Prepared by: Jody Woods

-116 i r ri
Index: Type bundle index here
Date: 9/16/02 DOC Library: Type library name here
Job Code: 320087 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 Index: Type
Date: 9/16/02 DOC Library: Type
Job Code: 320087 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

• 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 anti-
terrorism 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.

A • 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
V long.

• 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.

i\: 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
Date: 9/16/02 DOC Library: Type
Job Code: 320087 DOC Number:

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 Index: Type
Date: 9/16/02 DOC Library: Type
Job Code: 320087 DOC Number:
f—*
I • P24-26: Ms. Brown asked that we come up with new wording to
i distinguish the 20-day name-checks from the CLASS name checks.
^ I .
• 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
9/11 Law Enforcement Privacy 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 Index: Type
Date: 9/16/02 DOC Library: Type
Job Code: 320087 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