T5 B65 Gao Visa Docs 5 Of 6 Fdr- 9-16-02 Gao Interview W Dos Bca Re Gao Report 812

-116 i r ri

Prepared by: Jody Woods Date: 9/16/02 Job Code: 320087

Index: Type bundle index here DOC Library: Type library name here DOC Number: 159772

State Department Technical Comments, 9/16/02 Reviewed by: Type reviewer name here Review Date: Type review date here

Record of Interview Purpose

We met with officials from the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs to discuss the sensitivity level of our report (GAO-03-132) and receive their technical comments.

Contact Method

In-person

Contact Place

State Department, Room 6811

Contact Date

September 16, 2002

Participants

O; John Brummet, Judy McCloskey, Jody Woods State;

George Lannon Georgia Rogers Charisse Phillips Frank Moss Catherine Barry Steve Fischel Colombia Barrosse Catherine Brown Frank Turley Steve Maloney Edward Vasquez

Comments/Remarks

Sensitivity level Mr. Lannon stated that nothing in the report is classified, but he requested that GAO treat it as sensitive but unclassified. Ms. Barry stated that the only parts of the discussion that could have been classified would have more detailed information about the Condor process. Mr. Vasquez questioned whether the destination agencies for the Condors was classified, but Ms. Barry stated that they were not. All of the officials acknowledged that there was a high likelihood that the report would be leaked once it reached the Hill. (Auditor's note: On September 24, 2002, Catherine Barry sent an e-mail to me, stating "Although we would prefer that the report not be readily available to the general public, we have no appropriate justification to classify the report. So we acknowledge that you may proceed as you propose." Specifically, we had proposed treating it as an unclassified GAO report with no restrictions on the report's distribution. Jam 9/30/02)

Page 1

Record of Interview

Prepared by: Jody Woods Date: 9/16/02 Job Code: 320087

Index: Type DOC Library: Type DOC Number:

Overall comments Mr. Lannon and others praised the report, stating that overall it was very well written. Mr. Fischel felt that the report did not always provide good enough context about the efforts that State has already made in countering terrorism through the visa process. Page-by-page comments

A V

•

Pl-5: No comments.

•

P6, para2: Ms. Barry asked that we stated that we add the word additional to the sentence on security checks to reflect that State, through the Donkey process, has always conducted some level of antiterrorism checks. Mr. Fischel asked that we stress that other agencies were not living up to their responsibilities under these checks.

•

P6, para3: Mr. Fischel asked us to recognize that the visa cases set aside by the FTTTF were for hold and not for refusal. He stated that they do not qualify for refusal under 212(a)3(b), but that the FTTTF was seeking a special presidential declaration under 212(f) that identifies a whole class of people ineligible to receive visas.

• P6 Footnote 3: Mr. Moss asked that we add that INS agents at the \r also determine whether an alien is admissible and for how long.

i\:

•

P7: No comments.

•

P8, bulletl: Ms. Brown and Mr. Fischel disagreed with our characterization of the dispute between the Department of Justice and State. They stated that the problem is with the law itself and not a disagreement between State and Justice on its interpretation. The only agency they knew of to complain about their interpretation of 212(a)3(b) was the FriTF, which does not have statutory authority to interpret visa law. Ms. Brown acknowledged that reasonable people could differ on the interpretation of 212(a)3(b) and that some people within both State and Justice would like to see broader language from Congress on terrorism. She noted, however, that she did not feel we quoted Mr. Levy accurately when he stated that State and Justice disagree on 212(a)3(b). Mr. Lannon stated that the argument between the two agencies was over information sharing, not legal interpretation. We asked the officials to provide us new language with this section that would satisfy their concerns or lay out their concerns in written comments.

primary body of law governing visas. Ms. Brown asked that we make clear that the INA is that

Page 2

Record of Interview

Index: Type DOC Library: Type DOC Number:

Date: 9/16/02 Job Code: 320087

P10, para2: Ms. Barrosse stated that she would contact us with new figures for the number of consular staff and posts. She stated that the numbers would be different if we choose to include consular associates. •

Pll-13: No comments.

•

P14, fig.2: Ms. Barry asked that we add Customs as a source of information in the graphic. P15, line 2: Mr. Lannon stated that the Hispanic algorithm is in its final stages of development, but is not yet operational. Mr. Turley stated that they have envisioned a Chinese/East Asian algorithm, but have not really started developing it yet. PI 6: No comment. PI 7, bullet 1: Ms. Brown asked that we provide them with the citation in the FAM for this information. They also asked us to provide context that applications are only waived for high-ranking dignitaries, and even in those cases, the consular officer adjudicating the case will fill out the application on behalf of the person. PI 7, bullet 2: Ms. Brown asked us to provide the citation in the FAM. Ms. Barry stated that this information was laid out in a 1997 cable. P18, parad: Mr. Fischel asked us to provide the citation in the FAM. P19, para3: Mr. Lannon asked that we add that consular officers could also be threatened by physical violence by applicants. P20: No comment.

