[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INVESTIGATION INTO ABDUCTIONS OF AMERICAN CHILDREN TO SAUDI ARABIA
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 12; OCTOBER 2 AND 3; AND DECEMBER 4 AND 11, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-882 WASHINGTON : 2003
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIAN E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
David A. Kass, Deputy Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
June 12, 2002................................................ 1
October 2, 2002.............................................. 389
October 3, 2002.............................................. 709
December 4, 2002............................................. 1249
December 11, 2002............................................ 1473
Statement of:
Horan, Hume, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (1987-
88); Daniel Pipes, director, Middle East Form; Doug Bandow,
senior fellow, Cato Institute; Dianne Andruch, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Overseas Citizen Services,
Department of State; and Ryan Crocker, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, Department of State.... 141
Mabus, Raymond, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia; Ryan
Crocker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs; and Dianne Andruch, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs............. 775
McClain, Margaret, mother of Heidi Al-Omary; Patricia Roush,
mother of Alia and Aisha Gheshayan; Michael Petruzzello,
Qorvis Communications; Jack Deschauer, Patton Boggs LLP;
James P. Gallagher, the Gallagher Group; Mort Rosenberg,
Congressional Research Service; and Maureen Mahoney, Latham
& Watkins.................................................. 1495
Petruzzello, Michael, managing partner, Qorvis
Communications, public relations firm for the Government of
Saudi Arabia; Michael Rives, father of Lilly and Sami
Rives; Maureen Dabbagh, mother of Nadia Dabbagh; Margaret
McClain, mother of Heidi Al-Omary; and Joanna Stephenson
Tonetti, mother of Rosemary, Sarah, and Abdulaziz Al-Arifi. 719
Roush, Pat, mother of Alia and Aisha Gheshayan............... 816
Roush, Patricia, mother of Alia and Aisha Gheshayan; Dria
Davis, accompanied by her mother, Miriam Hernandez-Davis;
and Ethel Stowers, mother of Monica Stowers, and
grandmother of Rasheed and Amjad Radwan.................... 41
Roush, Patricia, mother of Alia and Aisha Gheshayan; Margaret
McClain, mother of Heidi Al-Omary; Michael Petruzzello,
Qorvis Communications; Jack Deschauer, Patton Boggs LLP;
Jamie Gallagher, the Gallagher Group; and Eileen Denza,
visiting professor of law, University College London....... 1285
Seramur, Samiah, accompanied by her daughter, Maha Al-
Rehaili; and Debra Docekal, accompanied by her son, Ramie
Basrawi.................................................... 412
Tonetti, Joanna Stephenson, mother of Rosemary, Sarah, and
Abdulaziz Al-Arifi; Margaret McClain, mother of Heide Al-
Omary; Maureen Dabbagh, mother of Nadia Dabbagh; and
Michael Rives, father of Lilly and Sami Rives.............. 427
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bandow, Doug, senior fellow, Cato Institute, prepared
statement of............................................... 157
Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana:
Exhibit 11............................................... 1588
Exhibit 12............................................... 121
Exhibit 18............................................... 1593
Exhibit 23............................................... 126
Exhibit 25............................................... 1581
Exhibit 27............................................... 1599
Letter dated December 10, 2002........................... 1612
Prepared statements of..................6, 397, 714, 1258, 1480
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 30
Crocker, Ryan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern
Affairs, Department of State, prepared statements of.....166, 779
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statements of.......22, 409, 1666
Dabbagh, Maureen, mother of Nadia Dabbagh, prepared statement
of......................................................... 475
Davis, Dria:
Phone call transcript.................................... 111
Prepared statement of.................................... 113
Deschauer, Jack, Patton Boggs LLP; James P. Gallagher, the
Gallagher Group, prepared statements of................1508, 1516
Hernandez-Davis, Miriam, mother of Dria Davis, prepared
statement of............................................... 104
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche, a Senator in Congress from the State
of Arkansas, prepared statement of......................... 1266
Mahoney, Maureen, Latham & Watkins, prepared statement of.... 1548
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York:
Article dated March 15, 2002............................. 36
Article dated December 4, 2002........................... 1274
Prepared statement of.................................... 1277
McClain, Margaret, mother of Heide Al-Omary:
Exhibits..................................................... 822
Prepared statements of..............................442, 1318, 1498
Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 39
Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California:
Exhibit 18............................................... 129
Exhibit 21............................................... 132
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Pipes, Daniel, director, Middle East Form, prepared statement
of......................................................... 146
Petruzzello, Michael, managing partner, Qorvis
Communications, public relations firm for the Government of
Saudi Arabia, prepared statement of........................ 721
Rives, Michael, father of Lilly and Sami Rives, prepared
statement of............................................... 466
Rosenberg, Mort, Congressional Research Service, prepared
statement of............................................... 1521
Roush, Patricia, mother of Alia and Aisha Gheshayan, prepared
statements of............................................48, 1295
Schrock, Hon. Edward L., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, Wall Street Journal article dated
December 21, 2001.......................................... 25
Seramur, Samiah:
Exhibits..................................................... 1016
Prepared statement of........................................ 414
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut, exhibit 4........................ 197
Stowers, Ethel, mother of Monica Stowers, and grandmother of
Rasheed and Amjad Radwan, prepared statement of............ 86
Tonetti, Joanna Stephenson, mother of Rosemary, Sarah, and
Abdulaziz Al-Arifi, prepared statement of.................. 430
Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, prepared statement of................... 205
Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 404
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 14
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES DO MORE TO HELP U.S. CITIZENS HELD AGAINST
THEIR WILL IN SAUDI ARABIA?
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Gilman, Morella, Shays,
Mr. Davis of Virginia, Ose, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia,
Weldon, Schrock, Duncan, Sullivan, Waxman, Maloney, Norton,
Cummings, Tierney, Schakowsky, and Clay.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; James C.
Wilson, chief counsel; David A. Kass, deputy chief counsel; S.
Elizabeth Clay and Caroline Katzin, professional staff members;
Allyson Blandford, staff assistant; Robert A. Briggs, chief
clerk; Robin Butler, office manager; Elizabeth Crane, deputy
communications director; Joshua E. Gillespie, deputy chief
clerk; Nicholis Mutton, assistant to chief counsel; Leneal
Scott, computer systems manager; Corinne Zaccagnini, systems
administrator; David Rapallo, minority counsel; Ellen Rayner,
minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa and Earley Green, minority
assistant clerks.
Mr. Burton. If everybody will take their seats. Good
morning. A quorum being present, the Committee on Government
Reform will come to order. I ask unanimous consent that all
Members and witnesses written and opening statements be
included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. I ask
unanimous consent to include in the record a letter to the
committee from former Ambassador Raymond Mabus, and without
objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all the written questions
submitted to witnesses and answers provided by witnesses after
the conclusion of this hearing be included in the record.
Without objection so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that a
set of exhibits relating to this hearing, which have been
shared with the minority staff prior to the hearing be included
in the record and without objection so ordered.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. May I just make a request. There are some
exhibits that have been furnished to us and we don't think
we're going to have any objection to making it a part of the
record, but we would like to have a chance to review them
because we haven't had a chance at the staff level. So if you
can just withhold those requests until the end of this hearing,
we'll get an answer to you.
Mr. Burton. OK. That is fine. I ask unanimous consent that
all articles, exhibits and extraneous or tabular material
referred to be included in the record, and without objection,
so ordered.
What is happening in the Middle East right now is
critically important. We have strategic interests. We have
economic interests, and we have military interests. So it is
imperative that we win the war on terrorism, and to do that, we
have to have strong allies in that region. We need access to
airfields and military bases there. It is also imperative that
we preserve the flow of oil from the Middle East. We get about
55, 56 percent of our oil from that area. Our economy depends
on that stable supply of oil and that can't be ignored. Our
commitment to Israel's security is another important strategic
interest. It's a commitment that we must keep. Managing our
relationships in the Middle East is one of the most difficult
challenges faced by every administration. It has been a problem
for every President and every Secretary of State since World
War II.
With all of these massive strategic interests hanging in
the balance, it is no wonder that sometimes the problems of
average everyday people get swept aside. Humphrey Bogart once
said, and I usually don't quote movies in this hearing, but
this is one of my favorite movies, Casa Blanca. Humphrey Bogart
once said, ``the problems of two little people don't amount to
a hill of beans in this world.'' Great statement.
Sometimes that is just the way it is, and there is nothing
you can do about it, but there are also times when we have to
set aside all of those big global issues and do the right thing
by the people we're elected to serve. There are times when
someone has to say, time out. Let us stop and take a good hard
look at what we're doing. And that is the purpose of this
hearing. We need to take a time-out and take a hard look, a
good hard look at our relationship with Saudi Arabia. The
specific problem that I'm talking about is that Saudi men who
kidnap their American children and take them away to Saudi
Arabia must be taken to task.
We've seen cases where three men have violated court
orders, taken their children away against their will and kept
them away from their mothers for years, if not decades. Despite
the fact that arrest warrants have been issued for some
kidnaps, the Saudi Government has refused to lift a finger to
help us solve these cases. In fact, the Saudi Government has
created a safe haven for these child abductors in a country
where women and children are treated like property. Maybe the
saddest thing of all is that our government, our State
Department, has done very little to help bring these children
home. And one of the cases we're going to talk about today, a
mother went to the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh.
After her two children, she was trying to rescue them from
their abusive father. And the Embassy kicked them out and after
she was kicked out, she was arrested and put into prison in
Saudi Arabia. I don't understand that.
One of the reasons I decided to hold this hearing is that I
was so appalled at the lack of effort we've made to take the
Saudis to task for letting these things happen. We have a lot
at stake with Saudi Arabia. We need their cooperation. But at
what price? If we're not willing to stand up and fight for
American citizens whose children have been kidnapped, then what
kind of priorities do we have?
Today we're going to hear the stories of three mothers who
had their children snatched away from them. Three things stand
out in each of these stories: One, the brutal treatment of
women in Saudi Arabia; two, the incredible courage of these
women who did everything they could to rescue their children;
and three, the total lack of effort by our State Department to
challenge the Saudi Government.
These stories are also powerful, that I'd like to talk
about each one of them in detail. But I'm not going to do that,
because I can't tell their stories nearly as well as they can.
But I do want to mention a few key facts. Pat Roush has been
living this nightmare for 16 years. In those 16 years, she has
seen her two daughters one time for 2 hours. Her ex-husband
came to the United States in 1986, kidnapped their two young
daughters in violation of a court custody order and took them
to Saudi Arabia. An arrest warrant was issued here in the
United States, but the Saudi Government did absolutely nothing.
The year before that when Pat went to Saudi Arabia to try
to salvage their marriage, her husband beat her so badly that
two of her ribs were broken, and the Saudi police didn't do
anything then either.
Over the last 16 years, U.S. Ambassadors have come and gone
in Riyadh. Some have tried to help and some have not, but it is
clear that the Saudis were never told by senior officials that
this was a problem that was going to affect the relationship
between our two countries. In 1986, the U.S. Ambassador was
told by his boss that he had to maintain impartiality in the
Roush case. Why? Pat Roush's husband broke the law. An arrest
warrant was issued. Why should we maintain impartiality? To me
that attitude goes right to the heart of this problem.
Ambassador Mabus deserves special credit in this case. In
1996 he started a new policy. No one from this man's family was
allowed to get a visa to come to the United States. This was a
big influential family. When they couldn't get visas to come to
the United States, it caused a big problem for them.
Unfortunately, after a year, Ambassador Mabus returned to
the United States and his policy was discontinued. If this
policy had been kept in place, it might very well have put the
pressure on them to return these children to their mother. I'm
very disappointed that didn't happen. We were told just this
week that Pat's youngest daughter, Aisha, who is now 19, was
recently forced into a marriage with a Saudi man. Pat's older
daughter, Alia, was forced to marry one of her cousins a year
ago.
Now, let me say a few words about Monica Stowers. In 1985
she went to Saudi Arabia with her husband and two young
children. When she arrived, she realized for the first time
that her husband had a second wife and another child. She
didn't know about that. Their marriage fell apart after 6
months. Her husband divorced her and had her deported without
her children.
In 1990, Monica heard that her ex-husband was abusing her
children. She went back to Saudi Arabia. She took her children
and went to the U.S. Embassy to ask for help. Did they put her
on the next plane to America? No. At the end of the day, they
told Monica that she had to leave the Embassy. She pleaded with
them not to kick her out. She told them that she would be
arrested for overstaying her visa, but the consul general had
the marine guards carry them out. Sure enough, she was arrested
and put in jail and her children were taken from her once
again.
Can you imagine that, an American citizen is in a crisis, a
mother and her young children, and the Embassy staff tell their
Marines to drag them out of the Embassy so they can be
arrested? That actually happened. Monica is not here today. For
most of the last 12 years, she has stayed in Saudi Arabia to
protect her children. She can leave any time she wants, but her
husband refuses to allow their daughter to go. Her ex-husband
tried to force her daughter into a marriage when she was only
12 years old, and Monica will not abandon her. While Monica
can't be here to testify, her mother Ethel Stowers is here to
speak on her behalf and we're very glad to have her here.
The third story we're going to hear about today is about
Miriam Hernandez-Davis and her daughter, Dria. They're both
here to testify today. The reason they can both be here today
is not because anybody in the U.S. Government came to their
rescue. The reason that Miriam's daughter is here today is that
Miriam was able to scrape together $180,000 to pay two men to
smuggle Dria out of Saudi Arabia.
Even though Miriam's husband kidnapped her daughter in 1997
and even though the FBI issued an international warrant for his
arrest, she got almost no help from the State Department or our
Embassy.
The courage of these women, Pat Roush, Monica Stowers and
Miriam Hernandez, and their kids, is just incredible to me.
You've all endured terrible pain as a result of what has
happened, and it is a real honor to have all of you here today.
These are not isolated incidents. These are three examples
of a much bigger problem. The State Department has a list of 46
recent cases involving as many as 92 U.S. citizens who have
been held against their will in Saudi Arabia. The route cause
of this problem is the Saudi Government. They have refused to
respect U.S. law and U.S. arrest warrants. The law in Saudi
Arabia lets Saudi men keep American women and children in Saudi
Arabia even when they are in violation of court orders, even
when arrest warrants have been issued and even when they have
abused their wives and their children, and that is just wrong.
We can't let this go on. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia
is important, but this just can't be allowed to continue. The
only way we're going to resolve this problem and get these kids
home again is by elevating this issue, letting the American
people and people throughout the world know about it. This has
to be raised with the Saudis at the highest levels. The Saudis
have to be made to understand that if they let this go on,
their relationship with us is going to suffer, and I don't
think that has happened yet.
I am preparing a letter to the President, and I'm going to
ask all of my colleagues on the committee to sign it. We're
going to ask the President to raise this issue with Crown
Prince Abdullah to try to get it resolved.
Just a couple months ago, President Bush raised the case of
Lori Berenson with the President of Peru. Lori Berenson was
twice convicted of terrorist activities in that country. Surely
the Roush family and the Stowers family deserve at least as
much. We in Congress have to do our part as well. We've got to
continue to hold hearings like this and write letters and do
whatever we can to keep the pressure on.
My colleague, Mr. Lantos, who I'm sure will be here in a
few moments, held hearings and had Pat Roush testify way back
in 1987, 15 years ago. He deserves a lot of credit for
constantly pushing human rights issues, and we all need to keep
doing it. I want to thank Pat Roush and Ethel Stowers and
Miriam and Dria Hernandez for being here today, and I want to
tell you how much I really admire you and your tenacity.
I also want to thank our witnesses on the second panel,
Diane Andruch and Ryan Crocker from the State Department;
former U.S. Ambassador Hume Horan; Daniel Pipes from the Middle
East Form; and Doug Bandow from the Cato Institute. We look
forward to hearing from all of you as well.
One final issue. More than 2 months ago, I wrote the State
Department and requested documents on these three cases.
Getting those documents has been very difficult and painfully
slow. There is a stack of documents several feet high that are
still in the Embassy in Riyadh. They haven't even been sent to
Washington yet. We received some documents from the State
Department here in Washington, but they still have documents
here that haven't been provided to us. And these documents that
we have received have redactions. They crossed things out that
simply aren't acceptable. We need that information. I think the
legislative affairs office at the State Department has been
trying hard to get these documents, and I appreciate that, but
the bureaucracy at the State Department is so bad that 2 months
have gone by and we only have a small fraction of the documents
in these cases.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. I'm going to issue a subpoena today to make
sure all of these documents are produced to us, and without
redactions. And with that, Mr. Waxman, thanks for being patient
and I yield to you.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing. I think it is an important one, and I want to commend
you for bringing the witnesses before us today. The United
States and Saudi Arabia have sharply different values. We are a
pluralistic democracy. They are a monarchy without elected
representative, institutions or political parties. We embrace
religious freedom. They rule through religious police.
Economically, diplomatically and socially, the Saudi Arabian
Government has long promoted policies that challenge American
beliefs and undermine the basic human rights of their own
people. And as this hearing will show, even some of our people.
In no area are these distinctions more important than in
the treatment of women. Although women in Saudi Arabia make up
half the population, they can't vote. They can't even drive
cars. They are entirely excluded from certain professions and
they are required to be shrouded in a black abaya when they
appear in public. Saudi women cannot apply for identity cards,
receive medical treatment or leave the country without
permission from their nearest male relative.
In many areas of the country, women cannot even leave their
homes without being escorted by a male relative. The injustice
of such discrimination is only exacerbated by the serious cases
of abuse that it facilitates.
Today, the committee will learn the devastating impact
these misguided policies have had on American women who have
been trapped in Saudi Arabia by fathers and husbands, who have
used these laws to refuse their release.
We will hear today from Alexandria Davis, who was kidnapped
by her father when she was 11 years old and forced to live in
Saudi Arabia for 2 years. We will hear from Pat Roush, who has
been fighting for 16 years to get her daughters back after they
were kidnapped by their father and taken to Saudi Arabia. We
will also hear from Ethel Stowers, who will tell us about her
daughter, Monica's efforts, to get her children Rasheed and
Amjad out of Saudi Arabia. Their stories are chilling, and
their tragedy is compounded by the fact that there are dozens
of other American families facing a similar situation. The U.S.
Government must do more to intervene on behalf of its citizens.
We must hold the Saudi Government accountable for these
irresponsible policies that are shielding kidnappers, abusive
fathers and husbands from prosecution.
Mr. Chairman, I know we're going to hear from people who
will say there are marital problems whenever you have marriages
from parties from different nationalities. Well, most countries
abide by international agreements that don't let one parent or
the other just simply kidnap the children. Saudi Arabia is not
willing to abide by these international agreements and to enter
into the treaties with us and other countries. We will hear
that this is their own internal decisionmaking in Saudi Arabia,
and it is not our business to tell them how to run their
affairs.
Perhaps that is true, but the United States is fighting in
Afghanistan at the present time to--and we fought in part to
bring down a regime that discriminated against women. In fact,
First Lady Laura Bush commended the fact that in Afghanistan,
women were not going to be oppressed any longer. Well, we need
the First Lady and the American Government to stand up for the
human right of women all over the world, and in Saudi Arabia,
the problems we're seeing with American citizens are compounded
by the Saudi treatment of women as chattel, as property and not
as human beings.
I think we have to speak out for human rights for all
people wherever they may be, but we certainly have to go to bat
for our American citizens who are being treated in the most
inhumane way when it comes to holding their families together.
If we are pro-human rights, if we are profamily, the U.S.
Government needs to do more and I thank you very much for
holding this hearing.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Mr. Gilman.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for conducting this important hearing. In the aftermath of
September 11th, President Bush offered a potent challenge to
world leaders that exhibited a dose of moral clarity that is
too often absent from diplomatic discourse between our Nation
and its foes and allies alike. And the President said, ``you
are either with us or against us.''
The President's statement represented a moment of truth not
only for the leaders of the world, but for the future course of
our foreign policy. While continuing to pursue our national
interest in conjunction with our close allies, our Nation can
no longer afford to ignore the often tremendous gulf between
our values and those of our allies in the war on terrorism. It
was also vividly illustrated in the hearing that I presided
over in the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia and
our International Relations Committee on June 22, entitled,
``the Future of U.S.-Saudi Relations.'' The U.S.-Saudi
relationship has always been a complex one, grounded in common
interests stemming from the geopolitical realities of the
Persian Gulf region. However, if we're to remain true to the
words of our President, we must no longer avoid the conclusion
that American and Saudi values are often at odds. It may be
prudent to ask what it is about the values of the Saudi
Government has imparted to their citizens that gives rise to
support for the ideologies undergirding terrorism. To
understand this phenomenon most accurately, it is essential to
consider Saudi's denial of political, of civil and religious
rights to its own population. The lack of transparency in its
justice system, and its poor human rights record. Not only do
Saudis suffer at the hands of their own government, but so do
American citizens in Saudi Arabia as well, and our government
has done much too little to address this problem until now.
We're here today to examine whether our Nation should do
more to help our citizens who have been held against their will
in Saudi Arabia. This hearing is particularly relevant to us
today. If we shy away from addressing this issue directly with
the Saudi authorities, as issue that centers around something
as fundamental as the rights of American citizens, we'll not be
able to handle the even more difficult issues at the core of
our war against terrorism, when American and Saudi interests
come into conflict--as they undoubtedly will.
Our government must do much more to ensure the rights of
our American citizens who happen to be in Saudi Arabia. We've
consistently failed to hold these Saudi authorities accountable
for their own laws which result in blatant infringements upon
the rights of American nationals. As the testimony today will
illustrate, American citizens are being held against their will
in Saudi Arabia, and often in violation of our laws against
child abductions. Even if our legal standards are not
recognized by the Saudi authorities, it is essential that our
diplomatic engagement with Saudi Arabia reflect a genuine
concern for the welfare of our citizens who happen to be held
in Saudi Arabia.
Why is it that until now our government has failed to apply
sufficient diplomatic pressure on their Saudi counterparts to
ensure the release of our Americans? As Members of Congress, it
should be our primary goal to defend the rights of American
citizens whether they be in the United States or abroad,
demanding an effective and unapologetic response to those
Nations that seek to deny these rights.
Mr. Chairman, may this hearing serve as a wakeup call to
those who seek to downplay the harm to our citizens. May it
highlight the results of our Nation's failure, our
unwillingness to address difficulties in our U.S.-Saudi
relationship. If, as the President said, states are either with
us or against us in our war on terrorism, it is essential, too,
that we hold to account even our allies for their divergence
from the clear moral path that has been so clearly laid before
us. Terrorism and the propagation of hatred must be condemned
at all levels, and basic human rights must be observed if our
mission to rid the world of evil terrorist ideologies is to be
true to its goals. Most importantly, we must be prepared to
address all of the difficult issues in our relationships with
the Saudis if we're truly able to count Saudi Arabia as an ally
in our war against terrorism, and to this end, our Nation must
ensure that the rights of our citizens in Saudi are guaranteed.
I look forward to hearing from the parents who are willing
to come before our committee today and to examine their
testimony, and then we look forward to hearing from the
administration officials with regard to their response. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Gilman.
Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much for
convening this hearing, and I thank these witnesses so much for
their courage and their persistence in coming forward today. I
want to say to you, I know this hearing is about you. We do
want to hear from you, but it is important that all of us who
are speaking now are supporting you and saying very publicly
that we support your efforts and that we cried when this
happened to you. So I also thank you for your patience in
listening to our statements.
Year after year, the U.S. Government has reported severe
human rights abuse against women in Saudi Arabia, and some of
these abuses have even been experienced by the U.S. citizens.
The State Department's country reports on human rights
practices stated that in Saudi Arabia, ``women of many
nationalities were detained for actions such as riding in a
taxi with a man who was not their relative, appearing with
their heads uncovered in shopping malls and eating in
restaurants with males who were not their relatives. Many such
prisoners were held for days, sometimes weeks, without
officials notifying their families or in case of foreigners,
their Embassies.'' I am a strong supporter of defending women's
rights in Afghanistan, and I'm proud to say that these rights
are finally being recognized. The women there are currently
involved in the decisionmaking process to help shape the new
Government of Afghanistan, to make sure that women of
Afghanistan will never again be treated like second-class
citizens. If such change can happen in a war-torn country like
Afghanistan, it baffles me that Saudi Arabia refuses to reform
its laws on women's rights and join the rest of the world in
the 21st century.
What has happened to Ms. Roush, Ms. Stowers, Ms. Davis and
her mother is a tragedy. These women have been physically and
emotionally battered and have had their children stolen by
their husbands. I'm aware that under Saudi law, the husband has
complete control over his wife and children, deciding on how
they live, whom they see and even when they are allowed to
leave the country. We simply cannot ignore these violations
against the basic rights of both Saudi and American women.
The Saudi Government has been an ally of the United States
for a number of years, but we must give the cases of these
women and others the attention they deserve. I understand that
according to the Department of State, we are very limited in
what we can do to force the Saudi Government to allow these
women to leave with their children. However, this is not an
excuse to ignore the situation and do everything we can. I'm
eager to hear from the witnesses that are with us today, and I
look forward to working toward a solution that will be in the
best interest of the children and families involved in these
and all similar cases. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Schakowsky.
Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a long
statement. I want to welcome Ms. Roush to the witness table
today. I came to this hearing today having read the testimony--
I would like to find in the course of our hearing today the
name, the person who told the Marines to take American citizens
out of the American Embassy and place them outside of where
they could be arrested. I want the name of that person. Mr.
Chairman, I will be back to you with requests for subpoenas to
have these people come to our committee and explain their
actions in light of the consequences that they knew would occur
when these people were removed from the Embassy, having shown
valid American passports to have the American authorities
forcibly remove American citizens from American soil in this
manner.
I have to tell you, I stayed up late last night wondering
why in blazes did I come to Congress? Why did I come to
Congress? Did I come to Congress so some bureaucrat could take
American citizens, refuse to help them, evict them from an
American Embassy, from American soil, knowing that the
consequence of doing that would be their arrest and the loss of
their children?
I have to tell you, Ms. Roush and I have spoken before. I
have communicated with the State Department for the past few
years about her case in particular. A woman named Mary Ryan,
who is the Assistant Secretary of something or another having
to do with the Near East. These are American citizens. Now, if
we can send our young people over to the Middle East to protect
them from Saddam Hussein or whatever, or if we can send them to
Afghanistan to establish the rights of the people of
Afghanistan, then we can darn well take the time to bring in
front of this body and in front of this committee the people
who are making the decisions that say, well, no, you're less--
you don't even have the rights of an American convicted of a
crime in these countries. So at the risk of belaboring the
subject, I'm going to stop, Mr. Chairman, but I'm
coming back, and we're going to find these names and I'm going
to ask you to bring those people in front of this committee.
Because they need to tell the American people what happened,
why they did this. This is unbelievable. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Doug Ose follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. I can assure you that the subpoena that we're
going to be issuing right after this hearing will cover all of
these documents, and we will get the names of those people, and
I'll certainly let you know as soon as I get all that
information.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, today we
meet to bring attention and focus on the problem of American
children who live with their Saudi fathers and who, because of
Saudi law, are not free to leave Saudi Arabia. These cases
predominantly involve fathers who abduct children and take them
into Saudi Arabia in order to take advantage of a legal system
that gives mothers, especially nonMuslim mothers, few rights.
Specifically, we need to determine if the U.S. Government
has done enough to aid U.S. citizens who have been held against
their will in Saudi Arabia. Many of our U.S. citizens like the
witnesses before our committee today, have tried unsuccessfully
to get their children back from Saudi Arabia by going through
the State Department, by employing Saudi lawyers and by working
with the U.S. Congress. My heart goes out to them. The State
Department has treated these cases as custody dispute issues.
However, the real question becomes which country's law has
the domain over such custody disputes? Will it be American laws
or Saudi law in customs? I agree with former Ambassador Raymond
Mabus, when he stated in a letter to this committee that the
Roush case and the similar cases should be about protecting
American citizens and the court orders of American courts. Many
have said the United States has failed to uphold the American
and international abduction or kidnapping laws. It has been
argued that cases such as the ones before us are merely child
custody issues. While that is true, these cases should also be
considered as parental kidnapping or child abduction cases.
This morning I saw a report about the subject of today's
hearing on one of the morning talk programs. I believe that
shining the spotlight on parental abductions of American
children to Saudi Arabia by this committee and the media will
bring this issue to the forefront and persuade the State
Department to reevaluate its policies. I look forward to
hearing from today's witnesses who will present their stories
about trying to get their children out of Saudi Arabia. Thank
you again, Mr. Chairman, for shining the spotlight on this
issue and I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Mr. Schrock.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with
everything everybody said here, especially Mr. Ose. I couldn't
have said it better. I'd probably have made a fool of myself if
I'd said it, because this sort of thing really angers me. I am
here mainly because of the article the chairman sent us
yesterday that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on December
21st about Ms. Roush and her two daughters, and I was
absolutely outraged that this is allowed to happen and
continues to be allowed to happen.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Schrock. I'm anxious to hear what these four ladies
have to say, but I'm particularly interested in hearing the
next panel. They are the ones whose feet need to be put in the
fire and held in the fire until they do something about it. You
know, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia doesn't mind coming sit
in the Oval Office telling our President what he wants him to
do. I think it's maybe time for the man in the Oval Office to
call him and say we want our kids back and we want them back
right now. And I think the sooner we do that, the sooner these
subpoenas are done--I just hope this committee doesn't adjourn
today and just ignore this, because although I've only been
here 17 months, I don't want to come back in 4 or 5 years and
have these same witnesses appearing before us.
We need to get something done and get it done right now.
This is unacceptable and our State Department better get off
the dime and get something done before this gets even worse, or
somebody is going to have to be held accountable, and it is us
here who have to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Schrock.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. May I begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for
wonderful leadership and making the American people and the
Congress understand that this is a problem and that this is a
problem that we can do something about. It is a problem that
occasionally one hears some interested journalist get ahold of
and gives us snippets and bits of, but a problem upon which
there has been no concerted attention, and I thank you for your
work in bringing this kind of attention to this problem.
The fact that we have a close relationship with a country
should not mean that country is free from just and justifiable
criticism, and Saudi Arabia has been an ally in many respects,
but in many respects and increasingly, Saudi Arabia doesn't act
like an ally. To be an ally, it seems to me, you have to walk
like an ally, talk like an ally and act like an ally, and when
it comes to the heartache that Saudi Arabia has brought to
these mothers and their children not only is Saudi Arabia not
an ally, it is not a friend.
Certainly the country should not be immune to criticism,
and we ought to call this issue what it is. This is a human
rights issue, and this is a horrible violation of human rights.
If it were done by a country that we did not have friendly
relationships with, we'd be up and down screaming about
kidnapping and outrageous behavior toward mothers and their
children. We cannot allow a double standard to develop just
because we're dealing with Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is very adamant in sticking to its own
standards, and it seems to me we are in violation of our
standards and of our laws when we allow this to go on. And, Mr.
Chairman, by bringing this to public attention, I think you are
doing something for the first time that may in fact change this
horrific condition, and once again, I thank you, sir.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for
holding this hearing and shining some light on a very serious
situation. You know, one of the main jobs of our Embassies, of
our personnel at the State Department is to protect our
citizens and to uphold American law, and I think we've fallen
short of this. I hope this hearing will give us a path where we
can correct some of these egregious issues that have been
raised over the years, and I applaud you for holding the
hearings.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to thank you
also for conducting this hearing, and perhaps we can get to the
bottom of some of these issues that we're going to hear more
about today.
I would like to submit an opening statement to you. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I'm not
going to make a full statement. I'll simply say as Mr. Schrock
did that I agree with everything that you said and that others
have said thus far, and I thank you for calling this hearing. I
would like to read something that was in last week's U.S. News
and World Report, a column written by Michael Barone entitled,
``Our Enemies, The Saudis.'' He said ``15 of the 19 September
11th hijackers were Saudis. Perhaps as many as 80 percent of
the prisoners held at Guantanamo are Saudis. Osama bin Laden is
a Saudi and Al Qaeda was supported by large contributions from
Saudis including members from the Saudi royal family. The
Saudi's cooperation with our efforts to track down the
financing of Al Qaeda appears to be somewhere between minimal
and zero . . . .'' And it goes on with many, many examples of
things that the Saudis have done or not done that they should
have done, and he ends up by saying they are effectively waging
war against us.
Now, that is a very strong column by Michael Barone in last
week's U.S. News and World Report, but there is this clamor in
some corridors here to go to war against Iraq, with which I
disagree, and I'm not saying we should go to war against Saudi
Arabia. In fact, I wouldn't have written a column as strong as
Michael Barone did, but I think it points out what many people
have already mentioned, that this relationship with the Saudis
is becoming very, very troublesome to this country, and the
witnesses that are here today are the prime examples of these
problems that have developed and are continuing. And so I think
this is a very important hearing, and I thank you for calling
the hearing.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Judge Duncan.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Chairman Burton, for calling what
is a critically important hearing on an issue that is truly
gender apartheid. And as we listen to the testimony of our
distinguished guests here, we cannot really divorce the
policies of Saudi Arabia from the policies that are in front of
us. What they are going to be talking about are family
disputes, but the values in Saudi Arabia are really very
different from any other western country. The government
restricts freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association,
religion and movement.
And just to give an example, a few months ago there was a
fire in a girl's religious school in Saudi Arabia, and the
girls fled. Many of them did not have the abaya or the head
dress to cover themselves. The religious police forced them
back into the burning building to get the proper head dress,
and some of them died. I believe this demonstrates the state of
human rights that is really despicable in Saudi Arabia, and
they practice gender apartheid.
There are many places where women cannot go to eat. They
can't go to lunch counters. They can't have identity cards.
They can't vote and they can't drive. They are excluded from
professions, and they are required to cover themselves, be
shrouded with the abaya when they appear in public.
And so when you talk about custody cases, which I'm sure
we'll hear from our panel today, you can't divorce--these are
not simply custody cases. This is a human rights violation.
They don't follow the laws and human rights of other countries,
and in many ways, practice violence against women.
Recently along with Congressman Fossella, we did a letter
to Secretary O'Neill, really calling on them to freeze the
Saudi Arabian money here in the United States as we did with
Iraqi money during the war, and this was based on their
television broadcasts where they were literally appealing to
their population to raise money for terrorist families, those
who were giving their lives to murder innocent people in
Israel. And I feel that you have to hold the country
accountable to their actions, and I feel that--I hope that not
only that most Members of Congress will join us in this
important letter, that we take steps to hold them responsible
for really collecting blood money to give to terrorist
families.
But I appreciate the efforts of our country to be helpful
to American citizens who have suffered under this same type of
gender apartheid that women suffer under every day in Saudi
Arabia, and I look forward to the testimony.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For
the sake of time, I don't have a formal statement, but I will
say that as a woman and as a mother, I'm outraged to hear what
happened in our own Embassy, having a Marine escort their women
and children out knowing they would be arrested, and I just
certainly hope we on this committee do everything we can to
correct the errors--potential errors that were made by our U.S.
Embassy and that this does not happen to American citizens, and
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.
We now have a new member of the committee, and I want to
welcome him to the committee, Congressman John Sullivan of
Oklahoma. He was elected in a special election in January to
replace our old buddy, Steve Largent, I think who is running
for Governor out there. So we want to welcome you and we're
looking forward to working with you and I ask unanimous consent
that Mr. Sullivan be appointed to the Subcommittee on
Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations, and the Subcommittee on Energy
Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, and I also
ask unanimous consent that Congressman Dan Miller be removed
from the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management and Intergovernmental Affairs, and with that,
welcome to the committee and you're recognized.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that,
and I'm eager to hear your testimony, and I admire your courage
for being here today. I have three kids, and I can just--I
think it would be very difficult to be separated from them. As
a new member of this committee and in the process of learning
about these issues, I must say I was shocked to learn of not
only the number of U.S. citizens detained against their will in
Saudi Arabia, but the freedoms and liberties that are not
allowed even though they are U.S. citizens.
Not only do we have children being detained who are
American citizens with no intervention from the U.S. Government
on their behalf, we also have a complacent Federal Government
allowing them to languish in these situations with years with
no help. These children may be abused or subjected to
restrictive religious practices or to a religion they do not
claim. Their rights are null and void, especially for women and
children.
This is unconscionable that our government is not doing
more to protect them. As a representative of the First District
of Oklahoma, I speak for my constituents. Any of my
constituents who would learn of such inaction by their own
government for their safety would be appalled. My questions are
their questions, such as why are there up to 92 U.S. citizens
being held against their will in Saudi Arabia, and why is our
government doing nothing? Why are we not doing a better job, at
least checking to see that these children are being abused?
Children cannot seek refuge in the U.S. Embassy without being
returned to their Saudi parents.
It is estimated that as many as half of the Al Qaeda and
Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay are Saudi. A poll conducted
by the Saudi Government estimated that 95 percent of Saudi men
between the ages of 25 and 41 sympathize with Osama bin Laden.
The Saudi Government refuses to fully cooperate in the
investigation of many bombings. Religious freedom is forbidden
by law, and women have few rights in Saudi Arabia. The U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom has recommended
that Saudi Arabia be named a country of particular concern,
placing it in a category with North Korea, Iran, Iraq and
Sudan. State-owned media outlets are often full of anti-
American and anti-Semitic propaganda. Calling the Saudi
Government an ally is close to the old cliche, ``with friends
like this, who needs enemies?''
We have sold out rights of a few for the safety of many,
bartering away their rights in order to placate this government
under the guise of making allies in the war against terrorism.
If that is the case, we have started down the very slippery
slope that allows anybody's rights to be rescinded for the good
of the many, and our basis of freedom is and will be dually
eroded. Certainly we must have allies, all of which we may not
like, but we must decide where the line begins and ends in this
regard, and does that line include advocating for each and
every American citizen or not? And if not, why?
Although the State Department conveniently defines these
situations as private custody disputes, any time the rights of
U.S. citizens are abridged, we must act. This level of
complacency is not acceptable. I look forward to hearing the
testimony and finding out what both the executive and
collective branches can do to ensure the safe return of all
U.S. citizens from any and all countries from which they desire
to leave in order to return home to the United States. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
Mrs. Maloney has something she'd like to put in the record.
Mrs. Maloney. I request unanimous consent to put in the
record an article about the 15 girls who died in a school when
the religious police would not permit them to leave, one of the
police said, ``it is sinful to approach them.'' And I would
like to put this in the record and just briefly add that we
will hear from our witnesses today about terrible
discrimination and their custody suits, and we as a government
must hold the Saudi Government accountable for these
irresponsible acts of shielding kidnappers and abusive fathers
and husbands from prosecution.
And I, again, thank the chairman for having this meeting.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney. We will without
objection put this in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy of
allowing me to make a very brief opening statement. Thank you
for having this very important hearing. In 1991, a powerful
movie entitled, ``Not Without My Daughter'' awakened many
American's eyes to the harsh realities and inequities of life
in Iran, especially for women. This film was based on a book by
Betty Mahmoody, an American housewife who risked torture and
death to escape from Iran with her young daughter, Mahtob in
1986.
Sadly, there are three individuals gathered here today who
could tell harrowing tales of their experience with Saudi
Arabian inequity and whose stories would be equally powerful if
made into movies, rather unbelievable. The events of September
11 and the discovery that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from
Saudi Arabia and that many Al Qaeda operatives are Saudi-born
have led much of the American public and many U.S. officials to
probe deeper into our relationship with Saudi Arabia. And not
only are many U.S. officials looking more closely at the U.S.-
Saudi relationship, but many are also looking closely at the
conditions inside Saudi Arabia.
Just the other day I chaired a congressional human rights
caucus hearing on the role of women in Saudi Arabia and mention
was certainly made of the young women who were burned to death.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has
recommended that Saudi Arabia be named a country of particular
concern, placing it in a category with North Korea, Iran, Iraq
and Sudan. And as Chairman Burton pointed out in his testimony,
one particularly unjust aspect of our relationship with Saudi
Arabia is that U.S. citizens can be held against their will
with the full blessing of the Saudi Government, and often in
violation of U.S. law.
And while some noble individuals within the State
Department have tried to remedy the problem, the United States
has, in many cases, subverted attempts to reunite families. In
addition, the Saudi Arabian Government has done little to
rectify any disputes between families.
The three witnesses on the first panel that you've
assembled, Mr. Chairman, will give more details about their
tragic plights in trying to reunite with family members. I only
hope that their words which have, for many years fallen on deaf
ears, will finally be heard by the United States and Saudi
Governments. I yield back the balance of my time, and again,
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mrs. Morella.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Constance A. Morella
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. No statement, Mr. Chairman.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for
having this hearing, but I don't have a statement.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Shays. I'd just like to say to
the witnesses, one of the reasons that we have everyone make
opening statements is it sends a very clear message to the
Saudi Government that this is not just the chairman's position
or the ranking member's position, but the entire membership of
the committee, and I believe the entire membership of the
Congress.
So if the Saudi Government is paying any attention to what
is going on today, this isn't just me or Mr. Waxman; this is
the attitude of the U.S. Congress, in my opinion, and I think
if you talk to all 435 Members, you'd get the same answer, that
we want American laws recognized, and we want the Saudi
Government to work with us and comply and not to allow
kidnappers to take these kids out of the country and never
return them and to treat the mothers like dirt. And if they
don't get that message today, I presume they never will, but we
are looking forward to hearing your testimony.
With that, we swear in our witnesses so that we have
everything on the record and under oath. So would you please
rise and raise your hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Burton. Our first panel is Pat Roush, Ethel Stowers,
Miriam Hernandez-Davis and Dria Davis. We welcome you here.
We'll start off now with Ms. Roush first. Ms. Roush, you're
welcome to make an opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF PATRICIA ROUSH, MOTHER OF ALIA AND AISHA
GHESHAYAN; DRIA DAVIS, ACCOMPANIED BY HER MOTHER, MIRIAM
HERNANDEZ-DAVIS; AND ETHEL STOWERS, MOTHER OF MONICA STOWERS,
AND GRANDMOTHER OF RASHEED AND AMJAD RADWAN
Ms. Roush. Good morning, Chairman Burton, and members of
the committee. I'm pleased to participate in this panel and
present you with my testimony. Terrorism takes on many forms,
and for 16\1/2\ years, my two American daughters, Alia and
Aisha Gheshayan and I, have been victims of the worst
emotional, psychological and spiritual terrorism possible. We
have been separated from each other by two systems of evil that
have broken the moral law that governs all human beings.
My daughters have been taken hostage by a medieval
totalitarian system, and the central authority of our
government, the U.S. Department of State, has done everything
to enable that system to destroy the lives of my beloved
daughters and shatter my family.
I have previously testified before the House International
Relations Committee in 1987, Subcommittee for the Near East,
concerning violations of human rights of American citizens by
the Saudi Arabian Government. The honorable Tom Lantos was
Chair, and his very powerful words addressing Assistant
Secretary of State Marion Creekmore continue to remain with me.
``Is this the image that you want to portray of the United
States, that of the impotent giant that cannot get back two
little innocent children from Saudi Arabia?''
Secretary Creekmore's response was, I don't think the
withholding of visas to the United States for Saudis is the
proper way to resolve this.
By way of background, for the last 16 years, I have
tirelessly pioneered the issue of American children kidnapped
and taken abroad. My relentless efforts over the years led to
the creation of the Office of Children's Issues at the State
Department in 1987, and to the enactment of the International
Parental Kidnapping Act in 1993. The Hague Treaty on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction was signed in 1987 by
the United States because of the high profile of my case in the
Congress and the press.
The Office of Children's Issues unfortunately has never
been what it was intended to be, which is a place of authority
that U.S. citizens can turn to for assistance when their
children are abducted to a foreign country. Instead, it is
merely another file and data collecting agency of the Federal
Government.
Working to free my daughters has become a mission-
impossible assignment that I have accepted as part of my daily
life. Before my two daughters were kidnapped, my 7-year-old
would sing with such delight, ``Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love you
tomorrow. It is only a day away.'' This was her favorite song
from the movie Annie about a little girl who was lost and
found. But the happy ending from the Hollywood movie never
materialized for my little girls, and as the Arabic folk
expression states, 20 years will soon be tomorrow, became their
reality.
The girls are now women, ages 23 and 19. They were
kidnapped and taken to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia by their
Saudi national father in 1986. They were 3 and 7 at the time.
This is a father they hardly knew and feared, who had a
documented history of a severe mental illness with a paranoid
and violent ideation. He has been their master for almost 17
years. They fear him and have learned to submit and suffocate
themselves to his demands.
Saudi Arabia has violated my human rights and the human
rights and Constitutional rights afforded to my daughters as
American citizens. The U.S. State Department is an accessory
and active conspirator in the denial of these rights. The U.S.
Government receives benefits from the Saudi Arabian Government
in various forms, which induces to violate these rights.
Everyone is entitled to freedom from fear. The U.S. State
Department and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have both
intentionally used their great power to create fear to
intimidate and threaten my daughters and me. My daughters are
victims of forced religious conversion as outlined in the
International Religious Freedom Act.
My Christian daughters were forced to convert to Islam, and
as you know, religious choice is not an option in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia. They could be put to death if they even spoke
the name of Jesus. This is also an act of ethnocide. My
daughters have had their culture and society taken away and
been denied their heritage. Do they know that their mother's
family has been on the U.S. soil since 1711 and fought in all
the wars to keep America free? Do they even know what freedom
is? My daughters have been stolen and kept in captivity for 16
years incommunicado with the entire western world. They have no
knowledge of the rest of the world except by way of Saudi
Arabian censored television and the males that are their
masters. They are denied the rule of law, denial of due
process. Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian state where my
daughters are locked up, wrapped up and shut up.
This is a cover picture from National Geographic magazine
showing that well-known photograph of a young green-eyed Afghan
girl on the cover 20 years ago, now wearing the dreaded burqa.
The caption says, found. And this is a picture of what my
daughters are wearing today, basic black from head to toe. They
have no choice. The Saudi Religious Police can arrest, imprison
or kill them for not wearing this garb. This little insert
picture of my little girls in the white dresses with puffed
sleeves is 17 years old. It is the last picture I have of them.
Underneath the picture it also says, ``found.'' Yes, we
found them, but they were never lost. We always knew just where
they were but couldn't save them from their destiny which is no
different from the destiny of this poor Afghan woman. They are
also condemned to a life behind a vail without any rights, the
life of silence, submission and servitude. They are treated as
Saudi women, not American women living in Saudi Arabia. The
Saudi Government doesn't even recognize their American
citizenship. They are the property of their husbands. They can
be put to death by these men if the men so choose to dispose of
them. It is called honor killing, and the price of honor in
Saudi Arabia for women is quite steep.
The State Department called me yesterday to--yesterday was
my 56th birthday. My girls were kidnapped when I was 39. The
State Department called me on my 56th birthday to tell me that
my youngest daughter Aisha was sold to a man that she hardly
knew. This selling of my youngest daughter was in retaliation
because their father and the Saudi Government knew about this
hearing.
President Bush has created a special White House liaison
for Afghan women's rights, but there is no one in the entire
U.S. Government working for my daughter's rights, an American
woman locked up in Saudi Arabia. No, I am told that there is
nothing the U.S. Government can do for them, because under
Saudi law, their father, and now their husbands, have total
power and control over them.
And even Allah, himself cannot help them. Contrary to the
statements appearing in the Saudi-owned press, Asharq Al Awsat,
listed on the official Web site of the Saudi Embassy,
SaudiEmbassy.net, which recently published a very biased,
slanderous article about me concocted by the Saudi Government
and Gheshayan. These are American women not ``Saudi
daughters.'' The Saudi Government continues infantile employs
to place this ordeal and my daughters in the middle of an
international chess match.
The playing field is far from even, and they have a great
advantage, the physical possession of my daughters and my
unborn grandchild, yes, I found out by reading this Saudi-owned
newspaper that I will be a grandmother. I have no knowledge of
the well-being or status of my daughters, none. And the little
bit of information I have gotten over the years has been
second-hand. National Review Magazine posed the question to
Prince Abdullah in April when he was in Crawford with the
President. The caption over their little pound puppy photo read
``hey Abdullah, how are the girls?' I wish I knew how they are.
The State Department claims that when these child victims
of international parental abduction become 18 years of age, the
interest of the State Department doesn't end. The concerns of
these now adult American citizens are undertaken by the Office
of American Citizens Services until the American parent no
longer requests intervention.
My daughters are 23 and 19 years of age and know one has
seen either of them since they turned 18. When they were
children, the State Department only saw them three times in 14
years. If they were prisoners in a Riyadh jail, the State
Department, the Embassy would have seen them more times then
because they were upheld by their Saudi Arabian father.
Is this how the State Department shows their concern for
American citizens? In fact, the State Department staff have
admitted--I'm sorry. In 1986, just 10 months after the girls
were kidnapped, the Riyadh Governors' office and the American
Embassy worked out a deal to have the girls released. This was
due to the tremendous pressure in the U.S. Senate organized by
former U.S. Senator, Allan Dixon of Illinois. The Governor of
Riyadh's office was going to allow the girls to leave the
kingdom and his representative Saleh Hejeilan was making all
the arrangements. He only requested the presence of the then
U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Walter Cutler at the meeting
in the Governors office.
I was in constant communication with the DCM of the
mission, Edward Walker. He told me, Pat, the Embassy telexed us
twice this week. They will not allow the Ambassador to go into
the meeting. I have telexes from the State Department to the
Embassy telling them to remain, ``impartial and neutral.''
Hejeilan then told me your government doesn't want you. Your
State Department will not help you. You will see your children
if and when we decide. He then videotaped my young daughters
like prisoners on display, all within the presence of the
American Council general, who remained silent.
He later told me that my 8-year-old daughter, Alia, was
forced to say on tape that she hated her mother and the United
States. Her eyes had a wild glazed look and she looked
terrorized. The Saudis then began to systematically put me
through a 16-year torture with one lie and broken promise after
the other. They delighted in this sadistic game and used their
control over the lives of my daughters to taunt me. Another
time Hejeilan told me you are being punished for going to the
politicians and the press.
In 1995, U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Raymond Mabus
began a campaign to help me. He is a true hero, a man of
integrity who stood up to the Saudis and got me into the
kingdom to see my girls. He went to every Saudi prince,
including Crown Prince Abdullah for the release of my
daughters. I was only able to see the girls once for 2 hours,
but they told me they loved me and asked me to take them out of
there. They were 16 and 13 at the time, terribly emotionally
abused by their father. The Saudis wouldn't allow me to see
them again, and I spent 21 days of heart wrenching pain inside
a hotel room in Riyadh. But Ray Mabus called me in the hotel
room and he said, Pat you go home and remember that there are
people in this Embassy who care about you and your girls. I
will do everything to get your daughters back to California.
He held up the visas to the United States of my ex-
husband's family, which is a very effective tool. He received a
diplomatic note from Prince Saud bin Faisal, Saudi foreign
minister allowing the girls to come home for the summer of
1996. Mabus also got a quid pro quo from Crown Prince Abdullah,
the release of the girls for the saving the life of one of his
generals, a relative of Gheshayan who needed treatment for
cancer.
It was finished, a done deal. But it wasn't finished yet.
Mabus told me he was going to resign as Ambassador for personal
reasons. I was in agony. I knew what would happen. Mabus
reassured me and said Pat, don't worry. I have made believers
out of these guys at the Embassy. I will fully brief the
incoming Ambassador, who is also a political appointee. Nothing
is going to happen, Pat. We are at the finish line. I wish I
could be here when they come home, but I have to go back to
Mississippi.
In August 1996, Wyche Fowler, Jr., the new political
appointee arrived in Riyadh as U.S. Ambassador. Ray Mabus fully
briefed him on the urgency of the situation. I sent him a long
detailed fax concerning the background of--and what Mabus had
accomplished and what we needed to do. No response. I called
Fowler and asked if he had received my faxes. He denied
receiving them. I explained that we needed his help. Ray Mabus
was on the verge of getting my girls out of Saudi Arabia and it
was up to him to just make the contact for us.
It was finished, all wrapped up. We had the promise of the
Crown Prince. My girls could come home. He said to me Ms.
Roush, I am in the middle of an Iraqi war here and I don't have
the time right now to deal with this. I am aware of your
situation and you are not doing any bit one good by cross-
examining me. He dismissed me like an impertinent school girl
who was way out of line by even speaking to him. He lifted the
visa censorship of the Gheshayan family, the only effective
tool I had to persuade the Gheshayan family to return my girls.
No, Wyche Fowler had other things to do which didn't
include the release of my girls. The Glasgow Evening Times
quoted that this 55-year-old married, newly assigned U.S.
Ambassador was having an affair with a 24-year-old Scottish
woman he had met on a plane that summer. All he had to do was
go back to the Crown Prince and finish the deal Mabus had set
up. He told my lawyer, ``the deal is dead. Pat Roush can either
come here and see her daughters another time or she can let the
chips fall where they will.''
My attorney said to Fowler that means the girls are
forgotten then. Why not do what Ray Mabus did? And Fowler
replied why not get Ray Mabus then. You seem to get my name in
the papers. The ball is in your court. The Saudis trust me.
Take it or leave it. Wyche Fowler was in Saudi Arabia for 6
years. He lobbied hard for that job and made a lot of money. He
is now the grand statesman about town, the Mideast expert and
chairman of the board of the Mideast Institute. He gives
speeches, goes to dinner parties and I am sure has many Saudi
friends. He appears on television as an expert on Saudi Arabia.
His wife divorced him after that Scottish-girl incident. He
should be held responsible for what he did to my family. He is
a criminal and condemned my daughters. He is responsible for
the marriages of both of my daughters. If he had done the right
thing in 1996, they would have never been married. He has cost
us 7 more years of hell. It would have been so easy for him to
finish the job Mabus started. What was the downside for him?
The Bible states that the measure you give is the measure you
shall receive and you shall be known as you are known.
Both of Gheshayan's parents came into the United States for
medical treatment from American doctors and nurses when they
became ill. They used U.S. medical technology to try to save
their lives, and in the meantime, kept my daughters away from
me without so much as a phone call. I would call their house to
speak with my girls and they would hang up on me. They came in
with diplomatic passports, accompanied by their international
criminal son who broke U.S. law, even after there were U.S.
State and Federal warrants issued for his arrest.
He was allowed to enter the United States on a diplomatic
passport with his father. They made a mockery of U.S. law. If
Members of Congress are so concerned about the human rights and
fair treatment of Saudi al Qaeda killer prisoners held in Cuba
and even make special trips to inspect that facility at
Guantanamo, why aren't they outraged about what has happened to
my daughters? Why don't they make an exchange? My innocent
daughters for the Saudi al Qaeda killers? If President Bush can
advocate for the release of Lori Berenson, an American woman
jailed in Peru for suspected terrorism, why can't he pick up
the phone and call Crown Prince Abdullah and ask that my
innocent daughters be allowed to come home?
My daughters are forced to live in a society where 15 young
Saudi school girls were burned alive because they were wearing
the wrong clothing. The religious police forced them back into
an inferno. My daughters could have been in that fire. This is
a recent story in the Italian press about a little girl with an
Italian mother and an Algerian father who was taken to the
Italian Embassy in Algiers by her mother for asylum. The child
remained inside the Italian Embassy for 2 years while the
Italian Government negotiated for her release with the Algerian
authorities. She was just taken back to Italy on an Italian
military aircraft.
That is how much her government cared about her. I am
asking for your help and the help of the entire U.S. Congress
to free my daughter and Alia's baby. The State Department must
issue a Demarche to the Saudi Arabian authorities to have my
family returned to America immediately. This is a moral
decision of conscience.
As Moses pleaded with the obdurate heart of the Egyptian
pharaoh for the release of his people, I am beseeching you, let
my family go. Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud bin Faisal is
coming into town today or tomorrow. It would be a great
opportunity for Members to approach him, a telephone call from
him can release my daughters tonight. I am now authoring a book
entitled, ``At Any Price, How America Betrayed My Kidnapped
Daughter for Saudi Oil,'' available in February 2003. Remember
there are no hopeless situations. There are only men who have
grown hopeless about them. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Roush.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roush follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Gosh, it's hard to believe those kinds of
things happen, especially with the government we have and the
State Department people who are here will carry the message
back very loud and clear, and we will write a letter; I will
author a letter to the President asking him to impose a
limitation on passports for anybody that is involved in any
kind of a kidnapping, like the one you involved, and I want you
to draft that letter today. And we'll get as many Members to
sign it and we'll see if we can't go back to what Mr. Mabus did
and impose every kind of block that we can to keep Saudis out
of this country if they're involved in any kind of activity
like that.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Mr. Burton. OK, Mr. Ose, go ahead.
Mr. Ose. Ms. Davis has a son also in Saudi Arabia, if I
recall correctly from the testimony. There were two testimonies
that I read last night, one involving Ms. Roush's daughters and
another involving a son and a daughter of an American citizen.
I would hope that the letter we are going to draft will address
both those situations. As memory serves, both children are--in
the second case are now in the United States. But this should
be very focused on the Saudi----
Mr. Burton. We'll be very focused on these individuals. But
we want the letter to encompass others who are not here to be
able to speak for themselves who--we have something like 92
people that we know of right now. We haven't gotten all the
documents from the Saudi Embassy over there, our Embassy in
Saudi Arabia, but there are 92 people that we believe are being
held along with the ones we are talking about today.
We have a tape of Monica Stowers that was prepared at the
U.S. Embassy in Riyadh a couple of weeks ago. The tape arrived
in the United States yesterday but we received it just 25
minutes before the hearing because the State Department wanted
to watch it and copy it before they gave it to us. I don't know
why they wanted to do that. We could let them have a copy after
we saw it. But nevertheless, they wanted to see it first. I
presume they may have wanted to censor it so Congress couldn't
see everything. Nevertheless, we got it. Therefore, we haven't
had a chance to review it fully. It's 25 minutes long and all
of it is highly relevant and deeply moving. We're going to play
the first 10 minutes of it and while the hearing is going on,
we'll see if there are some other segments that are very
important that we should play. So will you play the first 10
minutes? And I want all the members of the committee and
everybody in the audience to pay particular attention to this.
I know it is a lengthy hearing. We are hearing a lot of
testimony from the witnesses, but this is a very special case
and we're going beyond our normal 5 minutes testimony because
we think it is so special. So will you roll the tape.
[Portion of videotape played.]
Mr. Burton. We're going to review the last 15 minutes of
this, but I think we all have a pretty good idea of the tragedy
that occurred. I can't believe this. I cannot believe this. I
just--who is the next witness? Mrs. Stowers, Mrs. Stowers, do
you want to make your statement now and then we'll go to
questions after we hear from Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Mrs. Stowers,
you are recognized to make a statement if you like. Do you want
to make a statement or do you think you can?
Mrs. Stowers. I came here today to plead for my daughter
and my granddaughter's life. My granddaughter's father has
threatened to destroy her as soon as he can get Monica out of
the country. He wants to have her--he wants to kill her because
she won't marry anybody that he chooses for her at age 12, he
tried to marry her. Well, he did marry her off to an older man,
a terrorist. And she ran away. But he keeps chiding with Monica
that as soon as she leaves Saudi Arabia to come to the United
States for treatment--my daughter has cancer--that he will
destroy Amjad because she disobeyed him. We haven't been able
to get any help for her, Monica and my granddaughter. She's at
the mercy of people that hate us and want to kill us. I'm
sorry.
Mr. Burton. No, that's fine.
Mrs. Stowers. I'm just so upset about this whole thing. Our
family has been totally destroyed by the Radwan family in Saudi
Arabia, by the children's own father. They have been beaten and
raped and my grandson went to the police in Riyadh and asked
them for help. He asked them to please get his father to stop
the rape and the beatings. His answer was, you have to learn
how to obey your father. They stripped his shirt off, threw him
on the ground and beat him and kept him in jail for 2 days.
And then when he was sent home, his father beat him again
and threatened to kill him. Rasheed has had two mental
breakdowns and he finally escaped from Saudi Arabia and he
lived with me in Houston. The horrible nightmares that Rasheed
had, he couldn't function as a normal human being. In the
middle of the night, he had these horrible nightmares. But he
was able to get some treatment and he did finish high school,
and one semester at the University of Houston. He had to go
back to Saudi Arabia. He had to try to take care of his mother
because she was so sick. She's been destroyed by this.
This whole thing. She tries to protect her daughter and she
would die for her daughter. We have begged the State
Department, our Senators and our Congress for help. We got
nothing but silence. There was nothing they could do. Why is it
that the Saudis can ask for the U.S. Army to protect them, but
they can't protect our children? They can't help our children.
Can anyone tell me why they can't do something for our
children? Please. Help our children.
My daughter, I think she said it all on this tape. She
needs to come to the States to get cancer treatment. I wouldn't
have recognized her out on the street she's so sick.
Mr. Burton. Ms Stowers.
Mrs. Stowers. But she will not leave her daughter.
Mr. Burton. Well, Ms. Stowers, Ms. Stowers, can you hear
me.
Mrs. Stowers. But I'm pleading with someone to help us
please.
Mr. Burton. Can you hear me. Can you hear me now? We will
convey your feelings in correspondence and directly with the
President. We'll try to get information to him today. I'm
supposed to be
down at the White House at 4. I'm going to have a letter
prepared covering these issues and I will give it to him today
and we will not let this rest. We will continue to push, I
promise you, as long as I'm chairman, we'll do everything we
can to get this resolved.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Stowers follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. We'll now go to Ms. Hernandez-Davis for your
testimony.
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Good morning, Chairman Burton, members
of the committee. Thank you.
Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this
panel, present you with my devastating experience trying to
rescue my daughter out of captivity in Saudi Arabia. My
daughter, formerly known as Yasmin and now known as Dria, was
taken against her will to Saudi Arabia at the age of 11 and
forced to live there until she was rescued 2 years later. She
endured a great deal of physical emotional abuse and religious
persecution by her Saudi father and his family. She is, to my
knowledge, the only American child kidnapped to Saudi Arabia
that has escaped. The Saudi Government as well as the American
government, the State Department and the American Embassy,
never helped me with my daughter's release.
Dria was one more case, one more file, one more American
child taken to Saudi Arabia never to be seen again. While held
against her will in Saudi Arabia, my daughter was beaten to say
she was Muslim. She was scared into thinking that she and her
Christian family would burn in the flames of hell. Because she
would not conform and pray, she had to eat on the floor. Dria
was neglected and unattended because she would not say she was
Muslim. My daughter's spirit was stronger than her Saudi father
and family expected. Every night she prayed a simple prayer her
grandmother taught her in Spanish and she hung on to her faith.
The American Embassy in Riyadh warned me that if I reported
the abuse, it would only get worse. It is common practice for
Saudi fathers to beat or mistreat their children and their
wives. While in Saudi Arabia, Dria's letters, cards, pictures
that she had of her family, friends and of me were taken by her
father and destroyed. During her many hidden telephone calls to
the United States, Dria told me that she was scared she could
not picture my face anymore. She was forgetting what I looked
like.
She sounded more and more depressed and told me she would
rather die than to continue to live in Saudi Arabia. Her
situation was deteriorating and no one was helping. I was naive
in thinking that my country would help protect its citizens.
Dria was an American citizen whose rights had been clearly
violated. My protest in front of the White House and foreign
Embassies, with parents of other missing children, letter
writing campaigns addressing foreign officials, communications
with the State Department, and American Embassy in Riyadh did
nothing to elicit response that could help me with the release
of my daughter. It took a year to plan Dria's escape from Saudi
Arabia.
My mother and I had to sell our home, furniture, empty our
savings account in order to finance Dria's escape from hell.
This extremely brave 12-year-old knew that her life was in
danger if caught. Knew that she would be beaten to death by her
father if the plan failed. But she did whatever she had to do
in order to escape. All that mattered to her was getting home,
getting her life back. How did this devastating experience
begin?
In 1984, I married what seemed to be a very nice,
chivalrous young man, a graduate of the University of Miami
that was born and raised in Saudi Arabia. Khalid Shalhoub had
been living in the United States for 8 years and was very
Americanized. He intended to continue to live in the United
States once we married. I lived in Saudi Arabia for a year and
a half. It was meant to be temporary, but my Saudi husband
changed his mind once we were there and wanted to make the stay
permanent. He went from being very Americanized and liberal
while living in the United States to joining in on the hate
rhetoric for Israel and the Jews prevailing the Middle East.
He even went so far as to argue that the Holocaust never
existed; it was conjured up by the Jews to gain sympathy. While
in Saudi, I was shocked to see how women were treated. Women in
Saudi Arabia are treated as second class citizens and as a
possession of their father or husband. They have no rights. And
they have little or inferior education. Their marriages are
arranged and they may be forced to marry as young as age 12.
They are forced to wear black abayas and cover head to toe.
Their religious police have the right to use whips or stones to
beat women in public who they think are not properly dressed or
attracting attention.
Women are not allowed in certain places of business or in
certain restaurants in Saudi Arabia. Women can't play sports,
go for a walk, read a magazine about what's going on in the
world because of the extreme censorship of materials,
magazines, news, etc. Living in Saudi Arabia poisoned my
marriage with Khalid. I managed to return to the United States
when I was pregnant with Dria knowing that if I mentioned
divorce in Saudi Arabia, I would not be allowed to leave.
I was stunned to find out the men had to give their wives,
daughters, sisters written permission to leave the country or
to travel, no matter how old they are. Khalid and I were
divorced in Miami when Dria was 2 years old. Khalid felt
humiliated by the divorce because it was I, the woman, who
initiated the divorce, not he. In Saudi Arabia, it is customary
that men divorce their wives, or just take on another wife. As
a result, he vowed that he would make me pay for what I had
done to him. He would take our daughter to Saudi Arabia and
never allow me to see her again.
Although I had custody of Dria and was raising her with
little or no help from Khalid, the family court in Miami
awarded him unrestricted travel when Dria was 6. The family
court judge was well aware of Khalid's threats and was not
concerned with the fact that I had no recourse if Khalid chose
to take Dria to Saudi and keep her there.
Khalid began to take Dria on trips to London when she was 8
years old. London was his place of residence at the time. He
enjoyed the freedom and lack of restrictions that he could not
have in Saudi Arabia. Every time he took her on a trip, I
worried and prayed that he would bring her back.
The day I dreaded finally arrived when Khalid called me
from Saudi Arabia in August 1997 and told me I had a few
minutes to talk to my daughter. He did not know how long he
would keep Dria or if I would ever see her again. I briefly
spoke to my daughter who had no clue what was going on. And I
got to say that I loved her.
I pleaded with him to meet me in Europe so that we could
discuss his decision. We were both parents and needed to do
what was best for Dria. He laughed in an evil way and hung up.
It took the FBI about a month to write a report. I even had to
show them a copy of the Federal law that Khalid had broken. It
took the U.S. attorneys office 1 year to prosecute Khalid and
charge him with the international kidnapping. I was a
relentless nag that did not give up. It seemed that the issue
of kidnapping a child by a parent was completely acceptable,
and an issue that most officials were not interested in dealing
with.
The prosecutor that handled my case told me they did not
want to take on these types of cases to the Grand Jury because
they don't make an arrest, and these type of cases hurt their
department statistically.
The State Department's Office of Children's Issues' role in
the kidnapping of my daughter was to keep a file on the case,
send me a packet on international abductions and recommend to
the American Embassy in Riyadh to conduct a welfare and
whereabouts visit. Letters to officials should have been
written on her behalf but were not. I also asked the State
Department to give me a list of other parents' names and
contact numbers whose children had also been kidnapped to Saudi
Arabia. And if that was not possible, I asked them to give out
my name and phone number to those parents. For some reason, the
State Department did not want to see parents uniting in a
common cause.
The first and only welfare and whereabouts visit that the
American Embassy conducted on my daughter took place in a hotel
lobby in Riyadh and was controlled by Khalid. He initially
agreed to the visit by the American Embassy consul because he
wanted to be in good standing with them in case he wanted to
travel to the United States. He did not know yet that he could
be arrested. Dria was threatened by her father to act and say
certain things or a beating would follow did she not comply.
The American Embassy should have negotiated with Khalid during
this meeting or even pressured him. Khalid's travel
restrictions hurt him and he could have--this could have been a
negotiating point. He loved to travel throughout Europe for
pleasure and for business. The Saudi Arabian Government does
not issue tourist visas and does not admit mothers seeking to
visit their abducted children unless the Saudi father provides
a letter of no objection.
By some miracle and constant pressure from Congressman
Diaz-Balart's office, the Saudi Embassy issued me a visa in
February 1989 without the consent of my former husband. My
passport, however, indicated that he was sponsoring me, even
though he was unaware of this consent. I had to travel with my
uncle as my male chaperone. Once in Saudi Arabia, I was naive
to think the American Embassy would help Dria and me leave the
country. After all, the American Embassy had a copy of my
daughter's passport on file, documentation showing that I had
custody and that my former husband had broken State and Federal
laws when he kidnapped her.
Everyone at the Embassy and State Department was aware that
Dria's case was different. She was almost 12, had been raised
in the United States and was set in her religion, was very
happy in school and terribly wanted to go home. Her rights were
clearly violated. She wanted her life back. I asked Sally Beth
Brumbrey, the consul and first secretary at the time, to help
me bring my daughter home. I asked the following questions: If
Dria could get to the Embassy on her own, would I be able to
take her home? If Dria and I were able to meet anywhere in the
country or close to the Bahrain border, would the American
Embassy help us get through? If Dria and I were able to go to
the U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia, would the military help
us get out?
I posed many different scenarios that would lead to getting
my daughter out of Saudi. I was simply told the American
Embassy and its officials were guests in Saudi Arabia and no
one could risk doing anything of that nature. Sally Beth
Brumbrey, I learned, was leaving Riyadh shortly for a new
position in Australia and could not afford to risk her job.
Other consul associated offered no help. During my 1-month stay
in Saudi Arabia, Khalid agreed to let me see my daughter under
strict supervision five times. I was threatened not to hug her,
whisper or show any emotion that would suggest I wanted her
home with me.
Khalid went on to threaten me that in Saudi Arabia he was
the law. He would choose whether or not I would see my daughter
again. I understood that she could never leave the country even
as adult woman. Luckily, my daughter and I were able to speak
in Spanish, accomplished much in those short five meetings. But
I could not describe in words how hard it was to leave my
daughter in Saudi Arabia and hear her beg me to take her. She
cried and told me, ``mom, don't leave me here, I want to come
home. I miss Abuela. I want to be with you, mom. I can't stay
here 1 more day. Please don't leave me.''
All I could say and had time to say was to be patient and
strong. The same way that I sneaked in to see you and let you
know that I have not abandoned you or given up, I'll find a way
to get you out I am not going to leave you here, I promise. I
wanted to protect her from everything she was going through,
the pain she was enduring, but I couldn't and my government was
not helping us. Dria has been home safely for 3 years. She was
diagnosed with posttraumatic stress when she came home and
still has trouble sleeping. We fear that Khalid, who is
currently being represented by several attorneys in the United
States, will get his charges dropped and come after us. The
number of cases of children and women kidnapped and kept
hostage in Saudi Arabia is now too alarming to ignore. American
citizens, especially our young citizens of the future, need to
be protected at all costs. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. These are all heart rending stories.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hernandez-Davis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Would you like to make a statement now that
you're back?
Ms. Dria Davis. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Well, we'll recognize you and you can tell us
what you went through in trying to get out of Saudi Arabia.
Would you pull the mic close to you. Would you also tell us how
you were able to get her out or would you rather not? I mean,
is that--if that is going to endanger somebody else maybe we
shouldn't know. Maybe it shouldn't be made public.
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. No. Some of it has been published and
you know, the generality of it. Whenever she was able to call
me, we had many, many plans for about a year. And if I could
get to talk to her I could tell her OK leave. You have to leave
at 2 a.m., try to get your dad's keys sneak out of the house.
There'll be people waiting for you. There were many plans.
Mr. Burton. You did that in Spanish.
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Yes, because they were taping our
conversation.
Mr. Burton. He didn't speak Spanish?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. No. And one of those occasions, one of
those plans finally hit. I would get called sometimes, you
know, she couldn't get out. No she couldn't get out and it was
just heartbreaking. But on one occasion, I did get to speak to
her and the plan was well on the way. Her father dropped her at
her school and she had an abaya so that she could cover. What
she was supposed to do was go into the school, act as if she
was fumbling in her bookcase. Put on the abaya, pretend she was
walking out past two security guards as if she left something
in her dad's car. And she did just that. The security guard
called her back but she just kept walking and she went toward a
car that had a sign on it.
You know, they had a little red ribbon around the antenna.
That was the car she was supposed to get into. And then they
had to keep her from being caught for about 4 hours. In that 4-
hour period if she was caught--she could have potentially been
caught but she was very smart in calling the American--no, she
called her father and told her father that she was at the
American Embassy and she was not coming back. So while he
called the American Embassy and figured out that she wasn't
there, that covered the 4 hours that you know we needed to get
her safely out, and she went to Bahrain, passed the border
there, dressed as a woman, a Saudi woman, someone's wife, and
they didn't question it. She was very tall at the time and they
couldn't uncover her to make sure. And basically that is how
she got out.
Mr. Burton. And it cost you $180,000?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Yes.
Mr. Burton. OK. You want to testify. Go ahead. Would you
pull the mic a little closer? Thank you.
Ms. Dria Davis. Good morning, Chairman Burton and members
of the committee, my name is Alexandria Davis. I was formerly
known as Yasmin Alexandria Shalhoub. My name no longer reflects
my Saudi father's last name as a result of the nightmare I
experienced when I was held against my will in Saudi Arabia
from June 1997 to April 7, 1999. I changed my name to try to
forget--to help me forget what I had to endure in Saudi Arabia,
but it will be with me until I die. At the time I was
kidnapped, I was an 11-year-old living in Miami with my mother
and grandmother.
I was attending Epiphany Catholic School in Miami and did
what most girls do. I enjoyed swimming with my friends, jumping
on the trampoline, rollerblading, taking care of my pets and I
played soccer with a local YMCA team. I attended church on
Sundays, as that was also part of my religious and schooling
commitment. My father, Khalid Shalhoub and mother, Miriam
Hernandez had divorced when I was 2 years old. It was my
father's preference to reside in London and he visited me
several times a year or I visited him in London during summer
vacations. My father broke State and Federal laws in June 1997
when he lied to my mother about where he was taking me for the
summer and unilaterally decided to take me to Saudi Arabia. He
told me that I was only there to visit my family members.
However, toward the end of August, I started asking him
about going home in order to begin my new school year. I
started to realize that my father was lying to me and became
scared. Scared that I would not see my family again and scared
that this man I knew as my father began beating me every time I
begged to go home and begged to speak to my mother. I started
having nightmares that lasted the entire time I was there. In
Saudi Arabia, I was not allowed to go outside not even to play.
I was locked in the house alone while my Saudi family went out.
I was constantly told by my father and his family that as a
Christian, I was going to hell and burn in the flames of hell.
I would wake up during the night with visions of my mother and
family members burning and screaming for help.
I was not allowed to eat at the family table because I was
Christian. Instead, my father and stepmother had me eat on the
floor. I did not understand why I was treated so badly. All I
know is that my father and his family hated Christians and
hated my American mother for wanting a divorce. Even though
phones were removed from the house, and special things were
done so that I could not use the phone, I managed to dial
internationally and reach my mother.
My phone calls were tapped by my father and stepmother and
I was beaten every time they found out I made a secret phone
call to the United States. All throughout this time, my mother
was in constant contact with the State Department and the
American Embassy. She even sent letters to as many officials
she could reach. And even to the President and First Lady.
Along with letters, she sent tapes of my conversations with my
mother where I was describing the physical and emotional abuse
I was undergoing.
There were times that I was scared to wake up in the
morning because I knew I would get beaten. I would like to
share some excerpts of the conversations I had with my mom that
were taped and sent to the American Embassy in Riyadh and to
numerous officials. No one paid any attention to my sufferings.
Please play the tape.
[Tape played.]
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Does that conclude your testimony, or do you
have more?
Ms. Dria Davis. Oh, I have more.
Mr. Burton. Go ahead.
Ms. Dria Davis. My father would call me names such as
fatso, donkey, stupid bitch and tell me he wished I would die
and burn in the flames of hell. I remember asking my mom if I
could jump out of my father's car and run to a policeman for
help or try to escape and take a taxi to the American Embassy.
My mother warned me not to do that. She told me that not even
the American Embassy would help. I could not understand why my
country would let me down and not help me. I did not want to be
there. I had no right to be there.
Yet, no one was willing to do anything about it. I was
lucky that my grandmother was able to sell her house and give
up everything she owned to raise $200,000 for my escape. I was
putting myself in danger knowing that if my father caught me
escaping, he would beat me to death. I still risked it. I would
have rather died than to have lived as a woman in Saudi Arabia.
I am 16 years old now, and just completed my sophomore year
in high school. Sometimes I think that if I were not able to
escape from Saudi Arabia, I would be in a forced marriage to a
second cousin and with several children. Even though I have
been back in the United States for 3 years now, I think about
what happened to me all the time. I was one of the lucky ones,
maybe the only American child that was able to escape from
Saudi Arabia. All I want to do now is to find a way to help
other American children and women that have been kidnapped to
Saudi Arabia to get back home. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Well, all of your testimony has been heart
rending. I'm sure everybody feels that way. I wish every Member
of Congress were here to hear it instead of just those who are
here right now. Let me ask you just a few questions.
Ms. Roush, you spent what, $300,000 on unsuccessful
attempts to get your girls out? Is that what you estimate?
Ms. Roush. The cost of mercenaries and all the other costs
of flights and all the other--probably more than that.
Mr. Burton. More than that. You've actually paid
mercenaries to try to get them out?
Ms. Roush. I hired three teams of mercenaries.
Mr. Burton. And they were unsuccessful.
Ms. Roush. Two men died trying to rescue my daughters just
before the Gulf war.
Mr. Burton. Tell me about that real quick. Two men who were
trying rescue your daughters were killed.
Ms. Roush. Yes. I hired a detective from Boston. After all
3 years of the State Department failed, I hired a man from
Boston who had good results in covert operations. And he was
there for 2 years trying to figure out a way to get my
daughters. One of his friends that worked for British
intelligence was there and he was married to a woman from
Pakistan and she worked at the Saudi school system. She was a
teacher and she found my girls.
Alia was 10 at the time and she was trying to find out if
the girls would leave with Mr. Ciriello, so she found Alia in
the school and she said would you leave and go home with your
mommy. Do you want to go home and be with your mommy? And Alia
said yes, I want to go home and be with my mommy, but Allah
will kill my whole family if I leave. So she wouldn't leave
with Ed at the time and then he found another group of people
that were going to take them out after the Gulf war started.
And they were on their way to get the girls on January 18, 1991
and two of the men were killed. The Saudi police did not know
what they were doing, but they were killed in a crossfire
between the Saudi police and another vehicle. And then I hired
two more teams and they just basically took my money and did
nothing.
Mr. Burton. Currently, does the State Department have a
plan for getting your daughters out of Saudi Arabia?
Ms. Roush. The State Department never had a plan to get my
daughters out of Saudi Arabia. Their plan was to ``talk to the
girls.'' They haven't even been able to talk to the girls. And
then they told me, well, maybe we'll talk to the girls to see
if they want to leave. Well, the girls can't tell them if they
want to leave or not the girls are not free. They can be
beaten. The girls have no freedom there to say their mind to
speak the truth.
What I am asking is that the girls, the women be allowed to
come to the United States. Their husbands can come if they
like. I would like the marriage of my youngest daughter to be
annulled. If my daughter Alia is pregnant or has a baby and if
her husband loves her, he can live in the United States. They
should be able to come here and decide where they want to live.
They can go back to Saudi Arabia if they don't like it here.
But in Saudi Arabia, they are not free to come here.
Mr. Burton. And do you know when the last time the State
Department saw your daughters?
Ms. Roush. The State Department, they saw Aisha. Gheshayan
would never let them say Alia because Alia was the oldest and
she wanted to come home. And Aisha wanted to come home, but she
spoke no English. They saw Aisha I think in 1996.
Mr. Burton. I know this is your opinion, but if your
daughters met with the State Department and they told them that
they wanted to live with you in the United States, do you have
any idea what would happen based upon your experience?
Ms. Roush. They would meet with the American Embassy in
Riyadh, and if they said--I mean, even if they went to the
Embassy and they said, I want to come home, they would refer
them to Saudi law. They would not issue them U.S. passports.
I've asked Robert Jordan----
Mr. Burton. Even though they are citizens?
Ms. Roush. Absolutely. They are under Saudi law. I've been
told that by the Embassy. I said, why--Robert Jordan, who is
the present U.S. Ambassador, I wrote to him all the time,
please, please, please do this. I've written to all of them for
16 years, but recently Robert Jordan, and I said, why not just
let me come into the country when Alia was first married last
year and let me meet her husband and talk to them and work out
a plan. Maybe you can go with me to some of the powerful
princes and we can persuade them to let the girls leave. At
least let me talk to the girls. No response. If the girls
mentioned to the Embassy that they wanted to leave, they would
be turned out, as Monica was, back to their Saudi masters.
Mr. Burton. Now, Ms. Stowers, is there any plan that you
know of by State Department to do something to help your
granddaughters?
Ms. Stowers. Amjad would be delighted to come home.
Mr. Burton. But you know of nothing the State Department is
doing to help?
Ms. Stowers. I can't hear him.
Ms. Roush. Is the State Department doing anything to help
Amjad?
Ms. Stowers. Not anything at all.
Mr. Burton. Well, let me just ask one more question then of
Ms. Davis. The State Department told you then that they would
not help your daughter get out of the country, as I understand
it, when you talked to them?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. That's correct, and they had a copy of
her passport on file at----
Mr. Burton. And they knew that she had been kidnapped?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Yes. They had all the documentation
showing, and I was there myself. I'm an American. Here is my
passport. You know that my daughter is an American citizen.
Mr. Burton. Do they have the court orders and all of that,
too?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. They had the court orders.
Mr. Burton. And so they knew that she had been kidnapped?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Exactly.
Mr. Burton. And she was being held against her will, and
they didn't do anything?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Yes. And they knew of the situation.
Mr. Burton. Now, what did they tell you? Did they tell you
that----
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. We're visitors here. We can't help
you.
Mr. Burton. They said they are visitors there?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Yes. The American Embassy in Riyadh,
they are just visitors, and I couldn't understand why I
couldn't take my daughter. We were both American citizens.
Ms. Roush. They've told me we cannot tell the Saudi
Government what to do.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Ose, do you have any questions?
Mr. Ose. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Roush, you have
mentioned in your testimony that you got a phone call from the
State Department yesterday advising you not to testify?
Ms. Roush. No. Advising me that my daughter Aisha was
married in an arranged marriage recently.
Mr. Ose. Who at the State Department called you?
Ms. Roush. Her name is Kim Richter from American Citizen
Services.
Mr. Ose. Kim Richter, R-I-C-H-T-E-R?
Ms. Roush. T-E-R, probably.
Mr. Ose. Has she got a phone number?
Ms. Roush. She's at the Office of American Citizen
Services. I don't know that number offhand.
Mr. Ose. American Citizen Services.
Ms. Roush. Ms. Andruch is here today and so is Mr. Crocker
from the Near Eastern Bureau. They are from the department.
They're right here sitting behind me.
Mr. Ose. We might have them--I'm not sure who is on the
next panel.
Now, you mentioned in your testimony also Walter Cutler was
aware of this situation?
Ms. Roush. Walter Cutler was the first U.S. Ambassador to
Saudi Arabia. He was given orders by the Department of State
not to get involved.
Mr. Ose. That was the cable he received back?
Ms. Roush. Yes. There's several of them.
Mr. Ose. Do you know who sent him that cable?
Ms. Roush. I have the cables in the office. They are signed
by--oh, what is that--legal--the legal affairs, legislative
affairs.
Mr. Ose. Was there a name on it?
Ms. Roush. No. I wish I knew. I've been trying to find that
person's name for years. I'd like to track that person down.
Mr. Ose. Have you provided the committee with a copy of
that cable?
Ms. Roush. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. And you mentioned a guy named Edward Walker?
Ms. Roush. Ed Walker was the deputy chief of the mission at
the time they were taken.
Mr. Ose. In Riyadh?
Ms. Roush. He worked his way up to Ambassador to Egypt and
Ambassador to United Arab Emirates. He was recently the
Assistant Secretary of State for the Near Eastern Bureau. He
retired last year. He was a good guy. He tried to get the girls
out. He was under Cutler's administration there.
Mr. Ose. So he's retired now?
Ms. Roush. Yes. He's now the president of the Mideast
Institute here in Washington.
Mr. Ose. OK. Now, Ray Mabus was an ambassador?
Ms. Roush. Yes. He's a former Governor of Mississippi. He
was Ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1994 to 1996.
Mr. Ose. Now, his practice had been to constrain the visas
offered to the Gheshayan family?
Ms. Roush. To the whole Gheshayan family which was very
effective because it's a large wealthy family that comes to the
United States all the time and----
Mr. Ose. Do they have business interests in the United
States?
Ms. Roush. They have business interests. They have----
Mr. Ose. Such as?
Ms. Roush. They own a lot of things here I'm sure. I'm not
sure all of the things that they own.
Mr. Ose. Is there any way to find a record of what they own
or don't own? Because it would seem to me that if you have--
your term was an active co-conspirator, and I think you--I
think that is an accurate term. It would seem to me that under
the law, if you have a violation of American statute and then
you have people who actively worked to frustrate that, it would
seem to me that some sort of financial sanction is possible.
Ms. Roush. I agree. My ex-husband himself does not own
property or any holdings in American companies, but his family
probably does. And as a matter of fact, he has a relative who
works for the Saudi Arabian Embassy here in Washington.
Mr. Ose. American citizen or----
Ms. Roush. No. He's a Saudi citizen.
Mr. Ose. Now, you also mentioned Wyche Fowler, Jr.----
Ms. Roush. Yes.
Mr. Ose [continuing]. As the former Ambassador to Saudi
Arabia.
Ms. Roush. Yes.
Mr. Ose. And that he had not been very helpful.
Ms. Roush. Mr. Fowler is a criminal. He's responsible for
the loss of my daughters in 1996 when Ray Mabus had the deal
down with the Crown Prince.
Mr. Ose. Now, one of the things that I find interesting in
the information that I read was that a lot of the members of
the State Department who retire end up being, if you will,
employed as a consultant or otherwise----
Ms. Roush. That's correct.
Mr. Ose [continuing]. By some think tank or otherwise, and
if you follow the money----
Ms. Roush. That's right.
Mr. Ose [continuing]. Through the funding for those think
tanks, occasionally it comes directly from the Saudi
Government. Is that----
Ms. Roush. That's correct. The Mideast Institute funds
that. The Saudis fund it. They give large amounts. So does--
Wyche Fowler now is the chairman of the board for the Mideast
Institute. Walter Cutler is President of the Meridian Institute
here in Washington. They all come around and play man about
town and appear on these TV shows as experts on the Middle East
and Saudi Arabia, and they receive large contracts. There is a
beautiful article in this week's National Review, June 17th's
issue by Rod Dreher about the previous U.S. Ambassadors to
Saudi Arabia and how they are friends of Saudi Arabia forever.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, are we going to have a second round
of questions?
Mr. Burton. Yes, if you would like.
Mr. Shays, did you have--excuse me. Did you have any more
questions?
Mr. Ose. No. I'll be back on my second round.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays, did you have some questions?
Mr. Shays. As you all have told what are almost
unbelievable stories, I leaned over to Doug Ose and said, I
pity the Congressman that hasn't been responsive, and then I
found myself wanting to go and call up my office to make sure
we don't have any cases like this. We've had cases in Romania
and other places where we've gotten the police in Romania to
cooperate and circle the home and find the children and help
send them home, but it is very difficult in the circumstance
that you're in to be able to have the government respond.
I want to ask Ms. Stowers is this the first time you saw
that tape of your daughter? Can you hear me, Ms. Stowers? Is
this the first time that you saw that tape?
Ms. Roush. I think she has a problem with hearing. The tape
just arrived.
Mr. Shays. OK. So besides all of the emotional trauma that
Ms. Stowers is going through, I believe that is the first time
that she saw the pictures of her daughter.
Ms. Davis, I'm not clear as to how long you were in Saudi
Arabia.
Ms. Dria Davis. Almost 2 years.
Mr. Shays. I am also not clear as to how well you knew your
father before you went to Saudi Arabia.
Ms. Dria Davis. How what?
Mr. Shays. How well you knew him. How many years was he
with you as a parent?
Ms. Dria Davis. I only visited him during the summer
vacations.
Mr. Shays. And you would, on previous occasions, be able to
come home? I'm sorry. It is my fault. I need you to tell me how
much contact you had with your dad before your mom and dad were
separated. How old were you?
Ms. Dria Davis. Two.
Mr. Shays. Two and from 2 on, then your relationship with
your father was episodic. It was periodic. It was not constant.
Ms. Dria Davis. It was just every summer and every summer
when I would go visit his family in Saudi Arabia or London or
we would travel, I would always be able to call my mom. There
were never any problems until maybe his family pressured him
when I turned 11 and when I went there, he just didn't let me
back.
Mr. Shays. So you always felt that you could leave.
Ms. Dria Davis. Right. And then 1 day he just took all my
rights away, and he just told me that I could never see my mom
again, that I had to go to school there, and everything just
changed. And I didn't understand. I was little.
Mr. Shays. Well, you're a remarkable young lady, in my
judgment, to be able to make a decision that you were going to
take a particular stand, and one of the stands you took was
that you were not going to profess to be part of the Muslim
faith. Is that one of the stands you took?
Ms. Dria Davis. Yeah.
Mr. Shays. Can you tell me other stands that you took while
you were in Saudi Arabia, held captive by your dad?
Ms. Dria Davis. Well, I didn't want to learn Arabic, and
when he would give me a tutor every Saturday, I wouldn't see
her. I wouldn't want to talk to her. I would just sit there.
The tape that you guys heard was one of the days that I wasn't
listening to the tutor and he got upset and he beat me, and if
I didn't do as I was told, he would beat me. I wouldn't wear
the vails, and he would beat me. I wouldn't pray. I wouldn't
follow his religion, and I would call my mom and he would find
out about it until I figured out how to dial with her calling
card, because it would show up on his phone bill that I called.
So I would still do it and he would still beat me, but I
had to do it, because I wanted to leave and I didn't care.
Because nobody helped me. I had to help myself. Everybody let
me down.
Mr. Shays. Did you have any friends in Saudi Arabia that
you could share confidences with?
Ms. Dria Davis. I only had one, and she went to my school.
I had met her. Her mother was Egyptian. Her father was
American, and she--like, I would talk to her and she would help
me sometimes try and plot things, and her mom would talk to my
mom and then deliver messages to me since my father wouldn't
let me talk--or see my mom when she was there. Then when she
transferred to a different school the following year, my father
didn't let me talk to her. When she would call me, he would
hang up on her and he would never tell me and when I would want
to go hang out with her, he wouldn't let me. He wouldn't let
her come over and sleep at the house or me go over there and
visit her. And then I never heard from her.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up now, but
my second round I'd like to ask Ms. Roush some questions.
Mr. Burton. Sure. Let me ask Miriam Davis, exhibit 12 is a
cable. Do we have that exhibit? Can we put that up, exhibit 12?
Exhibit 12 is a cable from Riyadh to Washington describing a
visit an Embassy official had with you and your father while
you were being held in Saudi Arabia. The State Department
staffer says that you wanted to stay. Riyadh and that your
father was clearly fond of you. Do you think that they didn't
understand, and what did you have to say in front of your
father to them? Did you tell them that you wanted to stay?
Saudi Arabia?
[Exhibit 12 follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Dria Davis. No. Those words never came out of my mouth.
Mr. Burton. What did you say? Tell us a little about that
conversation.
Ms. Dria Davis. They asked me questions that had nothing to
do with anything, like if I ate breakfast in the morning or if,
you know, what I did on my summer vacations. They asked me
stupid questions that had nothing to do with anything. So they
didn't really do anything, and whenever I would try and contact
them, the most they would offer me is to talk to my father, but
they didn't understand that if they talked to my father, my
father would kill me.
Mr. Burton. You couldn't tell them that while you were----
Ms. Dria Davis. I couldn't say anything. All of the visits
that happened were with him.
Mr. Burton. Didn't they understand the culture over there
and the possibilities of harm to----
Ms. Dria Davis. I guess not. I mean----
Mr. Burton. That is amazing to me the people who work at
the Embassy do not understand the culture.
Ms. Dria Davis. Yeah. Well, my father was in the room with
me. Like, he was watching every word I said. I couldn't say
anything.
Mr. Burton. Did you go to the State Department for help,
Miriam, to--well, you did ask the State Department to get your
daughter out and they just said they couldn't, that they were
guests in the country.
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. They just said that they would ask the
American Embassy in Riyadh to conduct a welfare and whereabouts
visit.
Mr. Burton. Yeah. Now, exhibit 23, which I won't--you can
put that up there, but I'm not sure anybody can read it; the
print is so small but it says exhibit 23 is an e-mail from a
State Department official in Riyadh, and he says that he's
irritated that Dria did not tell him about the abuse she was
suffering while she was in Saudi Arabia. Do you have any
comments about that other than she was afraid to say something?
[Exhibit 23 follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. And I don't know what they are
referring to or what occasion. Maybe--are they referring to
that one and only welfare and whereabouts visit that we did?
Mr. Burton. I don't know. I don't know. It just says that
he expressed some irritation that your daughter didn't tell him
about the abuse that she was under. Was that because you were
afraid? When you were talking to the State Department official,
did you tell them about the abuse at all, that your father was
beating you or any of the things that happened?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Were you allowed to talk to the State
Department official, that meeting at the hotel?
Ms. Dria Davis. No. My father was watching me.
Mr. Burton. So you were afraid to say something?
Ms. Dria Davis. Yeah.
Mr. Burton. I think that is something we really ought to
make sure is clear on the record and that----
Ms. Dria Davis. If the State Department wanted to ask a
question to somebody, I mean, they can't do it in front of a
father. Obviously I'm complaining about my father, and then
they're going to sit there, you know, and----
Mr. Burton. And he's going to take you home, and then
you're going to be in big trouble.
Ms. Dria Davis. Exactly and that was even if I didn't say
anything.
Mr. Burton. He would beat you anyhow?
Ms. Dria Davis. Yeah, just for no reason.
Mr. Burton. Well, I think that we ought to make sure and
talk to the State Department officials on the next panel and
ask them if the people who are working in the Embassies around
the world, especially Saudi Arabia, if they are conversant with
the culture of those countries. And if they are, then they
ought to know that the people in question aren't going to be
able to say to a clerk or a bureaucrat there that they are
being beaten by somebody that has kidnapped them and taken them
out of the country, out of the United States or away from their
parents.
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. But they can only conduct those visits
if the father consents.
Mr. Burton. And he has to be there?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. He has to be there and he controlled
the whole meeting.
Mr. Burton. Well, then we ought to find out how the State
Department people are educated as far as working in these
countries.
Ms. Roush. Because they have to get the father's
permission. That is the whole point. They ask the father, the
kidnapper, if they can talk to the children. In my case, the
father never let them do it, and they never pursued it.
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. I think a strong point would be that
the visa--the pressuring of the Saudis----
Mr. Burton. With the visas?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. With the visas and putting travel
restrictions, that----
Ms. Roush. And selected visa restrictions of Saudi Arabians
coming into this country.
Mr. Burton. Well, we'll pursue that.
Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hernandez-Davis, I am
looking at exhibit 18. I am looking at exhibit 18, and I'm
fascinated by it. It's a letter from the kingdom of Saudi
Arabia to the Ambassador at the Embassy of the United States of
America. To summarize, my goodness, Saudis--it's an after-the-
fact letter pointing out--or alleging that Yasmin had been
kidnapped at her school door and was transported with the
knowledge of the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh to the United States of
America by means of U.S. military aircraft, where she was
handed to the U.S. Air Force, who then handed her to her
mother. The Saudis are objecting to this. Such action boldly
violates the diplomatic norms and traditions. We see the only
way to return things into their right path is by working
diligently to ensure a prompt return of the Saudi citizen, that
be Yasmin, to her family and country, the kingdom of Saudi
Arabia.
Are you aware of this letter?
[Exhibit 18 follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. We saw it last night, and we were
laughing for about 10 minutes. As a result of this letter, that
the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is asking our government to return
her.
Mr. Ose. Dated October 9, 1999.
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Yeah. And I think that our Embassy--
our government should have said something a little bit
stronger, not apologize.
Mr. Ose. Did we respond? Do you know if we had a response
to this? What exhibit is----
Mr. Burton. 18.
Mr. Ose. We're looking at exhibit 18, Mr. Chairman, which
is apparently the request or demand, however you wish to
interpret it, of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the return of
this young woman to Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Burton. Do you have the response from the State
Department?
Mr. Ose. And on exhibit 21----
Mr. Burton. Let me see 21.
[Exhibit 21 follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ose [continuing]. Is our response.
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. There's a response from our----
Mr. Ose. ``The Embassy has the honor to, in the ministry,
that Mr. Shalhoob's allegation of Embassy complicity in the
kidnapping of Yasmin Shalhoob is totally false. The Embassy
wishes to state that it does not approve of illegal, indeed
criminal behavior, under any circumstances.'' My goodness, here
is an interesting--it was wrong for Mr. Khalid Shalhoob to
kidnap Yasmin from the United States in 1994 in direct
violation of American court order awaiting custody--awarding
custody of Yasmin to her mother. So there's clearly----
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. But they are saying it's also wrong
for Yasmin to have been kidnapped and brought to the United
States. I don't understand that. And it's not wrong that she--
--
Mr. Ose. Apparently, Mr. Chairman, I'm not as good a
wordsmith apparently as some of our esteemed colleagues at the
State Department, but clearly in their letter, they recognize
that Yasmin was taken, kidnapped from the United States, and
then they say it's----
Mr. Burton. Then they say it's wrong for her to be
kidnapped back, yeah.
Mr. Ose. I don't understand. I mean, I'm going to be very
interested in the next panel. I want to highlight one thing,
Mr. Chairman. We are, in fact, not toothless in this manner.
The Transportation Security Act that we passed last fall
requires foreign airline carriers to submit manifests of
passengers on the foreign carriers that are coming to the
United States, and if it does not, the Transportation Security
Act allows Customs to decline landing rights to those airlines.
Of the entire pool, about 95 percent are complying with that
requirement. Saudi airlines is not. Customs has a role here.
There's a certain process to go through, but I would hope
that----
Mr. Burton. Let's draft a letter to Customs saying if they
don't comply with the law, that they should be denied landing
rights.
Mr. Ose. Turn the planes back.
Mr. Burton. Why don't we draft a letter to that effect, get
that signed, get it sent out. Get a response from----
Mr. Ose. Section 111 of TSA, I have it right here, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
I do have more questions. I hope we have another round.
Mr. Burton. Why don't you continue. There's three of us
here and we'll let you go for another 5 minutes.
Mr. Ose. My friend from Connecticut is telling me be
patient here.
Ms. Stowers, in your testimony, you talk about having asked
the U.S. Government for help. I'm curious if you know who
specifically was asked for assistance. What elected official or
State Department official was asked for help?
Ms. Roush. She can't hear you.
Mr. Ose. OK. Is the clerk here? Take that down to her and
ask her to read it and respond. While we're waiting on that,
Mr. Chairman, if I could, Ms. Davis, who at the State
Department did you specifically ask for help?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. The person in charge of the children's
issue, the Middle East section was Steve Sena.
Mr. Ose. Steve.
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Sena.
Mr. Ose. How do you spell that.
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. S-E-N-A.
Mr. Ose. Sena. Now, you also indicated that you talked to
people at the FBI----
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Yes.
Mr. Ose [continuing]. About this issue?
Do you recall----
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. They wouldn't prosecute. They wouldn't
even write a report, because it was a parental kidnapping.
Mr. Ose. Who did you speak with at the FBI?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. I don't remember right now. I can't
recall the name. I'll----
Mr. Ose. Do you have it?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. I'll get it to you.
Mr. Ose. If you would.
Who at the U.S. attorney's office did you speak with?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. They've changed. I'll have to get back
to you.
Mr. Ose. If you could get that out of your records, too.
And, who is it that told you that they couldn't get
involved because getting involved and failing hurts the
department statistically?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. The U.S. attorney's office. They did
not want to prosecute Khalid for international parental
kidnapping.
Mr. Ose. Because it hurt them statistically?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Yes.
Mr. Ose. What did they mean?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Because they could not catch the
felon. They couldn't prosecute him. They couldn't bring him in.
He was in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Ose. They couldn't put a notch on their belt that they
had gotten this guy?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Right.
Mr. Ose. So they washed their hands of it?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Exactly.
Mr. Ose. Now, you also asked a series of questions, can you
help me get my daughter home? Can you--what about this? What if
this scenario prevailed? What if that scenario prevailed?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. They had--right. I got, well, you have
diplomatic immunity, don't you? Can we ride in your car to the
airport? Can you, you know, drive us to Bahrain? It's only 3
hours away.
Mr. Ose. Who did you ask those questions? To whom----
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Sally Beth Brumbrey was the counsel in
charge.
Mr. Ose. Mary Beth Brumbrey?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. Sally Beth.
Mr. Ose. OK. Do you know where Sally Beth Brumbrey is
currently stationed?
Ms. Hernandez-Davis. She was leaving Saudi Arabia to
Australia, a post there.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have to
acknowledge, I wrestle with the fact that a country, Saudi
Arabia, can't admit that 15 of the 19 terrorists on September
11th were citizens of their country, and I also wrestle with
the fact that somehow human rights don't seem to matter if
abuse is based on religious faith.
So I carry with me two pretty strong biases, and I wrestle
with the fact that somehow we seem as a government, the
administration perhaps, our State Department definitely, and
Congress by the mere fact that all of us are just kind of
getting into this issue because of your initiative, are
wrestling with what for you--is it Ms. Roush?
Ms. Roush. Roush.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Roush that you have been dealing with this
for 16 years.
Ms. Roush. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. And I just want to say to on behalf of--on
whatever extent I can extend my apology to you as an official
of government, I apologize to you.
Ms. Roush. Thank you so much.
Mr. Shays. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the
opportunity to have to confront this issue. I would like to
know specifically--and let me tell you what is of interest to
me, because I think you take away your message. There is a bit
of bitterness that I understand, but I just want to say it,
because I'm not interested in this part of it. I don't care if
a--frankly, in terms of this issue, whether a former Embassy--
Ambassador had an affair. What I do care about, though, is that
your government has been totally nonresponsive to you, and I
want to help undo that. I am concerned, though, after 16 years,
your daughters will not know you. I don't even know if they
speak English. Do you know if they speak English?
Ms. Roush. This is what the State Department tells me. Last
September I was able to speak to Aisha. This is only 10 months
ago.
Mr. Shays. And she is how old?
Ms. Roush. 19. And she speaks very little English.
Mr. Shays. And she is the married child?
Ms. Roush. Well, they're both married. She was just married
recently. And her father gave his cell phone number----
Mr. Shays. She's not with the child. Your older child has a
child?
Ms. Roush. I don't know. I read that she was pregnant.
Mr. Shays. I'm sorry. OK.
Ms. Roush. I have no information about my daughters.
Mr. Shays. I'm sorry. I interrupted you.
Ms. Roush. I spoke to my daughter Aisha. Their father gave
the Embassy his cell phone number, and I spoke to her once last
September. And she said, hello, Mom, hello, Mom, in English. I
love you, Mom. Ta ala hena Riyadh, come to Riyadh, Mom. I love
you. I love you. The father took the phone away from her, and
he said, that is it. She's not allowed to talk to you anymore,
and then he proceeded to marry her off. She's just a kid.
Mr. Shays. The challenge you now have is that this may be--
your daughter may--if she is pregnant, hopefully gives a
successful birth to a child, then she has an additional
attachment to----
Ms. Roush. That's right. She's put in the middle like I was
put in the middle. They're going to be forced--they've
impregnated my daughters, and now they're going to force my
daughters--they've done this with other women in the Middle
East, American women. They did it in Yemen with two sisters
from Britain, where they impregnate these women, and then they
say, OK, you can go back to England or back to the States, but
your children have to stay here because they're Saudi citizens.
No. I'm not going to accept that. My daughters did not choose
to be impregnated. My daughters have to come home. Love
transcends everything.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask you this. They were again how old
when they were--since you really had much interaction with your
children, how old were they?
Ms. Roush. I saw my children for 2 hours in 16\1/2\ years.
Mr. Shays. I just want to know when they were--I know you
said this once, and I apologize. I can mix up----
Ms. Roush. I saw them in 1995.
Mr. Shays. I don't care right now when you saw. I wanted to
know when you were their mother with them 100 percent of the
time.
Ms. Roush. 16\1/2\ years ago.
Mr. Shays. I understand. And how old was that, 16\1/2\
years? Do the math for me, please. How old were they?
Ms. Roush. They were 7 and 3-1/2. You know what Aisha told
me in Riyadh in 1995? This is the one who was 3-1/2. You know
what she told me? She spoke no English. I had a translator. She
was 13. She said, I don't remember you, but I love you. How can
you put any amount of time? Do you know what it's like to be a
mother?
Mr. Shays. I guess what I'm trying to ask is----
Ms. Roush. You can't ruin that love.
Mr. Shays. I guess what I'm trying to ask, and you
obviously wrestle with this, after 16 years, 16\1/2\ years,
when they are placed--let's just say you get what you want,
they're put in a neutral place.
Ms. Roush. Yes.
Mr. Shays. After 16\1/2\ years, do you have the confidence
that they would say, I want to come back to the United States;
I want to be with you?
Ms. Roush. They said it after 10 years, and they will say
it after 16\1/2\ years, and they will say it after 60 years.
I'm their mom. Aisha said--she was 3\1/2\ when she was taken--I
don't remember you, but I love you, and she threw her arms
around me. And then after--last September, I love you, I love
you, come here, Mom. I'm the mom.
Mr. Shays. Do you have any sense that the 7-year-old helped
her younger sister of 3\1/2\ understand how she was taken away?
The 7-year-old would remember that.
Ms. Roush. I asked Alia that when I saw her, and I said, do
you remember what happened? And she said, he told us you left
us here, and I said, but you know that is not true, Alia. And
she shook her head and she said yes. She remembered how she was
taken.
Mr. Shays. OK. So let me get to the issue of what--and this
may seem silly that I'm asking, but I want it to be part of the
record, continuing with what the chairman has asked you. I want
to know specifically what our government right now is doing to
help you. I want to know----
Ms. Roush. They're doing everything they can to deflect and
they would hope that I would go away back to Sacramento and
leave them alone.
Mr. Shays. But you're not going to do that.
Ms. Roush. No.
Mr. Shays. OK. We know that. That we hope won't happen, and
that's good that it won't happen. So what specifically is the
government doing? Tell me, even if it's as puny as you can
think of, tell me the best thing right now that the government
of the United States, your government, is doing to help bring
your daughters back home.
Ms. Roush. Nothing. Nothing.
Mr. Shays. What is the best that you can say that Congress
is doing right now?
Ms. Roush. They're having this hearing.
Mr. Shays. Well, there's a lot more we can do with it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Burton. It seems to me that one of the things that
could be done would be to have these ladies and their children
come back to the United States. They're American citizens. They
have the right to choose. They should have the right to choose
whether they want to come back, and--with their children. And
then when they're in the United States, if they choose to go
back to Saudi Arabia, then they can make that decision as free
American citizens. And it seems to me the State Department
ought to be working toward that end, just to bring them back
here and let them decide. If they, at this point after 16
years, want to stay as their mother says, then they should be
able to stay, and if they want to go back, they will have
that--they ought to have that right to choose, but for the
State Department to do nothing for 16 years because they're
on--they're guests on Saudi soil--I mean, the American Embassy
any place in the world is American soil.
Ms. Roush. Not in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Burton. Well, it's American soil whether they want to
admit it or not. It's American soil, and if our Embassy people
say we're guests here and--the Saudis are not allowed to come
into an Embassy, nor is any other government allowed to come
into the Embassy of our country without permission, because
it's American soil.
Mr. Shays. Nor can we go in theirs.
Mr. Burton. Nor can we go in theirs here in the United
States, and so for U.S. Embassy over there to say that they're
guests and that they can't do anything is just not accurate.
They may be--the Saudi Government could kick us out. They could
tell us--our officials to leave, but they know full well there
would be retaliation if that ever happened because their
Embassy is here in the United States.
Ms. Roush. They did it to Hume Horan, who is sitting right
behind me.
Mr. Burton. They did it to what?
Ms. Roush. Ambassador Hume Horan, who's sitting right
behind me.
Mr. Burton. That's right. They can tell them to leave.
Ms. Roush. They asked him to leave, yeah.
Mr. Burton. They can tell them to leave, but if you have a
President and a government that is going to stand by you and if
you have a State Department that is going to stand by you, I
think that we could face them down on this issue. We're the
biggest and the strongest country in the word, and they have an
awful lot of investments here and they have a lot more to lose
by not dealing with us than us dealing with them. In any event,
do you have any more questions?
Well, I want to get to the State Department as soon as
possible. Do you have more questions, Chris, Mr. Shays?
Mr. Shays. I may.
Mr. Burton. OK. Go ahead.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Stowers, I--Ms.
Roush, would you tap her, the question I gave her there, could
she answer that, please?
Ms. Stowers. OK. Phil Gramm from Texas, Bill Archer and Tom
DeLay made a speech in Houston, and we went to that one and
begged him for help, but he wasn't interested. He said that
wasn't his job to interfere with custody battles. It was not
part of his job. That's basically what we got from each Senator
or Congressman that we talked to. They have each one said that
was not part of their job, is to interfere in domestic
problems.
Mr. Ose. Ms. Roush, in your testimony I believe you
indicate that the State Department considers your--on page 34
of your testimony, the State Department still refers to your
daughters as Saudi citizens?
Ms. Roush. Yes, sir, yes. And they've told me repeatedly
that let's look at it from a Saudi's point of view, and they
refer to the Saudis as their clients.
Mr. Ose. OK. Those are the two questions I had, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat open-ended, but I'd
just be interested. Is there any question that we should have
asked you that you want to put on the record?
Ms. Roush. Who are you addressing----
Mr. Shays. Any of you here. Is there any question that you
wish we had asked that we didn't ask that you would like to put
on the record?
OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would just like to
say thank you, but I would like to say to any of the panelists,
besides this committee taking on this task, if you don't feel
that your individual Congressman or woman is responding to this
issue and you would like to ask us to take on this case, my
office would be happy to do that.
Ms. Roush. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. And I would like to thank Ms. Davis for being
here, and I'd like to say that I am very impressed by your
strength of character.
Ms. Dria Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. And obviously by the two mothers that are here
and their extraordinary strength of character, and by the
grandmother. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Well, I want to thank you very much. You're
welcome to stay and listen to the State Department. We're going
to be asking them questions here in just a minute. Don't give
up. We're going to hang tough and see if we can't do something
to help you out.
We'll now ask the State Department officials to come. We
have testimony from the second witness panel, Hume Horan,
Daniel Pipes, Doug Bandow, Ryan Crocker and Dianne Andruch. Did
I pronounce that right, Dianne Andruch? Is that right?
Would you please approach the table? We need to swear you
in. Are you all there? Who are we missing?
Mr. Pipes. Ambassador Horan went outside.
Mr. Burton. Would you raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Burton. We'll start with--just go right down the line.
Ambassador Horan, do you have a comment you would like to make
or statement?
STATEMENTS OF HUME HORAN, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI
ARABIA (1987-88); DANIEL PIPES, DIRECTOR, MIDDLE EAST FORM;
DOUG BANDOW, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE; DIANNE ANDRUCH,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OVERSEAS CITIZEN SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND RYAN CROCKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Horan. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared
statement, but I'll make some brief comments with your
permission and that of the members of the committee. My name is
Hume Horan. Born in D.C., resident in D.C. I joined the Foreign
Service in 1960. Retired in 1998. I've had 10 assignments
overseas, all of them in Africa and the Arab world. I was a
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs back in
Washington. Also taught African and Middle Eastern history at
Howard University and at Georgetown. I served two times as our
Ambassador twice in Saudi Arabia. I was our deputy chief of
mission for 5 years from 1972 to 1977, and then I served as our
Ambassador in Riyadh from August 1987 till March 1988.
The committee asks a number of questions. Have we done
enough? Do our consuls do enough to protect American citizens
in Saudi Arabia? As a former Deputy Assistant Secretary in the
State Department in consular work, the first responsibility of
an Embassy overseas is the protection and welfare of American
citizens. Everything else comes second.
I have seen our consuls show courage, imagination and
extraordinary devotion in order to helping out their American
citizens in distress. In Saudi Arabia, I've seen our consuls do
extremely good work for Americans who were jailed for a number
of supposed crimes, sometimes contract disputes. Sometimes
really much more serious crimes, being accused of manslaughter
or worse, and the Embassy managed to get these people around
the cape.
Family abduction cases are harder. The Shari'ah law under
which Saudi Arabia runs its personal status affairs gives
virtually total dictatorial power to a husband, and this is
made even harder in the case of VIP families. The Saudis simply
shrug their shoulders and say oh, well, our law, that is God's
law, is on our side and we've got the people. So buzz off. This
was certainly my experience when after meeting with Senator
Dixon here in Washington before I went out to Saudi Arabia as
our Ambassador, I made my first business call on the Governor
of Riyadh, Prince Salman, a very powerful man, a full brother
of the king. When I asked for the appointment, Prince Salman
said, you know, what do you want to see me about? I said there
are a number of issues, including the issue of Ms. Roush. He
said--or his assistant said, well, we'll see Ambassador Horan,
but if he's going to raise the Roush case, he will not see him,
just will not see him.
I had a number of issues to talk with the prince, so I went
to see him, and at the end of the meeting I said, now, your
Royal Highness, you know, there is one issue that you did not
want me to talk about, but it's very much on both of our minds,
and you're going to be hearing more on this question because it
is a very important one to the Embassy.
The question of should these matters be raised to a State-
to-State level, it is extremely important that they are,
because my strong feeling is that this issue is stuck at a
level much higher than that of an ambassador in Saudi Arabia.
There's very little that an ambassador can do. If they're
just going to brush you off saying, please, you know, buzz off.
I think Ambassador Mabus had a tremendous good idea,
withholding visas. And I know this is against visa regulations
and all of that, but all around the world, consuls are using
their visa power in imaginative and creative ways in order to
make life better for American citizens. I can cite examples
where Americans who are unjustly held were sprung because an
imaginative and courageous consul used his diplomacy in order
to get that to happen.
What kind of pressures can we exert on the Saudi
Government? The point of Saudi Arabian airlines not providing
manifests for its flight, that is astonishing. I thought this
has been--from what I read, I thought it had been done for all
airlines. The issue of visas is a very good issue also.
Finally, it really astonishes me that the father of Ms.
Roush's children could come to the United States. The fact that
he has a diplomatic visa or a diplomatic passport doesn't
entitle him to anything whatsoever, absolutely zero under
American law, just the kind of politeness that we should accord
to all foreign visitors in our country.
Should this issue be a factor in evaluating our current
relations with Saudi Arabia? Of course it should be. We give
respect to foreign nationals visiting our country. We have a
right to expect that they should treat our citizens with equal
respect. Our relations with Saudi Arabia should be based on
considerably more than they sell oil and they recycle petro
dollars and we provide arms and a shoulder to cry on in a very,
very dangerous part of the world. It is a matter of mutual
respect, and I think in the case of these tragic stories that
we have been hearing this morning, the issue of respect for
American citizens has been very deficient.
I would be very glad to answer questions insofar as I'm
able, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burton. Well, I will have some questions since you were
a former Ambassador and State Department official, so we will
have some questions for you.
Dr. Pipes.
Mr. Pipes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the Government
Reform Committee, and I think we should look at the U.S.
Government performance. I have prepared a fairly lengthy
testimony, and I will attempt to summarize it. I will argue
that the key question is why the State Department and other
agencies of the U.S. Government have done so little to support
the right of U.S. nationals abducted to Saudi Arabia. I shall
try to account for this hesitance by noting that it fits into a
much larger pattern of caution and even obsequiousness that
has, for decades, characterized Washington's relations with
Riyadh. Over and over again, the U.S. Government has made
unwanted and unnecessary concessions to the kingdom of Saudi
Arabia.
One can see this obviously in the case of children that
we've been discussing and hearing this morning, but there are
many other cases. Let me quickly mention three very important
cases. There is the case of the status of American women in
Saudi Arabia. It has been the practice now for a decade to have
female military personnel of the United States who are offbase
to wear abayas, the head-to-foot black covering, to have to sit
in the back of cars and to have to be escorted by male military
personnel. This is against everything we stand for. I'm happy
to report that just a month ago on May 14th, this House voted
unanimously to end--to prohibit the Pentagon from formally or
informally urging servicewomen to wear abayas, but here we have
a problem. For 10 years, American servicewomen were subjected
to a regiment that is unique to Saudi Arabia.
A second example having to do with women is that just 2
months ago, Crown Prince Abdullah was traveling to Crawford,
TX. He insisted, or his entourage insisted that no female air
traffic controllers be in control of the plane. Not only did
the U.S. Government concede this point, but hid it afterwards.
A second question has to do with Christians. The practice--
--
Mr. Burton. Excuse me. They hid it afterwards, you say?
Mr. Pipes. Yes. When queried about this manner, both the
FAA and the State Department joined with the Saudi foreign
minister in flat out denying that the Saudis ever asked for
exclusively male controllers.
Mr. Burton. Do you have documented evidence?
Mr. Pipes. Yes, I do.
Mr. Burton. We'd like to have that.
Mr. Pipes. The quick evidence would be Dallas Morning News,
April 27, 2002.
The second issue would be the practice of Christianity in
Saudi Arabia. We've had many examples where American officials
have acquiesced to the Saudi demand that there be no formal
public practice of Christianity. The most spectacular case was
just over 10 years ago when first President Bush was told by
the Saudis he could not say grace before the Thanksgiving meal
at the--the Thanksgiving meal he was to have with the American
troops building up for the war with Iraq on Saudi soil, and so
the President went to international waters and had Thanksgiving
meal there.
More dramatically, we see that the U.S. Embassy in Saudi
Arabia has generally acquiesced to the Saudi demands that there
be no public display of any Christian practice.
Third point would be Jews. Jews are systematically excluded
or have been on occasion systematically excluded by the U.S.
Government from working in Saudi Arabia. I have a long quote
from a former Service officer about how this is done. A ``J''
is put in front of certain people's names not to go to Saudi
Arabia. There is the case of a contractor for the Defense
Department that explicitly said that no Jews or Jewish-named
personnel would be sent as part of a team to Saudi Arabia. The
U.S. Government--the Defense Department was breaking U.S.
Government laws in not sending Jews to Saudi Arabia. There are
many other such cases. I won't give you the details now.
My conclusion is that one sees here a pattern that is
unique in American foreign policy, where the United States--the
representatives of the U.S. Government are not willing to stand
up for American interests, and while there can be explanations
on the ground level having to do with oil and the like, I think
the explanation lies elsewhere. One finds over and over again
that Americans in position of authority are imposing--are
acquiescing or even preemptively acquiescing to what they
imagine the Saudis would like.
An answer to why this is happening can be found in a
statement by the current Saudi Ambassador to the United States,
Prince Bandar bin Sultan. He said the following, and this was
quoted in the Washington Post of February 11, 2002. He boasts
of his success cultivating powerful Americans who deal with
Saudi Arabia. If the reputation then builds that the Saudis
take care of friends when they leave office, you'd be surprised
how much better friends you have who are just coming into
office.'' The heart of the problem is a very human one.
Americans in the position of authority bend the rules and break
with standard practice out of personal greed. One finds over
and over again that old Saudi hands are doing very well once
they leave office. Over and over again Ambassadors--and I give
names in my testimony--are now in positions of authority. Two--
three of the individuals mentioned here are in my testimony,
Walter Cutler, Edward Walker, Wyche Fowler. And former
Ambassador Horan has noted this pattern. Others have noted it.
I would argue to you, sir, that the roth in the executive
branch renders it quite incapable of dealing with the kingdom
of Saudi Arabia in the farsighted and disinterested manner that
U.S. foreign policy requires. That leaves the responsibility
with you, with Congress, to fix things. The massive preemptive
cringe of American officials requires your urgent attention.
Without going into detail here, I suggest that steps be
taken to ensure that the Saudi resolving door syndrome
documented by me in this presentation, this testimony, be made
illegal. Only this way can U.S. citizens regain confidence in
those of their officials who deal with one of the world's most
important States. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pipes follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. OK. Mr. Bandow.
Mr. Bandow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of
the committee. I commend this committee for holding this
hearing. Since others are addressing the specifics of children
and other Americans being held against their will, I'd like to
briefly put this issue in a larger context of U.S.-Saudi
Arabian relations. It's very important for us to recognize that
Saudi Arabia is a corrupt totalitarian regime, at sharp
variance with America's most cherished values, including
religious liberty. It has long leaned to the west, and for
security reasons, the United States has long been very
concerned about the stability of the regime and protecting it
from potential invaders, most recently back in 1990 and 1991
with the war with Iraq.
Although the relationship between Riyadh and Washington is
close, it's rarely been easy. For American administrations that
loudly promote democracy, the alliance with Saudi Arabia is a
deep embarrassment. One aspect, the concern of today's hearing,
is the forcible detention of American women and children,
essentially treated as property by the Saudi Government.
This attitude, alas, should come as no surprise given the
general Saudi record on human rights. Saudi Arabia's an
absolute monarchy and almost medieval theocracy, with power
concentrated in the hands of senior royalty and wealth spread
amongst all Saud princes. Political opposition and even
criticism is forbidden. In practice, there are few procedural
safeguards for anyone arrested or charged by the government or
dealt with by the religious police. Women are covered,
cloistered and confined, much like they were in Taliban-ruled
Afghanistan. It's perhaps no surprise that such a regime has an
unenviable reputation for corruption. More ugly, though, is the
religious totalitarianism enforced by Riyadh. Indeed, in this
way as well, Saudi Arabia follows much the same policies as did
the Taliban which the United States worked so hard to
overthrow.
Unfortunately, U.S. policies have helped identify
Washington with the Saudi kleptocracy, but the Saudi ruling
elite itself is paying for its repression. The long-term
decline in energy prices has caused economic pain in Saudi
Arabia, which has itself helped generate deep undertones of
unrest, especially among the people who have no political
outlet for their dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, this
dissatisfaction has merged with criticism of the United States
for a number of reasons, and because of that Saudi leaders have
proven very weary of aiding the United States despite direct
attacks on Americans. Cooperation, for example, after the 1996
bomb attack on Khobar Towers barracks was quite limited, very
real concerns in the aftermath of September 11 in terms of aid
and cracking down on Muslim charities that support terrorism as
well as issues such as manifests from the Saudi airlines.
Riyadh's reluctance to risk popular displeasure by
identifying with Washington merely continues and unfortunately
is likely to encourage the growth of extremist sentiments. An
unwillingness to support the United States on critical issues
like this gives de facto sanction to the growth of such
sentiments, including publications in the Saudi media, for
example, the relatively recent article discussing Jews and the
issue of Jewish blood--the blood that was necessary for Jewish
holy ceremonies. These sorts of things have appeared in Saudi
publications that are absolutely devastating in terms of
promoting the climate of hate that we see in the Middle East.
The problem runs even deeper of course, because the Saudi
regime supports the extreme form of Wahhabism abroad as well as
in Saudi Arabia itself. And this threat reaches well beyond the
Middle East to countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and even the
Philippines, where relatively secular tolerant societies, you
know, face growing fanatical threats. One can, for example,
look in the Moluccan Islands in Indonesia to see the dangers of
fanatical jihad activities. The jihad militias, for example,
are very involved in bloodshed there over the last 3 or 4
years.
Saudi Arabia's belated efforts to curb the clergy and
scrutinize its educational system are welcome, but
insufficient. And I think the U.S. Government puts up with this
in many ways because of oil. Clearly oil is very critical.
So no one would care very much about what happened in Saudi
Arabia, except for the fact that Saudi Arabia has oil. It's
important, I would argue, however, that the U.S. Government,
particularly the Congress, should recognize that the Saudis'
trump hand is surprisingly weak, that the reserve figures that
are cited in terms of Saudi Arabia overstate its relative
influence, and that over time, Saudi Arabia's influence is
going to fall. There are a lot of other producers out there,
enormous potential new production to come on from Caspian Basin
off of Africa and elsewhere.
Moreover, the Saudi regime itself is very limited in terms
of its impact on prices. Even if that regime was overthrown,
only a new regime's desire to keep all oil off the market would
have a dramatic impact on prices, and price changes like that
would help bring new sources of supply on, would cause other
oil producers to produce much more, and over the long term we
need to recognize that Saudi Arabia might be able to threaten
our pocketbooks, but Saudi Arabia itself is not able to
threaten America's survival.
Now, to mention Saudi Arabia's shortcomings and to suggest
that it may not be as vital as it's continually noted makes
policymakers both in Riyadh and in Washington nervous. There
have been published reports denied by the Saudis that the Saudi
policymakers are considering ending America's military
presence, but the country that really needs to reassess the
current relationship is the United States.
At the very least, Washington has to be willing to talk
very tough about issues of terrorism and human rights with this
regime, especially when the lives of Americans are at stake.
Doing so might sour the U.S.-Saudi political relationship, and
applying pressure through things such as visas might cause
expressions of dissatisfaction from Riyadh.
But the U.S. Government has its primary responsibility to
its own citizens, and it's falling down on that responsibility
if it doesn't take action to apply pressure on issues like
those being addressed by the committee today. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Bandow.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bandow follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Ms. Andruch.
Ms. Andruch. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a prepared
statement at this time, but I'll be prepared to answer
questions later.
Mr. Burton. Now, your position with the State Department is
what?
Ms. Andruch. I'm in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, Deputy
Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Burton. You're Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs?
Ms. Andruch. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Now, do you have some jurisdiction over the
Middle East and Saudi Arabia and our Embassies over there?
Ms. Andruch. Not specifically. My office deals with
overseas citizens, wherever they are. So it's Americans abroad.
Mr. Burton. OK. All right.
Mr. Crocker.
Mr. Crocker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Ryan Crocker,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs.
You have my written statement, so I'll just make a couple
of additional comments. The testimony we heard from the first
panel this morning was, as you put it, wrenching. And everyone
in this room could not help but be shaken by it. I know I was.
Child abduction cases are among the most difficult and tragic
citizen services cases we face anywhere in the world, and we
face them throughout the world.
There are over 1,000 active cases now. That is why we have,
in the Children Issues Office, a special unit for abductions in
the Bureau of Consular Affairs, staffed now by 17 officers.
Most of these cases are in western Europe, but Saudi Arabia, as
we have indicated to the committee, the documents we've sent
up, also has a substantial number of cases.
In Saudi Arabia, as is our policy globally, we deal with
these cases within the framework of the laws of the country
where our citizens are located. That's not unique to Saudi
Arabia. That is our global practice. We work within the legal
system of that State. This becomes, therefore, particularly
difficult in the case of Saudi Arabia, because as, again, we
have heard so eloquently expressed already, our legal system
and the Saudi legal system simply do not mesh.
Ambassador Horan, our witnesses from the first panel have
all made clear some of the basic issues here, that a child
needs the permission of a father to travel, that a woman needs
the permission of a father or husband or brother to travel.
This is not applied to Americans married to studies only. That
is Saudi law. That is how it applies to all Saudi citizens.
So we have been up against that challenge throughout, and
it is--as the very sad record shows, it has not been something
we have been able to move very far on. The Shari'ah law gives
the father or the husband this right, and it does not give the
Saudi state the right to override it. There is no legal lever
that the Saudi Government can pull in these cases, whether it
is an American or a straight Saudi citizen.
This does not mean that we have been inactive, Mr.
Chairman. We have, in trying to gain access, in trying to--for
ourselves in trying to arrange meetings between mothers and
their children and in talking to Saudi Government officials. We
most recently had contact at a high level just within the last
2 weeks, when Assistant Secretary Burns was in the kingdom and
raised these issues as a concern of the United States for its
citizens. We're going to be pursuing that dialog, because we
have heard and seen very graphically the dimension, the
intensity of this problem and what it does to people's lives.
We will need to do that.
Mr. Chairman, in my view, within the context of our
relationship as you sketched it out in your opening remarks,
this is an important relationship to the United States.
President Bush characterized it this way in April. Our
partnership is important to both our nations, and it is
important to the cause of peace and stability in the Middle
East and in the world.
We have problems in this relationship. This is a graphic
one, and we need to find ways to address it to bring some
relief to people who have suffered for a very long time, 16\1/
2\ years in the case of Mrs. Roush. All of us who heard that,
no one can be insensitive to what that has done to her life,
the lives of her children or the lives of our other witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm ready for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crocker follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Let me just start by saying, Mr. Crocker, that,
regardless of the rhetoric, it looks like we're an impotent
giant. Impotent. I mean, when an American citizen is thrown out
of an American Embassy, forced out by Marines, with her kids
because we're concerned about relations with a foreign
government, that makes us look weaker than you can imagine.
Impotent. And I don't understand--you know, you're in charge of
the area, as I understand it, that deals with this kind of a
problem, is that right?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton [continuing]. Why we have not recommended to our
Embassies around the world, not just in Saudi Arabia and
Riyadh, that we say, if you kidnap a child or if you restrict
the rights of an American citizen, you're not going to get a
visa and nobody in your family is.
Now in the Helms-Burton law, which I helped write--dealing
with Cuba, if American property is confiscated by the Cuban
Government, Castro, and they sell it and somebody in a foreign
government or foreign entity is involved in that transaction,
our government can keep them from getting a visa. Now how much
more important is it where human life is concerned?
We're talking about property in the Helms-Burton law, and
you're talking about kids who have been kept for 16 years?
Women who have had them and their kids thrown out of our
Embassy over there because we have to be concerned about their
law? That is ridiculous. And that we're there as guests?
The Embassies are called American soil. Why in the world
would we have Marines take American citizens outside and then
have them arrested? And we're going to have a hearing and drag
that woman in--not drag her in. I don't want to put that--we
are going to subpoena her and have her come in to explain why
she allowed that to happen.
Now let me ask you this. Would you consider recommending
that visas be withheld where children are kidnapped or American
women are being held against their will in a foreign country?
Mr. Crocker. Mr. Chairman, there is already a provision in
the Immigration and Nationality Act that deals with this issue,
and I think I will ask my colleague----
Mr. Burton. Well no, you didn't answer my question. Would
you recommend that visas for the individual that's restricting
these people, American citizens and whose involved in
kidnapping, would you recommend as the head of that agency that
they and their extended family be denied visas to come to the
United States?
Mr. Crocker. Sir, if I could just cite the provision.
Mr. Burton. No. No, I'm asking you if you would make that
recommendation.
Mr. Crocker. The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman; and we have
that in place.
Mr. Burton. Then why has it not been applied to these
people who testified earlier?
Mr. Crocker. Well, in the case of----
Mr. Burton. I mean, you--just a minute now. We had a fellow
who was under indictment, was it? He was under indictment; and
he came here under a diplomatic passport, according to the
testimony, with his family, who was getting cancer treatment or
health treatment. And there was an outstanding warrant for his
arrest, and we didn't do anything. Now we had to know he was in
the country because he had to have a visa, even with a
diplomatic passport, to come in. Why in the world wasn't he
arrested?
Mr. Crocker. Mr. Chairman, we are going through our records
now on the Gheshayan family and visa issuances. The husband has
been in our visa lookout system as ineligible.
Mr. Burton. For how long?
Mr. Crocker. Since 1990. Is that correct? Since 1990.
Mr. Burton. Well, when did he come into the country on a
diplomatic----
Ms. Andruch. May I add something from the Bureau of
Consular Affairs? We--our automated--our computerized system
for keeping track of visas issued came into place with
Congress's help in 1990 after the blind sheik. Since then, we
have no record that indicates that he got a visa under his name
to come for medical treatments. We are continuing to look,
however.
Mr. Burton. No, he didn't come for medical treatment. He
came with somebody.
Ms. Andruch. With someone. But we don't have a record of
his having been issued a visa. So this information was new to
us.
Mr. Burton. Well, let's say he got into the country then
under a false visa. Do we have any way to check that?
Ms. Andruch. We do, sir; and that's what we're looking
through now. We need names.
Mr. Burton. Well, I would like for you to check with the
family involved and find out when he came into the country and
cross-check, because we're also concerned about terrorists.
Ms. Andruch. Of course.
Mr. Burton. If he was able to get into this country on a
phony visa with a diplomatic passport, then, golly----
Ms. Andruch. No, we, too, are very much concerned; and we
will check. We'll check and get the names. Any information that
we have will help us look up those records in our system, and
then we'll get back to you.
Mr. Burton. OK. Well, I hope that there is a recommendation
that goes out, and we're--I'm writing a letter to the President
today, and it is going to be signed by a number of our members
of our committee--all of them, if we can get to them--saying
that we think that the passport should be or the visas should
be restricted to anybody that is involved is keeping an
American citizen in the country where they don't want to be and
if they have been involved in kidnapping or keeping American
children----
Now those children are children of American citizens, so
they have American citizenship as well. And to keep the mother
and the child from even coming to the United States is a
violation of their Constitutional rights. So how can we make
the Constitutional rights of an American citizen subservient to
the Saudi Government and the Saudi rules? How can we do that? I
don't understand that. Those are Constitutional rights.
You know, I guarantee, you know, you probably have heard
the reputation of this committee under my chairmanship. This is
not going to stop. I want this changed; and if I have to have
10 hearings doing this in the remainder of my time as chairman
we're going to do it. I mean, this has to be changed. Not only
in Saudi Arabia but everywhere.
Let me ask you one more question, Mr. Pipes. My time has
expired. And that is that I would like to have a list of all
the violations that you were talking about in detail. Because
those things need to be addressed. Especially in view of the
fact that we had an exorbitant number of the terrorists that
attacked us on September 11th coming from Saudi Arabia we need
to have all that information that we can. Because it was not
known to me as chairman of this committee, and I doubt if it
was known to two of the other members of the committee.
Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crocker, we have 92 instances, I think, of Americans in
Saudi--that is the information the committee has--that are
either being held in some form of restricted access or
otherwise. Do you know of this information, Ms. Andruch?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir. If you don't mind, I'll try to take
that question. The numbers that you have, that is correct. The
numbers will change periodically.
Those numbers include children that we are aware of who
have been abducted or those children who have gone to live in
Saudi Arabia; and then the parent, the mother in all of these
cases, has returned to the United States and had to leave her
children there because she was not able to leave with them.
Mr. Ose. Would you describe this particular situation as a
crisis?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir, I would.
Mr. Ose. Yet, following onto the chairman's comment and
looking at the testimony that Mr. Crocker submitted, there
doesn't seem to be a lot we're doing about it. I mean, your
testimony indicates that--Mr. Crocker, on page 11--on specific
direct actions we have, one, worked with the Saudi parent to
permit voluntary access to their children. Well, of these 92
cases--let me go to 30,000 feet. How many cases other than
these 92 has the State Department or the Embassy been involved
in in terms of conducting a welfare and whereabouts visit?
Ms. Andruch. I don't have numbers specific to Saudi Arabia
on welfare and whereabouts visits.
If I could say--first, let me say that I do realize that
almost anything I say and any answer I provide is not--is going
to be insufficient, and it will be totally unable to address
the tragedy that is facing these women here and others like
them.
Mr. Ose. OK, well, let me just interject then. It's Mr.
Crocker's testimony, so maybe I should direct the question to
him. The testimony is, we've had some limited success in
arranging visits by American citizen parents with their
children in Saudi Arabia, but such visits to date have been
admittedly few. That is at the bottom of page 11 and the top of
page 12.
When you say such visits to date have admittedly been few,
what do you mean?
Ms. Andruch. I'll take that.
Mr. Ose. It's Mr. Crocker's testimony.
Ms. Andruch. It is, sir, but we basically combined this.
But it is something that consular officers generally do.
Mr. Ose. All right. Quantify the phrase ``admittedly been
few.''
Ms. Andruch. Again, and I am--because the visits are made
with the permission of either the father or husband in adult
cases when we try to do these visits, the male sponsor of these
women or children, we aren't always successful; and that is--
it's, unfortunately, why we have been so infrequently able to
see Alia and Aisha.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield real quickly?
You know, you say that you tried but you have been
unsuccessful. But what kind of pressure has been exerted on the
Saudi Government or these families of these people that have
been involved in these kidnappings? What kind of pressure has
been brought to bear to make things successful?
I mean, you take a ball bat and you hit somebody in the
head, they get the message. To just say diplomatically----
I read this letter a while ago. Pardon me for interrupting.
But I read this letter a while ago, and it sounded like a lot
of mishmash. You know, the honorable so and so and all this
diplomatic language; and it didn't really say anything. It said
one thing about this child being kidnapped from the United
States, but it says, we are also investigating the kidnapping
from your country back. How in the hell can there be a
kidnapping from the United States, and then when the person
goes and gets their child and brings it back that's a
kidnapping? I mean, that's gobbledygook put in those diplomatic
letters.
We need to have some teeth. You know, you're not coming
into the United States to do business until you let those kids
go and let those women go. You know, they get the message doing
that.
Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Ose. My pleasure.
Mr. Crocker, at what level has this issue risen? To what
level has this issue risen?
Mr. Crocker. Well it's risen to the--let me say, the
topmost levels of the Saudi Government.
Mr. Ose. How about on our side? Give me--just educate me a
little. We've got Secretary of State Powell, and then we've
got--we've got a bunch of people under him, and then we've got
a bunch of people under them. Where are we on this? You know.
Mr. Crocker. Well, on the Saudi side----
Mr. Ose. No, on the American side.
Mr. Crocker [continuing]. We're at the top. On the American
side, this most recent discussion was with Assistant Secretary
William Burns.
Mr. Ose. William Burns. Now you say he's an Assistant
Secretary. What do you mean? Does that mean like he is third
level down, second level down? I always get confused. I mean,
there's a lot more titles over there than there are my ability
to comprehend so----
Mr. Crocker. We have the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary,
several Under Secretaries and then the Assistant Secretaries.
Mr. Ose. So you're talking fourth level down?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. You've got Secretary Powell, then you've got a
Deputy Secretary, then you've got, you say, Assistant Deputy
Under Secretaries and then you have Assistant Deputy Under
Secretaries. You're losing me here, let me just tell you.
Mr. Crocker. Secretary, Deputy Secretary, then several
Under Secretaries and then Assistant Secretaries.
Mr. Ose. OK.
Mr. Crocker. And----
Mr. Ose. Now, do you have any--and that is William Burns?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. Do you have any idea when William Burns last
talked about this matter with Secretary Powell?
Mr. Crocker. I would have to take that--I assume it would
be--it would have been after his trip to Saudi Arabia, when he
raised it with the Saudis. But to be precise I'd have to go
back and ask the question.
Mr. Ose. Well, my next question--I would like to know the
answer to that question, if I could, Mr. Chairman. I'd also
like to know how frequently this issue is on the agenda when
the senior management over at the State Department gets
together to talk about issues of concern to the interests of
United States. It would seem to me that the children of the
United States are an interest to the United States. Ms. Andruch
just agreed or concurred in using the word ``crisis'' as it
affects this particular situation. I'm just trying to figure
out, you know, does crisis get to the second to the top level
or the top level? I mean, I'm trying to figure out who it is I
need to talk to to make something happen.
Mr. Crocker. It is the No. 1 priority in the mission
program plan, which is a document for each Embassy on the
conduct of relations with the state which they are accredited,
as Ambassador Horan noted. In terms of other interventions,
again, we would have to go back and get you a precise answer.
Mr. Ose. I would appreciate that information.
Mr. Crocker. Yes. So it's two questions.
Mr. Ose. Yes.
Now I want to go back to--I think it was Ms. Davis in the
previous panel. We had a situation arise where the children of
an American citizen, American citizens themselves, Marines,
were ordered to basically physically remove them from an
Embassy of the United States. Now if I'm correct in the
testimony, there was a name attached to the person who perhaps
gave that order, Carla Dunn. Is that correct? Carla Reid. Am I
correct in understanding that Carla Reid was based in or posted
at the American Embassy at the time those children and that
parent were asked to leave the Embassy? Asked, whatever you
want to say. Am I correct in my understanding of that?
Mr. Crocker. That is correct.
Mr. Ose. Is Ms. Reid the person who directed the Marines to
physically remove the American citizens from the American
Embassy?
Mr. Crocker. I could not say whether she made that
determination herself or whether it came as a result of higher
direction.
Mr. Ose. If I understand correctly, there was, in fact, a
cable from the Embassy to the United States at the time of this
situation; and a cable went back to the Embassy with the
instructions to carry out the displacement. Are you aware of
that?
Ms. Andruch. I'm not aware of that, sir. I do know that
there was a telegram reporting the incident a day after. I
don't know that there was an exchange asking, you know, what to
do and then a cable going back.
Mr. Ose. To whom would the telegram have gone from the
Embassy to the United States, the initial telegram?
Ms. Andruch. It came to the State Department, and it would
have been addressed--it was addressed to the Bureau of Consular
Affairs.
Mr. Ose. What does that mean? Give me a name. Would that be
you?
Ms. Andruch. That is me.
Mr. Ose. Are you the person who responded to the telegram?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir, I wasn't. Because that was I think in
1990, so I wasn't here then.
Mr. Ose. Who was the person that responded to the telegram?
Ms. Andruch. I don't know. I'll have to take that question.
If I could just say one thing, I don't know that the cable
needed a response. My recollection was that it was a cable--a
reporting cable. It wasn't one asking for direction. But I will
look.
Mr. Ose. We will find the cable, and we will find the
answer.
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir. I will provide the cable to you.
Mr. Ose. All right.
Mr. Chairman, I have exhausted my questions for the moment.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. Ambassador Horan, I apologize. You
were speaking when I was meeting with the first panelists. I
would like you to summarize your basic point, and then I want
to ask a question after you summarize that.
Mr. Horan. Under Shari'ah law it's very difficult for the
Embassy to act on behalf of the kidnapped children. We can do a
lot for Americans that are in trouble with Saudi commercial law
and even actually sometimes in criminal law. But with the
kidnapped children, the parents, the Saudi father hides behind
Shari'ah law saying that is not Saudi law, this is God's law,
you know. And then if the VIP families are concerned it becomes
even harder. The Saudis say, we, you know, the law is on our
side, and it's our law, and we've got the children, so it's too
bad.
After speaking with Senator Dixon before I went out to
Saudi Arabia, had a first introductory call on Prince Salman,
the introductory call is just, you know, how are you, great to
be here. Then I made--sometime later requested another meeting
with Prince Salman, who is the Governor of Riyadh, a very
powerful man and the full brother of the king. And his office
said, well, if--Ambassador Horan, he'll be glad to talk to him.
But if he wants to talk about the Roush case, you know, the
prince is not going to see him.
So I said, well--I went ahead and saw the prince. Toward
the end of my meeting I said, you know, your royal highness,
there's one topic you did not want me to talk about, but you
know it's very much on your mind and it's very much on our mind
and you're going to hear more about that. Quite frankly, I
found if you're dealing with a foreign government the way that
you get them to know that you really mean something is you bore
them with it. You ask them that question every time you see
them, again and again and again. Finally, they get the point
that, oh, here comes, you know, the American Ambassador or
whomever; and they're going to raise that boring point again.
That's one of the ways you get the message across.
Another way is to, frankly, apply some pressure. Consuls
can apply lots of pressure in different posts. In Saudi Arabia,
it was a little harder. I think Ambassador Mabus' ploy about no
visas was just a stroke of brilliance, and it's being done all
over the world by imaginative and public-spirited consuls. Too
bad that wasn't pursued.
The Saudis--not providing manifests for their passengers,
that's something that--no landing rights, ways of responding to
pressure.
I guess Ms. Roush was saying how--about the status of
women. I once wrote an article saying how extraordinary it was
that Secretary Powell gives us a stirring plea for our women in
Afghanistan; and in the article I wrote that, goodness, you
could have put Saudi Arabia in every single place where it says
Afghanistan and it would read just as well.
The point that was made about Martha McSally, totally, 100
percent, on the button. Because I gave a TV interview once
saying, having Martha McSally, a tri-athlete commissioned
officer, having to wear an abaya is like asking an African
American to sit in the back of the bus or asking an American of
Jewish origin to wear a big yellow star on his uniform.
And we do bend over too far backward. During Desert Shield/
Desert Storm, my son, who commanded a Marine reconnaissance
platoon, told me how shocked he was that his chaplain had to
remove the collar brass. He had a little cross on it. You know,
he thought that was really unusual, and it really is.
Mr. Shays. I don't think of myself as having prejudice, but
I find myself, as I said earlier, wrestling with a country that
doesn't choose to acknowledge that 15 of the 19 terrorists of
September 11th were from their country, Saudi Arabia. And I
wrestle with the fact that, in general, we seem to allow human
rights abuses. We tolerate them and don't speak out about them
if they seem somehow connected to a faith. I know Members of
Congress who are outraged at things that may happen in China
and other places who simply ignore the abuses that take place
in Saudi Arabia.
I am interested to know, as Ambassador, did you and your
employees have free rein of the country? Could you travel
anywhere you wanted like a diplomat in the United States could
travel--from Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Horan. Yes, sir. I traveled extensively in Saudi
Arabia, but I was there as our No. 2 person from 1972 to 1977.
The DCM, the Deputy Chief, tends to stay at home and sort of
mind the store. As an ambassador, though, I really traveled a
lot around the country; and it was one of the--you know, one of
the duties.
Mr. Shays. Did you travel everywhere in the country or only
some places?
Mr. Horan. Well, I went down to the Asir, which is one of
these disaffected areas. It was the last section of Saudi
Arabia to become part of the kingdom, and quite a few of the
terrorists came from there. I went to Yemen on a trip.
Mr. Shays. I'm not asking where you went. I'm asking if you
were free to travel anywhere you wanted without limitation.
Mr. Horan. Oh, I couldn't go to Mecca or Medina. Absolutely
no. No, you just couldn't go there.
Mr. Shays. Is the Embassy within a compound of other
Embassies or is it in--where commerce is and so on?
Mr. Horan. They had set up a new diplomatic corridor that
had been moved into just about the time that I arrived there,
and it is--it looks like--I guess like a luxurious American
suburb, but it's got a big wall around it, and it only had one
access, a small narrow road controlled, of course, by Saudi
security, and you really live in a highly isolated ghetto.
Saudi Arabia is a country where foreigners, even those who
speak Arabic, it's very easy to exclude them from a sense of
association with society. Once you're living in that big
compound, it is very easy just to sort of forget Saudi Arabia
is there.
Mr. Shays. Now, explain to me--first off, I realize that
I'm on a higher platform physically, and I realize that we're
asking you questions, State in particular. But I don't look at
my Federal Government--I heard these stories with shock, but I
felt like I am part of the problem. So I want this understood
when I ask questions of the State Department that in one sense
I am--it's not like I'm passing judgment, but I'm just trying
to understand how we sort all these kinds of challenges out.
I want to understand what restraints--this may seem
obvious, but I want it for the record. What restraints do you
feel diplomats have in a country like Saudi Arabia; and I'm
going to ask you, Ambassador.
Mr. Horan. I traveled around a lot. I speak Arabic. At the
time, I spoke Arabic really quite well. I mean, I'd worked as
an interpreter with President Johnson and with Vice President
Rockefeller at times. And so I really traveled around. I saw as
many people as I could. I'd walk through the marketplaces
talking to people.
Mr. Shays. And that was when?
Mr. Horan. That was 1987 and 1988.
Mr. Shays. That's a while ago.
Mr. Horan. Yes. Before then, I had--in my 5 years in the
1970's I had a lot of contacts, I think, I mean really a lot.
Because I had studied at Arab universities. I was pretty good
in Arabic literature.
Mr. Shays. If you didn't like something that was done in
that country, could you just speak out about it publicly? Could
you call a press conference and say, you know, we have concerns
about this?
Mr. Horan. An Ambassador doesn't get his job done by doing
a press conference in a country but by talking to the people
who count.
Mr. Shays. I think that's a fair point.
Mr. Horan. At one sort of modular sort of gathering of
Ambassadors with the King I asked King Fasil, wouldn't it be a
great idea for Saudi Arabia to send some of their bright young
theology students to study in the United States like at Harvard
Divinity School or at Princeton Theological Seminary? And I got
kind of a roasting from the chief of protocol afterwards
saying, you know, you were asking his majesty to conflate truth
and falsehood. But, you know, I was trying to engage people in
a kind of sincere and intellectual exchange; and, you know,
sometimes it works.
But you can speak up to people and if they think that
you're serious and well-intentioned, professional----
Mr. Shays. Your bottom line point is that any dialog that--
any influence you have as a diplomat is going to be person to
person, just trying to educate people. Maybe at an affair in
the evening or cocktails you might have an opportunity to talk
to someone, you might have a private meeting with someone, and
you would share certain things you think would be helpful. Is
that accurate?
Mr. Horan. Sir, pretty accurate. You know--and in countries
like Saudi Arabia it's very person to person.
Mr. Shays. I'd like to ask our next two witnesses, would
you list to me what you think the vulnerabilities are with the
United States being able to be more candid and more outspoken
with the Saudi Government and, frankly, the Saudi people?
Mr. Pipes. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there are
vulnerabilities. I think our problem is our preemptive cringe,
our obsequiousness, our unwillingness to stand up for our
rights.
I mean, consider the anecdote I told before. We had 400,000
troops in Saudi Arabia in late 1990. The President of the
United States was going to have a Thanksgiving meal with them.
He was told by the Saudis he could not say grace. He accepted
that. I see no reason why he should have. I see no reason in
all the other cases why we should be----
Mr. Shays. OK. Now you're telling me why you think that we
could have and should have been more outspoken. I mean, that is
kind of my style. Maybe I wouldn't make a good diplomat. But--
and I don't mean have a press conference. I mean, just--my
style would be to be a little more candid. But I'm asking you
to think a little deeper than you're thinking. What then are
the perceived challenges to being more outspoken?
By the way, Mr. Ose, do you mind if I keep continuing?
What do you think would be the most perceived reasons why
we might not be outspoken?
Mr. Pipes. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I argued before, I
believe the heart of the problem on the American side is a
sense that if you please the Saudis they will reward you. It is
a syndrome that is not unknown in domestic affairs called
revolving door. The people who oversee the insurance companies
that go work for the insurance companies, we have laws in
effect----
Mr. Shays. So--but just to clarify this comment, please.
The Saudis, they will reward you personally, not necessarily
government.
Mr. Pipes. If you please the Saudi Government, they will
reward you afterwards.
Mr. Shays. I want to know who--afterwards. You, the person?
Mr. Pipes. You, the person.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. Pipes. Personal rewards.
Mr. Shays. OK. So really the question becomes, who do you--
who are you working for?
Mr. Pipes. And who do you consult for? Who do you get non-
profit funding for? It can take many different guises, but in
the ultimate analysis it's all money.
Mr. Shays. OK. In your judgment----
Mr. Pipes. And the striking thing is to contrast the Saudi
case with the other oil-rich countries of the region, say
Kuwait, Qatar, UAE. They do not engage in this kind of policy,
and we have a much more even keel and a much more normal
relationship with them.
Mr. Shays. Are there studies that might show different
government officials who worked in various Embassies and what
they have done afterwards that would say, you know, there's a
clear, unavoidable inference that if you're in Saudi Arabia and
you play their game the way they want to play it that you have
rewards afterwards? Are there studies that are done or is this
based on----
Mr. Pipes. Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman,
but I think it would be a great idea for the Congressional
Research Service to look into it if you would suggest it to
them.
Mr. Shays. I'm not reluctant to suggest that.
Mr. Bandow. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays. Let me just do this, and then we'll come to you.
Yes.
Mr. Bandow. If I could just add very briefly----
Mr. Shays. It doesn't have to be brief.
Mr. Bandow. OK. I think it's easy to merge both a
perception of national interest and personal advantage. There
certainly are concerns that are raised in terms of cooperation
with the Saudi regime, particularly on energy oil matters,
obviously, and on security and concerns about the stability of
the regime which I suspect help cause the U.S. Government at
times to walk far more gingerly and indeed to be utterly
pusillanimous when it shouldn't.
I think we should have as an overall understanding the
Saudis need us certainly as much as we need them. Indeed, I
would argue they need us more. And our policy should recognize
that. We should not act as if we are the supplicant and they
have benefits to give to us but rather any kind of a
cooperative relationship does run both ways. And they do need
us to purchase their oil. They need many things from the United
States.
Mr. Shays. I mean, there is logic for our wanting to have a
good relationship with this government, but I'm struck by the
fact that, you know, one issue is obviously oil and the
disruption of oil. Another is its strategic location. And I'm
just wondering all the ways that become restraints on the next
group that I'll ask. And I realize you have limits to how you
can respond, but there are restraints as to how you may choose
to respond. So oil basis, what other big items are there?
Mr. Bandow. I think a broad sense of stability of the
regime, a fear of a change in the regime that would be
unfavorable to the United States.
Mr. Shays. In other words, almost, in a sense, that a
radical Muslim regime may not even care if market--in other
words, they may not view the financial markets or even the
selling of oil as being something that would be horrific if
there was oil disruption or we, you know, claimed their assets
and so on. That may just fit into their scheme as they choose
to disrupt the world economy and go back a ways.
Mr. Bandow. I think that's in the back of some people's
minds. I think it's very unlikely. But I think that is--colors
the judgment of some officials.
Mr. Shays. Do any of the first of the witnesses care--
before I get Mr. Ose to respond to anything I have added, do
you want to jump in, Ambassador?
Mr. Horan. Just one. I mentioned to Dr. Pipes, when it came
Christmas when I was Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, I said, let's
have a big Christmas party for our American community here. And
they said, oh, you know, this is going to be Shari'ah. And I
said, no, it isn't. The Shari'ah stuff is out there. This is
the American Embassy. We can have a real Christmas celebration.
We had prayers and a 20-foot Christmas tree and punch and
carols, and it was really great. The American Embassy really
liked it.
And I thought this an idea--we respect our customs, you
know, and they'll respect us if they say that we respect our
customs. You have got to behave insofar as--you know, we are
not going into Mecca, but this is the way we do things; and I
think we ought to stand up for ourselves.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Pipes, I'm just going to ask you one
question. If you were President of the United States--when the
President came to visit our troops, was that pre the Gulf war
or after the Gulf war?
Mr. Pipes. November 1990, 2 months before.
Mr. Shays. OK. Can you give a little slack here to suggest
that, if you're President of the United States, you're not
going to give anybody any excuse in the government to basically
prevent you from doing what you think you need to do as
Commander in Chief? Is there a little bit of play?
Mr. Pipes. Well, Mr. Chairman, these are judgment calls.
But I gave as an example of something which is much more
widespread. For example, a month later, in December 1990, the
troops in Saudi Arabia--hundreds of thousands, half a million--
were not permitted to have any public display of Christmas
celebration.
Mr. Shays. You mean, public display within their own ranks?
Mr. Pipes. Within their own ranks.
Mr. Shays. It wasn't like they were going to go to some
city in Saudi Arabia----
Mr. Pipes. Absolutely. They had what were called C word
morale services--in other words, Christmas morale services.
That was the term. These were in unmarked tents, unmarked mess
halls and within that people could do things.
Mr. Shays. I might, if I were a soldier, be a little
resentful of thinking I might be giving up my life for,
obviously, our own national interest, the stability and concern
that we didn't want Saddam Hussein to control 20 percent of the
world's oil, potentially threatening another 40 percent.
Mr. Pipes. Absolutely not.
Mr. Shays. But, having said that, that would have taken--I
would have sucked it in if I were one of the servicemen
thinking I might end up dying in this land.
Mr. Pipes. If I could read you one more paragraph, this is
the testimony of a former Foreign Service Officer in Jidda. He
was given kind of informal duty of being in charge of what we
call the Catholic catacomb. And he explained afterwards when
Catholic Americans--this is official Americans, this is
Americans on the Embassy staff, sought permission to worship on
the Embassy grounds I was to receive their telephone inquiries
and deflect them by pretending not to know about the so-called
Tuesday lectures.
By the way, the Sunday services took place in Jidda on
Tuesday because the only priest--subterranean priest who could
get there got there on Tuesday. So they're called Tuesday
lectures. Only if a person kept calling back and insisted that
such a group existed was I to meet with them and get a sense of
his trustworthiness. This is on American territory, and this is
part of the same phenomenon of throwing Mrs. Stowers out of the
Embassy.
Mr. Shays. I'll just throw out a rhetorical question; and,
Mr. Ose, you've got the floor as long as you want. I would just
say that if we said to the Saudis that none of their citizens
could practice their faith in public or in private or even in
the Embassy, I would think they would be beyond outraged. And
it is--I would love to at some time have a conversation with a
Saudi diplomat in this country to have him explain to me the
difference.
Mr. Ose, thank you for your patience.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Horan, we've heard some conversation--testimony
today--excuse me--that we are guests of the Saudi, guests of
the government, guests of--you know, guests. From your
experience, now you were an ambassador--I mean, we're talking
the top guy--right in Saudi Arabia. No. 1, the big cheese, you
know, all that sort of thing, right?
Mr. Horan. I didn't feel like it. Go ahead, yes.
Mr. Ose. You had moved to that position from a different
position in another country?
Mr. Horan. I had been our Ambassador in Sudan before I went
to Saudi Arabia, sir.
Mr. Ose. OK. So, your two postings as Ambassador were in
the Sudan and Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Horan. Also in Cameroon.
Mr. Ose. And Cameroon.
Mr. Horan. Yes.
Mr. Ose. Now, in any of those three countries, was the
treatment of the property on which the Embassy sat different,
one from the other?
Mr. Horan. The Embassy is American soil.
Mr. Ose. Whether it's in Cameroon or Sudan or Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Horan. Yes, it's American soil, just like the Congress
is on American soil.
Mr. Ose. Is that the policy of the State Department that
the Embassy in Cameroon is American soil?
Mr. Horan. I believe so.
Mr. Ose. Is it the policy of the State Department that the
Embassy in the Sudan is American soil?
Mr. Horan. If it's different I'd stand to be corrected by
my colleagues, but I spent 39 years in the business, and the
Embassy was--you know, this is the USA.
Mr. Ose. So, it's the policy of the State Department that
the Embassy in Saudi Arabia sits on American soil, also?
Mr. Horan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. So we're not guests?
Mr. Horan. Yes.
Mr. Ose. In any true sense or Webster's dictionary sense?
Mr. Horan. Well, you use the word ``guests'' it is American
soil, but it's American soil and it is an enclave of America in
Saudi Arabia; and, you know, our job is not to make friends
necessarily, but our job is to get business done. And if you
can do it politely and even ingratiatingly, OK. But, you know,
it's American soil; and in that sense we are guests because we
look to them for a lot of services and a lot of cooperation.
Mr. Ose. OK. Mr. Crocker, Ms. Andruch, if you'd offer any
comment, I'd be curious. Is it the policy of the State
Department of the United States that the Embassy grounds in
Saudi Arabia are American soil, or is it the policy that they
are not American soil?
Mr. Crocker. Embassy grounds throughout the world are
American soil. It's not just the policy of the State
Department. That's international law.
Mr. Ose. OK. Is it the policy of the United--let me--I'm
trying to figure out what was it that--what set of
circumstances was it that created a situation where U.S.
Marines were asked to remove U.S. citizens from U.S. soil? Is
that the--is it the policy of the State Department that U.S.
citizens may not take refuge in the Embassy in Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Crocker. Let me speak to the general before we go to
the specific. A U.S. Embassy anywhere, having the welfare of
its citizens as the top priority, will do whatever it can to
protect them. And if an American citizen under duress arrives
at an American Embassy, the Ambassador--and I've been an
ambassador three times--is going to make a determination as to
whether having this person there is important for that person's
well-being.
Mr. Ose. So, someone made a determination that Ms. Stowers
and her children were not under duress? Is that what you're
telling me?
Mr. Crocker. For the specifics of this case, my colleague
may be able to comment, or we'll need to get back to you.
Mr. Ose. Ms. Andruch.
Ms. Andruch. I think it is a little bit both, sir. I'll
make a comment, and then we will--this information, I hope,
will become more clear when we get that telegram that I
promised to deliver to you.
In hindsight, which is, of course, always 20/20, I wish we
had done things differently. I understand, though, that the
policy would be, as Ambassador Crocker said--I mean, a decision
would have been made at the time based on circumstances then. I
can't second-guess those. I, too--I wish I could go back in
time and do things differently. All we can do at this point is
look at what happened.
I can, though, say that I think, looking at the long term--
and, again, I don't know--I'm not privy to the conversations
that took place. But I'm quite sure that then, as now, consular
officers and Embassy officers are looking for a solution to the
problem. And I think they may have thought--and I'm just
guessing--that having a family stay overnight was not going to
solve the problem, even if they could have found accommodations
for the family. Because the bottom line remained that, without
the permission of the ex-husband, they would not be able to
leave the country.
So, you know, is staying a week--a day or a week going to
help? Are other Americans going to come and want to stay for a
day or a week? And even if we could accommodate them, how are
we helping? And I think that may have been what they were
thinking in making the decision that they made at that time.
Mr. Ose. I would like to know who made the determination
that Ms. Stowers and her children should not be allowed to stay
in the Embassy. I want to know which American official made the
decision that these American citizens should not be allowed to
stay on American soil. I don't think there's any--I mean, this
was a woman and two young children who basically confronted
three U.S. Marines--I mean, I would not do that unless I was
under significant duress. And I don't--I have to say I'm at
somewhat of a loss.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I would like to know. I
would like to know which of our professional people ascertained
that removing these American citizens from American soil was in
their interest. So I'm looking forward to seeing these cables.
I would like to know who had the authority and the jurisdiction
at the time of the incident on the date which it occurred to
make this decision and who made it.
And I want to followup on a couple of things. Is Carla Reid
still with the State Department?
Ms. Andruch. It's my understanding that she has retired. I
don't know that for certain.
Mr. Ose. How about Frederick Moleski?
Ms. Andruch. He is still in the Foreign Service, but I
would have to find out where he is posted.
Mr. Ose. I would like to find out whether they are
currently employed at the Department of State.
Now I do want to pay a compliment to the State Department.
The State Department has posted on its Web site an advisory to
Americans considering marriage to Saudis. What I don't
understand is why that advisory has been taken off the Web
site.
Ms. Andruch. I was not aware that it was taken off the Web
site. There's one on Islamic law that is on our Web site. It's
at travel.state.gov.
Mr. Ose. Travel.state.gov. So this one that refers
specifically to Saudi Arabia has or has it not been removed?
Ms. Andruch. I don't know if it's on there right now.
Mr. Ose. Dr. Pipes.
Mr. Pipes. If my recollection is correct, it was taken down
at the behest of an Islamic group in the United States.
Mr. Ose. It was taken down at the behest of an Islamic
group in United States. Which Islamic group?
Mr. Pipes. I believe it was the Council on American-Islamic
Relations.
Mr. Ose. With whom did they communicate their interest?
Mr. Pipes. They protested this document to the State
Department, which proceeded to take it down.
Mr. Ose. Well, did they protest on the basis of inaccurate
information?
Mr. Pipes. They said it was discriminatory. This is all
from memory. It's a couple of years ago. I believe they said it
was discriminatory.
Mr. Ose. Is there information in this material that's
inaccurate?
Mr. Pipes. I don't think that was the point. I think it was
that posting this about marriage to Saudis as opposed to, say,
marriage to Canadians was discriminatory.
Mr. Ose. Have we had any protest about the postings on the
Shari'ah?
Mr. Pipes. I'm not sure.
Ms. Andruch. We have--in another part of our Web site we
have fliers on international parental child abduction by
country, and there is something there about Saudi Arabia. I
have----
Mr. Ose. I presume it talks at that point a lot about the
Hague Convention. The problem is that Saudi is not a----
Ms. Andruch. No, sir. It's specific to Saudi Arabia, and I
have copies of those if you want.
Mr. Ose. OK. Again, I want to go back to this. This was the
information posted on the Web site. It does refer--I'll just
read it. Saudi Arabia, the subtitle is Marriage to Saudis. And,
it's rather lengthy. It's seven pages, single-spaced
information. I am trying to figure out if we're trying to
caution Americans to be very careful for all the obvious
reasons here. I would just think that we'd leave it up--did the
Council of Islamic Relations, is that an American group or is
that a group of foreign citizens who are trying to advance
American-Islamic relations?
Mr. Pipes. Both, sir. It was founded in--its founding
meeting was in Philadelphia in 1993. It was tapped by the FBI.
It's become apparent that the founding of this group was done
by operatives of Hamas, the militant Islamic Palestinian group.
But the Council of American-Islamic Relations portrays itself
as an American group interested in American interests. However,
it does have a very close connection to foreign terrorist
entities, I might add, since the Hamas is declared a terrorist
entity by the U.S. Government.
Mr. Ose. So, Americans considering marriage to a Saudi
would go where to get some indication of the likely
circumstances that they'd be living under?
Ms. Andruch. I do have copies, as I said. One is the
International Parental Child Abduction Islamic Family Law. That
is on our Web site. As is another one entitled, Saudi Arabia
International Parental Child Abduction, that gives that
information.
Mr. Ose. But, you have taken down the information on the
State Department Web site relating directly to marriage to
Saudi?
Ms. Andruch. I'll have to take that--I was--that must have
been before my time. But I think that same information was
incorporated in this.
Mr. Ose. On March 3, 2000, I submitted some questions to
Chairman Rogers, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, in
the process of doing appropriations hearings. I just want to
ask you--question No. 7 hadn't changed. Why should the Congress
of the United States provide any funding for a State Department
desk that isn't to intervene on behalf of American children
taken by a noncustodial parent to a foreign country? I don't
think that question has changed.
I have to tell you, I don't know what your funding is now
Mr. Crocker, Ms. Andruch, but you're not making--I mean, I'm
appalled. I'm a Member of Congress asked to vote on the
interests of the United States which I consider to be
paramount, and I have to tell you right now I'm about to go
visit with Mr. Rogers again. Something's got to change here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman.
I would like to ask, first, from either of our State
Department witnesses, how is our conduct with Saudi Arabia
different than our conduct in any other country? What makes it
different?
Mr. Crocker. Sir, are you referring to the whole conduct of
relations?
Mr. Shays. A little louder, please. Yes. No, I just want to
know how do we treat and what are the restraints on us dealing
with Saudis that might be different in another country.
Mr. Crocker. Effectively, and in broad terms, it would be
about the same. We have a broad range of interests with the
Saudis that may have us more involved in more different areas
than with, say, other smaller countries. But----
Mr. Shays. Is it a fact, for instance, that Jewish--
American Jews might not have the opportunity to serve as
diplomats in Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Crocker. No, that is not true, sir. I know of my
personal knowledge a Jewish officer who recently returned from
a tour of duty in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Shays. Is it your testimony--I know we didn't swear
people, but--we did? Is it your testimony, under oath, that we
have no restraint on the number or people that would serve in
Saudi Arabia, that there is no restraint--that if they're Jews
they can serve there and we don't consider that a factor at all
in the assignment to Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Crocker. Well, what I know of my own personal knowledge
is that a fairly senior officer has recently returned from a
posting there.
Mr. Shays. OK. But that's not really all that I asked you.
That part is--you've told me. I want to know if you have heard
of or are aware of any decision on the part of the U.S.
Government not to send an American citizen who happens to be a
Jew to Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Crocker. No, sir. I am not aware of any position or
decision on the part of the State Department or the U.S.
Government not to send people of the Jewish faith to Saudi
Arabia.
Mr. Shays. Ambassador Horan, are you aware of that?
Mr. Horan. That is my sense also, Mr. Chairman. I know of a
number of Foreign Service Officers who are Jewish who have
served in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Shays. OK. So we're just going to put it to bed. That's
not an issue. Is that the case, Mr. Crocker?
Mr. Crocker. To the best of my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. Ms. Andruch.I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
Ms. Andruch. I'm sorry. I agree. I don't think there is a
policy against that.
Mr. Shays. I want to pursue, just briefly, a question that
Doug Ose asked I think quite well; and that is I think what
made me cringe the most, besides my own failure to get into
this issue sooner, is to understand how if an American citizen
comes to American territory, our Embassy, that they could be
kicked out if they believe that their life is threatened. And
threatened can be, in fact, being held hostage. I just have to
understand that a little better. And is this something that
would happen at any Embassy around the world? Or is this more
unique to Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Crocker. I think the question can arise anywhere in the
world. At two of the Embassies----
Mr. Shays. So when you heard this, you weren't surprised.
Because this is common practice, Marines forcing Americans to
leave an Embassy, whether they claim that they, you know, may
be punished and they may be hurt.
Mr. Crocker. I misunderstood your question, sir. I thought
you were asking, do situations arise around the world in which
Americans seek the protection of the Embassy?
Mr. Shays. And are thrown out. They were thrown out,
correct?
Mr. Crocker. Sir, I think that, given the significance of
this event, the distance in time and some of the complexities,
we are going to have to give you a written response on this
case.
Mr. Shays. You're not willing to say on public record that
they were thrown out of the Embassy at this time.
Mr. Crocker. At this time, no, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. And----
Mr. Ose. Would the gentleman yield for a minute. Would the
Embassy or the Marine detachment there ordinarily write up a
report on any such incident?
Mr. Crocker. In my experience, the Marines would, whatever
the rest of the Embassy--the Marines would do an incident
report.
Mr. Ose. Who would have possession of that?
Mr. Crocker. Probably would wind up with our Bureau of
Diplomatic Security in Washington.
Mr. Ose. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Crocker, I'd like you to read exhibit 4,
response to the request of the case of Stowers, Radwan, the
Shalhoub Davis case. It's exhibit 4. Would you look at exhibit
4? And I would ask Dr. Pipes or Mr. Bandow just to respond. Are
you aware and how would you characterize what happened in the
Embassy? It's on the second page.
Finally, at 7 p.m., after consultations between CG and the
Embassy front officer, Marine security guards were asked to
remove Ms. Stowers and her children from the premise.
Now, remove means, in my judgment, to be forced to leave,
correct? We don't have to speak about a dispute about that. So
you're covered. Somebody else has already acknowledged that. So
are you comfortable acknowledging now, Mr. Crocker, they were
kicked out? It's the State Department document.
[Exhibit 4 follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Andruch. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Is this attached from the letter from you all?
Did you send this to us, Ms. Andruch?
Ms. Andruch. I think this was included in the documents
that the State Department submitted. We haven't personally seen
all of these documents, but I think----
Mr. Shays. Wasn't it a letter from you that submitted this?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir. No, sir. But I take your point; and I
think, yes, if Marines escorted an American out of the Embassy,
they were asked to leave.
Mr. Shays. So is this a common practice? Does this happen
often or, given that we're acknowledging they were forced--they
were removed from the premise, how should I, as a Member of
Congress, view this?
Ms. Andruch. I would have to say it happens extremely
rarely with American citizens. I, too, was shocked by the
report.
Mr. Shays. Do we have any other knowledge of any other
American citizen seeking refuge in an Embassy and our Embassies
in Saudi Arabia being forced to be removed?
Ms. Andruch. I don't know of any, no, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. Let me just ask this line of questions to
the Deputy Assistant Secretary.
This is to you, Secretary Crocker. I'm going to be asking
you some questions about the State Department position, and I'm
going to just follow script and make sure we have it pretty
much according to how we've asked it. I'm going to ask you
first, in the 16 years since the kidnapping, has the Roush case
ever been raised with the Saudis by the Secretary of State,
President or Vice President?
Mr. Crocker. I'll have to take the question, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. Did you realize that you were here to be
able to testify on this issue, or were you just here--did you
know Ms. Roush would be here?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, I did, sir.
Mr. Shays. Did you happen to review papers to familiarize
yourself with this case?
Mr. Crocker. I did review papers, but a question like this
which covers a 16-year period, I just would not be able to
answer.
Mr. Shays. OK. So you're not going to be able to answer
whether or not the Secretary of State, President or Vice
President--admittedly, there have been many.
How about recently? Has Secretary Powell or the President
or Vice President raised this as a concern?
Ms. Andruch. I don't believe that it's been raised at that
level, no, sir.
Mr. Shays. The State Department's persuasion in working
with the Saudis--within the Saudi law for the past 16 years,
you would acknowledge it hasn't worked, correct?
Mr. Crocker. Very clearly, sir, it has not worked.
Mr. Shays. Will the U.S. Government raise the Roush case,
and others like it, as a state-to-state issue between the
United States and Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, sir, we will. We have and we will
continue to do so.
Mr. Shays. If the Saudi Government does not respond
favorably, will we place pressure on the Saudi Government to
force a resolution?
Mr. Crocker. We will do everything we can that would
advance the issue, the issue being access to and return of
children.
Mr. Shays. Can you list out some of the ways that the U.S.
Government could place pressure on the Saudi Government to
force a resolution of this case?
Mr. Crocker. I think the most effective way is to be clear,
at senior levels of the Saudi Government, the depth of concern
that is felt by the United States over this issue. Clearly,
they are going to be aware of that from today's hearing.
Mr. Shays. Is it possible that we could use selected visas
for official Saudi travel in the United States, deny or delay
them? Is that a possibility?
Let me say it again. Could selected visas for official
Saudi travel to the United States be denied or delayed? Is that
an option?
Mr. Crocker. For visa denial, there has to be a specific
ground, under law.
Mr. Shays. In these cases, we are dealing with Saudi law
which give Saudi men the power to hold children in the country
against their will, correct?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir, effectively yes.
Mr. Shays. As a result of these laws, dozens of Americans
are being held against their will in Saudi Arabia. Shouldn't
the U.S. Government hold the Saudi Government responsible for
its laws?
Mr. Crocker. The Saudi Government, like any government, is
responsible for it laws. They have, as I noted earlier, a very
different legal system.
Mr. Shays. What was our position with South Africa and
apartheid?
Mr. Crocker. We were strong opponents of apartheid.
Mr. Shays. And what steps did we take to deal with that
issue?
Mr. Crocker. I'm not----
Mr. Shays. Didn't we restrict how the government officials
could travel because of those laws?
Ms. Andruch. We did, sir, in that case, but it was hinged
to, I believe, terrorism. So, I mean, it was hinged--there was
a specific--there was a specific part of the law that allowed
us to deny visas in those cases.
If we had something similar for officials of the Saudi
Government that could, in fact----
Mr. Shays. Do you think that the witness that we heard on
tape has been terrorized?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. Yeah, so do I.
I realize you all are in a position where you're trying to
make the government policy work the best you can. I realize
that you all have superiors, and you're here to testify and
give us honest answers. I think you've tried very hard to give
us honest answers, but I think that we all know we're kind of
playing out something where we all can't quite look at
ourselves in the mirror and feel very proud.
And I'll just say we read a recent article about a young
woman in Pakistan who was placed under arrest because she was
pregnant by her brother-in-law, who raped her, and when she
complained, she was held in prison, her child taken from her
because of infidelity. And I find myself just unable to accept
that; and we're going to have some real wrestling to do with
some of these kinds of issues.
I see my colleague, Mr. Ose, is back. I need to leave. I
don't know if he would like to take the Chair. And I would like
to know, before I leave, is there any comment that any of you
wish we had asked that we didn't ask, anything that you want to
put on the record that you feel we need to put on the record?
Yes, Dr. Pipes.
Mr. Pipes. I've had a chance to look up Mr. Ose's question
about the Web page. I've found the particulars. I had,
actually, the wrong organization.
Mr. Shays. What I'm going to do is I'm going to let Mr. Ose
sit down, and I'm going to stay while you give your answer.
Mr. Ose [presiding]. Dr. Pipes, continue please.
Mr. Pipes. It was the American Muslim Council which issued
a press release on March 10, 2000, titled ``AMC Expresses
Satisfaction Over Change in U.S. Advisory on Marriage with
Muslims.''
``The American Muslim Council has expressed satisfaction
over the positive changes brought about in the U.S. Department
of State's Islamic family law brochure,'' and it goes on to
give the particulars. It says that the State Department has
removed the hurtful statements from its Web page that were
derogatory and biased against Muslims.
Mr. Ose. Ambassador Crocker or Ms. Andruch, forgive me. Ms.
Andruch, are you Ambassadorial rank?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir, I'm not.
Mr. Ose. So I'm proper to say Ms. