Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
00STATE229052
2000-12-01 23:28:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

PASSAGE OF VWP LEGISLATION: WHERE DO WE GO FROM

Tags:  CVIS 
pdf how-to read a cable
R 012328Z DEC 00
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS
SPECIAL EMBASSY PROGRAM
UNCLAS STATE 229052 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CVIS
SUBJECT: PASSAGE OF VWP LEGISLATION: WHERE DO WE GO FROM
HERE?

REF: STATE 210639

UNCLAS STATE 229052

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CVIS
SUBJECT: PASSAGE OF VWP LEGISLATION: WHERE DO WE GO FROM
HERE?

REF: STATE 210639


1. SUMMARY: THE PRESIDENT SIGNED LEGISLATION MAKING THE
VISA WAIVER PILOT PROGRAM PERMANENT. SEVERAL COUNTRIES
HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN BECOMING VWP PARTICIPANTS, AND
SEVERAL POSTS HAVE OFFERED SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE
PROGRAM. GIVEN THE EXTENSIVE PREPARATORY WORK AND
COMPROMISE NEEDED TO OBTAIN A PERMANENT VISA WAIVER
PROGRAM, THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ENVISION REQUESTING ANY
ADDITIONAL STATUTORY CHANGES IN THE NEAR FUTURE. END
SUMMARY.


2. THE DEPARTMENT INFORMED THE FIELD IN REFTEL THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAD SIGNED HR 3767, THE VISA WAIVER PERMANENT
PROGRAM ACT. THIS LEGISLATION MADE THE VISA WAIVER PILOT
PROGRAM (VWPP) A PERMANENT PROGRAM, NOW KNOWN AS THE VISA
WAIVER PROGRAM (VWP). THE PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE WAS THE
CULMINATION OF A LONG PROCESS IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENT,
OTHER AGENCIES, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THEIR STAFFS MADE

KNOWN THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROGRAM AND WHAT CHANGES
THEY WANTED IN THE STATUTE.

--------------
FURTHER CHANGES TO VWP LEGISLATION
--------------


3. AS POSTS WERE ABLE TO SURMISE BASED ON THE SEVERAL
EXTENSIONS OF THE PAROLE PROCEDURE FOR NATIONALS OF WAIVER
COUNTRIES AFTER VWPP AUTHORITY EXPIRED ON APRIL 30,
PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION TO EXTEND OR MAKE PERMANENT THE
VWPP WAS A CLIFFHANGER. THE FATE OF THE PROGRAM RISKED
BEING LEFT FOR AN END-OF-SESSION OMNIBUS WHERE ANYTHING
CAN HAPPEN. PASSAGE OF THE BILL REQUIRED A CONCERTED AND
COORDINATED EFFORT BY SEVERAL OFFICES IN THE DEPARTMENT,
PARTICULARLY IN THE BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, TO KEEP
THE BILL MOVING, TO MINIMIZE UNWANTED AMENDMENTS, AND TO
DEFLECT ATTEMPTS TO DERAIL OR MODIFY IT.


4. AT THE OUTSET OF THE PROCESS, THE BUREAU OF CONSULAR
AFFAIRS WORKED CLOSELY WITH STAFF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE, WHICH DRAFTED AND INTRODUCED THE
BILL, TO TRY TO GET IMPORTANT PROVISIONS INTO THE VWP
LEGISLATION, PARTICULARLY THOSE RAISED WITH US BY POSTS.
WHILE STAFF MEMBERS WERE SYMPATHETIC TO MANY OF OUR
REQUESTS, THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS INUNDATED WITH SPECIAL
INTEREST REQUESTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS.
OUR INTERESTS, WHILE VIEWED SYMPATHETICALLY AND EVEN
FAVORABLY, WERE CAUGHT UP IN THE CAUSES OF EVERY GROUP
WITH ISSUES BEARING ON VWP. AS THE IMPORTANCE OF VWP
BECAME INCREASINGLY APPARENT ON THE HILL, THE BILL TURNED
INTO A "CHRISTMAS TREE," USED TO HANG ALL KINDS OF SPECIAL
INTEREST PROVISIONS, BOTH RELATED AND UNRELATED TO THE VWP
ITSELF. THE ONLY WAY TO OBTAIN PASSAGE OF AN EXTENSION OF
VWPP, LET ALONE A PERMANENT PROGRAM, WAS TO AVOID PRESSING

FOR FURTHER VARIATIONS. VWPP WAS SUFFICIENTLY
CONTROVERSIAL THAT ANY CHANGE OR ENHANCEMENT WAS HIGH RISK
-- THE RISK BEING LOSS OF THE ENTIRE PROGRAM.


5. POSTS MAY ALSO BE AWARE THAT GREECE'S STATUS IN THE VWP
WAS A SOURCE OF CONCERN FOR SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. THE
DEPARTMENT WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TO CONGRESS ALL OF THE
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE NOMINATION OF GREECE. CONGRESS
WAS PARTICULARLY CONCERNED THAT ALL INTERESTED BUREAUS IN
THE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER AGENCIES HAD HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS FULLY ON THE NOMINATION OF GREECE.

AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MATERIAL WAS PROVIDED TO CONGRESS IN
THREE SEPARATE TRANCHES.


6. THE DEPARTMENT IS OVERJOYED FINALLY TO HAVE A PERMANENT
VWP. NOW WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THE STATUTE, WHICH WILL
CONTINUE TO REQUIRE A DELICATE BALANCING OF MANY DIFFERENT
INTERESTS. THERE ARE NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO
CONGRESS, INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL REVIEW EVERY VWP COUNTRY'S PARTICIPATION AT LEAST
EVERY FIVE YEARS. REPORTS MUST ALSO BE MADE TO CONGRESS
ABOUT THE COUNTRIES THAT ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR
INCLUSION IN VWP. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE ADDITIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DATASHARE WITH THE IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE (INS) THROUGH THE USE OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.


7. OUR SENSE IS THAT CONGRESS INTENDS VERY FIRMLY TO LIMIT
THE VWP TO A SINGLE VISA CLASS WITH VERY STRICT
REQUIREMENTS AND TO MONITOR THE PROGRAM VERY CLOSELY.
GIVEN THIS IMPRESSION AND THE LACK OF APPARENT ENTHUSIASM
TO REOPEN THIS ISSUE ON THE HILL BY THOSE WHO WOULD
SUPPORT POSITIVE CHANGES, WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE
COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO SEEK FURTHER LEGISLATIVE CHANGES AT
THIS TIME.

--------------
ADDING NEW COUNTRIES
--------------


8. SOME POSTS HAVE ALREADY EXPRESSED INTEREST IN
NOMINATING THEIR HOST COUNTRIES FOR VWP PARTICIPATION.
WHILE THE DEPARTMENT WILL CONSIDER ANY NOMINATIONS THAT WE
RECEIVE, WE MUST CAUTION POSTS NOT TO EXPECT A QUICK
RESPONSE. THE DEPARTMENT MUST CONSULT WITH THE
INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
OVERSEEING THE VWP TO BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW
REQUIREMENTS OF HR 3767. WE EXPECT THAT IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE NEW REQUIREMENTS, REVISIONS TO THE NIV SOFTWARE TO
CAPTURE REFUSAL STATISTICS IN A DIFFERENT MANNER, REVIEW
OF THE CONSULAR CONSOLIDATED DATABASE TO DETERMINE IF ITS
OUTPUT MEETS OUR NEEDS, COORDINATION OF THE MANY NEW
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, AND CONSULTATION WITH INS ON
DATASHARE WILL OCCUPY THE INTERAGENCY GROUP FOR SOME TIME.


9. SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERN
ABOUT THE LACK OF DIVERSITY IN THE VWP; I.E., EVEN THOUGH
THE NATIONALITIES INVOLVED ARE MUCH MORE DIVERSE IN THEIR

ETHNIC MAKEUP THAN EVER BEFORE, IT IS STILL THE CASE THAT
22 OF THE 29 PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES ARE IN EUROPE. WE DO
NOT FORESEE THE ADDITION OF NEW COUNTRIES TO THE VWP IN
THE NEAR-TERM, SINCE WE DO NOT BELIEVE CONGRESS IS IN
FAVOR OF EXPANSION OF THE PROGRAM.


10. POSTS SHOULD CONTINUE TO REPORT THE HOST COUNTRY
NATIONAL (HCN) REFUSAL STATISTICS IF THEY BELIEVE THAT A
COUNTRY IS CLOSE TO MEETING, OR MEETS, THE REFUSAL RATE
CRITERION (NO MORE THAN A 3% REFUSAL RATE FOR HCNS
APPLYING FOR B VISAS, EXCLUDING 221(G) REFUSALS). THIS IS
REPORT 11E ON THE NIV SYSTEM. POSTS SHOULD SEND THE
REPORTS EVERY QUARTER VIA A CABLE SLUGGED FOR CA/VO/F/I.


11. WE GENERALLY DO NOT RELEASE EXACT REFUSAL RATES.
SHOULD HOST GOVERNMENTS APPROACH POSTS WITH A REQUEST TO
PROVIDE THE "VWP REFUSAL RATE", WE RECOMMEND AGAINST
PROVIDING THE EXACT RATE. INSTEAD, POSTS SHOULD RESPOND
THAT REFUSAL RATES ARE MAINTAINED FOR INTERNAL DEPARTMENT
USE ONLY, AND THAT THE DEPARTMENT WILL ADVISE THE HOST
COUNTRY (VIA POST) WHEN THE REFUSAL RATE AND OTHER INITIAL
CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET FOR NOMINATION PURPOSES.

--------------
INTERAGENCY NOMINATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS
--------------


12. THE VWP NOMINATION PROCESS IS BASED ON A 1997 PROTOCOL
ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE AND JUSTICE.
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE (DOS) INITIATES THE PROCESS BY
ADVISING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) OF ITS INTENT TO
NOMINATE A COUNTRY FOR CONSIDERATION FOR INCLUSION IN THE
VWP. ONCE DOS HAS ADVISED DOJ OF ITS INTENT TO NOMINATE A
COUNTRY, AN INTERAGENCY TEAM REVIEWS THE NOMINATION,
FOCUSING ON THE IMPACT INCLUSION OF THE COUNTRY IN VWP
WOULD HAVE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND
IMMIGRATION CONTROL. IF NO CLEARLY DISQUALIFYING
OBJECTIONS ARE RAISED DURING THIS PRENOMINATION REVIEW,
THE SECRETARY OF STATE SUBMITS A FORMAL WRITTEN NOMINATION
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.


13. AFTER A COUNTRY IS FORMALLY NOMINATED, INS LEADS A
SITE TEAM OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM INTERESTED AGENCIES TO
VISIT THE NOMINATED COUNTRY TO REVIEW PASSPORT AND
DOCUMENT SECURITY, BORDER AND IMMIGRATION CONTROLS, LAW
ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS, AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT, IMMIGRATION, AND

NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS. BASED ON THE PRENOMINATION
REVIEW AND SITE VISIT, THE INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP
SUBMITS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN WHOM
THE LAW VESTS ULTIMATE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE VWP
PARTICIPATION.
TALBOTT