•

P22, FN24: Mr. Moss asked that we explain in the footnote that the cause of the problems in the Saudi economy was due to the collapse in oil prices.

•

P22: No comment. P23, last sentence: Mr. Maloney asked that we change the wording from "restricted" to something that reflects that it focused on screening out intending immigrants. He also noted that they have made changes to consular training, including the CLASS course. P24: Mr. Moss asked that we emphasize that State had been requesting access to FBI criminal and terrorist records since 1992 and it took the Patriot Act to finally make them hand them over. He also noted that the FBI is still not contributing much if anything, to TIPOFF.

Page3

Record of Interview

rrepared oy: Jody Woods Date: 9/16/02 Job Code: 320087

Index: Type DOC Library: Type DOC Number:

f—*

I i ^ I

•

P24-26: Ms. Brown asked that we come up with new wording to distinguish the 20-day name-checks from the CLASS name checks. .

•

9/11 Law Enforcement Privacy

P26, para2: Mr. Fischel and Ms. Brown stated that the first sentence of this paragraph is inaccurate, because the FTTTF did not recommend refusal, but only a hold on these applications so they could conduct further investigations. Ms. Barry also disputed the word "known" as none of these cases were actually known terrorists, but were instead developed from cases where the FriTF had found their name in an index. Mr. Fischel noted that when they are forced to really investigate these cases, the FTTTF does not recommend refusal but instead normally drops the case because the evidence is not there. Mr. Lannon noted that he only revoked visas, not because the applicants should have been refused, but as a prudential measure in order to avoid scrutiny from the Hill. When asked if State had followed up on the revoked cases, no one was certain if anyone within State had checked the INS database to see if they had entered. Mr. Fischel stressed, though, that if the FTTTF had the objection to these cases, they should be the ones Investigating whether thpv are now in

theU.S. H e s t a t e d ) i w a s the person in the FTTTF whom he had informed of the revocations. •

P27, para2: Ms. Brown again expressed her concern that we had misquoted Mr. Levy. They noted that while they had been promised a letter from DOJ on the issue, they have not received one.

•

P28, para2: The officials asked that we add that the FBI has not provided much information to TIPOFF.

•

P29, paral: Mr. Moss stated that the names of the 19 went into CLASS fairly soon after 9/11. Others disagreed with him, stating that there was no point in having them in CLASS if they were already dead. Ms. McCloskey noted that they might nave had more than one travel document. Mr. Fischel asked that we add context to the paragraph stating that TIPOFF and CLASS are extraordinarily sophisticated.

•

P29, para2: Mr. Fischel and Ms. Brown disagreed with the implication in this paragraph that all names in CLASS should be denied. Ms. Brown stated that CLASS and TIPOFF are intentionally over-inclusive. She also felt that we needed to add context that the terrorist exclusion was already very broad. Mr. Moss asked that we add context that consular officers view "00" more seriously than others. They asked that we provide them with our source document for this information.

•

P29, fh36: Mr. Moss and Ms. Barry stated that the information on Mr. Al-Shehhi was not misspelled, but the spellings were different.

•

P30, para2: Mr. Lannon and Ms. Barry stated that the cable on referrals from last Spring did not make substantive changes to the

Page 4

Eecord of Interview

Prepared by: Jody Woods Date: 9/16/02 Job Code: 320087

Index: Type DOC Library: Type DOC Number:

process but merely emphasized that people could go to jail for abusing it. We stated that we would check our sources. •

P31-32: No comment.

•

P33, last para: Mr. Lannon felt this paragraph was far too sweeping and provocative. Ms. Barry expressed frustration that officers in the field can't see that headquarters has been emphasizing border security. We stated that we would check our sources and try to adjust the language.

•

P34, paral: Mr. Lannon stated that they responded directly to Saudi Arabia and en masse to others on this issue. He added that consular officers are requesting too specific of directions and "we won't chew their food for them".

•

P34, para2: Ms. Barrosse stated that we emphasize that consular officers are spending more time per applicant due to new security requirements, and that time is not sustainable should workload increase.

•

P35: No comment.

•

P36, para2-P37: Mr. Maloney stated that they have made many changes to consular training since February, including the new advanced course on CLASS. He did not feel that new course was appropriate for junior officers. Ms. Phillips said that stating that terrorists use fraudulent documents is pure speculation. Mr. Maloney stated that he would draft a comment on this section.

•

P37, para2: Mr. Maloney stated that they are working with the FBI to develop a course on terrorist profiling.

•

P38-39: No comment.

•

P40, para2, bul!3: Mr. Lannon and Ms. Barry disagreed with this tasking, saying it was impossible unless they were given more specific information from other agencies on what to look for. Mr. Lannon stated that new CLASS names are run against issued visas in the CCD as standard operating procedure. Ms. Barry asked that we consider adding the word "further" to the recommendation.

•

P41, bulll: Ms. Brown referred to her earlier comment on p.6.

•

P41, bul!3: Ms. Brown felt this should be split into two different points, one on reexamining visa operations and another on information sharing.

PageS

Record of Interview