years with they have to be in that country before they get a passport . Specific point, generally speaking, that varies by country according to their own citizenship laws. That is viewed closely by the visa waiver inspections. , i led onellection or two inspections of greece. They have a fairly robust process for that. It is difficult in greece to greece as a refugee and get a greek passport. It varies country by country according to their own law. In general, the inspections require that the process is robust. You dont show up one day, and a week later have their passport. It does a very. Id does vary. Im happy to talk about specific countries and where they are. I dont think it is appropriate in an open setting to discuss specific countries. Can you answer yes or no, are we receiving all that we should receive and full cooperation of robust intelligence sharing from every country, to their fullest extent, in the Visa Waiver Program . I believe that if they know someone is a bad individual are they sharing intelligence with us . They will, or are they . Out iftrying to figure there is more we need to push on on a gap in intelligence that will make the program stronger. These are the enhancements that secretary johnson announced in august. The information sharing arrangements are not the issue, before inharing a fighters they are aware of. Where the user requirements are part of five in statute is using that information for their border. And letting the United States know when they have an encounter with that individual. That is where we are focusing and pushing that can strengthen the vwp program. My understanding is that there is a minimum threshold to qualify for the Visa Waiver Program. If you do not meet that minimum. Hreshold, we can suspend it we have done that with argentina, uruguay, and belton. And belgium are there any countries under review that we might be of evaluating for a suspended Visa Waiver Program because they dont meet the threshold . Stipulating that there is a variety of information you have different capabilities of providing information. What is the alternative . Countries, are they all meeting the minimum threshold or above where are we . Above . Where are we . Each review is a company nine intelligence assessment. I do not know if we mentioned that earlier. That may change their Security Posture in a respect that gives us concern, we have different options. We can review them more regularly, put them and provisional status, suspend them, and the last resort is terminating them. That is not where we want to jump to immediately because it is a global Security Program. Securityne fails measures that does not help the Global Community or the United States. There are a few countries in provisional status today. Significant additional oversight, monitoring,. Uestions, visits i have happy to do that in a different setting. More classified in terms of type oferes any security issue, i hesitate to announce it. In, this is ajump process that is ongoing. It is not like we take a photograph, then a couple of years later we take another. This is ongoing. The audits last for an extended time. We have in place a process that changes. Some are more cooperative and committed to the agreement. That theremake sure has been a change. It is to their advantage to be in this program, they want to be in the program, we want them to be in the program, but we want them to comply with the conditions. They have to meet the standards that countries that are just issuing visas do not have to. Not only do we have betting that is identical in different places, they meet different standards, and we get to review them to make sure they maintain the standards. About thee talking betting on the individual traveler, collecting their biometrics, every time that they traveled they are meeting with a officer, taking their prints, having them checked, having an interview. That is continuing and ongoing. To provide clarity, let me ask this question to see if anyone disagrees. Talking about databases and safeving them, are we less or more secure because of the Visa Waiver Program . After 9 11, i have we continue to build and improve the orabases . Are we better off worse off . My sense is that we are better off. Does anyone disagree . I would like to make a followup point. You are right, theres always room to do better. Is program is not static, it always evolving. More than that, i think this is the countries want to be in the program. That includes countries that want to keep their status. Countries outside of the program that want to get in. It serves as an incentive to raise their security standards. There are countries on the outside looking in that have signed information sharing agreements because they want to get in, even now it might not happen for another five years. Their countries want to get into the Visa Waiver Program. And they are working hard. That benefits everyone. It is a powerful incentive. Isbecause the program underpinned by these requirements that we are continually assessing and pushing for improvements on, it makes it safer. Member, and there is the issue of incentives and remaining as of member, that is their selfinterest, but these 38 countries are those that we should be partnering with to strengthen global security. 9 11 hit us and required us to improve our security, the attacks in europe are galvanizing those governments, and they are understanding that the global fighter threat is a problem. There is an incentive to collectively improve the program. We are also continuing to look at strengthening the programs. One thing we are pushing on is for governments to be better about sharing information with interpol, that is a privation that is a new innovation. That has to continue to build out. Of information, beyond or including passports . Lots of passport databases, that is the first one. There is sharing that can occur through interpol databases. The fbi, whog with has agents at interpol, to set up a foreign fighter database. We are pushing countries to share their own information to build that database. This is an opportunity for us to strengthen that data sharing. 70 of the records that is in the loss or stolen database. I have introduced the companion bill with enhancements. Can i go through the provisions and to see if anyone wants to comment . You will deny visa waiver to individualsus connected to terrorist hotspots. If you have dual citizenship with iraq or syria you cannot use the program. Or, if you travel to countries with terrorist activity. In the current threat environment, that makes sense. It is not a perfect system. We have talked about people going across the Turkish Border. But isnt this a common sense and hence met . Common sense enhancement . Perfect, but if that person does come here we can determine otherwise they have been to these zones and they said no, we have the ability to charge them with fraud misrepresentation. That is a lifetime bar. Just a think about this point i had the honor of traveling with colleagues in my first year in the senate to the Turkish Border with syria. It was a different situation than. Isil was not as prominent. One of our briefings was with a range of individuals, any u. S. Citizens and many european, that providingof ngos humanitarian relief and briefing us on the status of the civil war at that time. Journalistslk to that were venturing into do were correspondence. To do war correspondents. Safe, we keep our country but encourage, if we want to, that type of humanitarian act ivity . And folks that are trying to participate in the political discussions to get a new government in syria . Trying to reach out to moderate syrians to form the new government . One is denying access to people that have come into the country that have done that, they are just not waiving the interview. But generally, denial of the Visa Waiver Program allows us to push people to the embassy for the interview and the collection of the biometrics. Visa,y are able to get a the department can issue one. We look for flexibility at those we look for flexibility in those. We have had discussions with our European Partners who mentioned humanitarian workers and journalists. Theres one other category, the employees of international w to makeions, like ope sure that syria did away with chemical weapons. It demands stronger intelligence enforcement sharing. It is happening, but it would require people being kicked out that is a powerful incentive to improve the process. Enhancing the screening of travelers for the visa waiver protection countries. There is a number of enhancements. I want to talk about preclearance, something we have added. Hopefully we can get that passed quickly. Can anyone speak to the advantage of pushing our borders and to those preclearance countries . Preclearance gives us the ability to address most of these concerns. We are able to negotiate for the of sorties to operate on foreign soil and complete our vwp inspection as if the person had flown here. The interview, the documents, the fingerprinting, the search. That is before they step on the aircraft. The u. S. Government can put their hands on the people and their belongings before they get on their transportation. That is why it gives us the best ability. And thermation sharing relationship within the host authorities, because we are working side by side, is also a benefit. With the familiar houses passing of the legislation, any concern with any of those . I would say, from my perspective, one of the points that i made earlier is that this is an evolving program. There are a number of sensible ways to improve security, some of which are already done. There are some things that require steps. I think that at are we missing anything . Are there things that we should be looking toward . I will make one point. Of the 38 countries there is a wide variety of capability and perspective on things like data privacy. We will have to work with these countries. Some are performing better and some are not performing as well. It will be the implementation and working with those governments to ensure that we can the common perspective here, this is not a difficult of anyoneon in terms rejecting Border Security, everyone is a part of that. Willnk the reception generally be positive, but it is accepting provisions within a fixed time could be challenging, but we will have to work with them. I just met with the ambassador of one of these countries. One of the complaints was that intoof the requirements is their threshold of how many pieces are denied. That is out of their control. When you go to an embassy and are applying for a visa, we dont like the way you look, i dont know. Can you address that concern . Assure you that it has nothing to do with the looks of the applicant. I know. That is outside of the countrys control because it is determined on an individual basis based on the individual circumstances of each applicant. The visa waiver requirement is very tough. It is a 3 or less refusal data. It did rise to 10 . Can we talk about why it rose to 10 then back to 3 . Is openingefly, this perhaps a separate issue as that gavee 9 11 act us a star and the information sharing agreement, and different security enhancements, a temporary waiver was put into place to allow the threshold to 10 becauseo several countries, and south korea, have historically had a hard time getting untrue 3 even though they were trending downward. June 30, 2009, they implemented a biometric exit system at our airports. The window closed and the Waiver Authority went away. Since 2009 you have been like in the 3 visa. Back in the 3 visa. Ask,e thing i want to george is the head of the dhs office of Community Partnerships. I want to ask questions. Ask of each of our witnesses, and for you to think about, is lets say you are on the side of the table. Not on that side of the table. You have the responsibility to craft legislative changes to the Visa Waiver Program. The house has taken steps. Different be set waiver legislation will be introduced. My question is for you to briefly say, what would you say do this or at least do this. And people coming out of our country, have not talked much about the efforts and the department of Homeland Security to reach out to the Muslim Community to see how we could partner with them to reduce the greatest threat. It is not people that will embed themselvesd in the refugee camps to try to get in here for two years, but we need a more secure and effective Visa Waiver Program. What i think that we are seeing is the greatest threat to our security and safety is not from people embedded with refugees, it is folks coming through the Visa Waiver Program. People who live here, were born here, becoming radicalized. There is an effort to address that and a couple of ways. One is in the department of Homeland Security, the other is outside of the department of Homeland Security. That are most likely to be radicalized and want to go to places to be a part of this effort with isis are described in this way, and im paraphrasing, a lot of them are guys that have never been part of a winning team. Never held a womans hand, been on a date, had a job, been on a winning team. This is an opportunity to be a part of a winning team. To have money, stature, a job, and be able to have women. And if they get killed in the meanwhile, they go to heaven. They have all the more value and their family gets money. It is appealing to a number of people. We need to make sure that isis is not seen as a winning team. The president has said again and again to degrade and defeat. The iraqi forces are standing up. Nd being effective in ramadi they have had encouragement there. The kurds have done good work. We are doing the air part, joined by the brits, the french, we are getting our act together. We are continuing to compress the amount of land that isis has control over it and taking out their leadership. They will be seen less as a winning team. To convey be able that change effectively, through social media or other ways, more effectively than we have done. Tell us what you are doing, and how your operation works. What we can do to be supportive. Thank you for the support of legislation. Within the first few weeks of on boarding into nine numeral comment the Homeland Security office of Community Partnerships, the effort to consolidate the efforts at large. I met with them during the first 10 days in office, and i have given them an overview of where i am going. Announced bys secretary johnson on the 28th of this year to consolidate the efforts tos counter violent extremism. The u. S. Governments First National strategy was issued on this issue entitled empowering locals they have aligned themselves in the last ways in several years. The department of Homeland Security has consolidated into a very streamlined effort, in which although the functions are focused out of the office which i lead. The office has a remit for preventing violent extremism in the homeland and ministry programs. We lay out clearly that this office focus will be run on senator johnson. You mentioned earlier, from your experience in manufacturing, we are taking a lesson from the private sector and structuring the office on an out holders stake model where mayors, county council members, ngos, communitybased leaders are the stakeholders. To createon is products and functions to service stakeholders across the role inthat can play a preventing or intervening in the radicalization process. I am happy to go into further detail, but those at the top wines. Top lines. Thank you and letting us know how we can be more supportive. One or two things, if we are going to make legislative changes, what should we do or not do . Think that the collection and analysis of advance passenger information and a passenger name record is the most important thing that countries can do to enhance global security, their awareness of who is coming into their country. Im encouraged by the steps that i have seen the eu take, and i hope that it goes the full way and they take those measures. That is the number one thing. The advance notice is made possible by the Visa Waiver Program . That cooperative sharing . Yes. We still get the advanced passenger information and name record information for all of the flights we are betting that are coming in the United States. What we would recommend is one of the enhancements, to have that codified in statute would be fantastic. As you know, that helps when they are trying to get through their legislative challenges to point to u. S. Statute to move forward. I would like to strengthen and leverage the partnerships we have built with this program. Structuredes the program to exchange this information and encourage more sharing, helping us close some of the blind spots we have mentioned today. I would echo that. To view this program as of point of strength. A strong baseline to improve collective Border Security. The codifying visa enhancements and legislation is quite important in our giddings with foreign partners. They understand that they also have to enact changes in their own systems to include the passage of legislation domestically. It is a useful way to approach the project. I would you craft your legislation . I would agree with my colleagues that the legislation passed and introduced yesterday by this committee struck the anht balance between taking already successful Screening Program and improving the environment. Too, and that i would it sounds facetious, but i am deadly serious you need to change the name. That one of the problems with the Visa Waiver Program has to do with misunderstandings. It is a complicated program. Fundamentally, visa waiver sounds like were waving security requirements when we are actually doing the opposite. I think that contributes to a lot of the misunderstandings. You change it to . The function of the office is to create partnership. The name is the office for Community Partnerships. Call this the secure travel partnership. You are right, words matter of. The reason you are right, words matter. I would ask anyone in evaluating this, what is the alternative . There is no search thing as perfect information, there will be gaps. Even though there may be gaps we are trying to fill, they exist in the visa system as well. There are information gaps. Strength is the information, the intelligence sharing the between ourselves andthe partner countries, the fact that we have this database to build on is very important. That wesomething continue to build on. I come from a manufacturing background, continuous improvement. Been very helpful, i hope the American People have seen this as helpful as well. I appreciate your testimony. The record will remain open until december 24. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you, very much. Thank you, we appreciate it. [indiscernible conversations] announcer monday night on the communicators, the ceo of the National Cable association will discuss challenges to the fcc open regulation orders. The upcoming spectrum auction, on impact of ltu technology wifi. He will be joined by the Technology Reporter for the wall street journal. Theye you sure that dedicate attention to carve out for wireless use . It is about how much. On isher thing that goes are there things happening that could destroy the effectiveness of wifi . Where it isa space unlicensed, and you are not guaranteed the same way that a carrier is guaranteed to exclusive use. They would have a hard time explaining to the American Public is all of a sudden wifi did not work or stopped working in a significant measure. Announcer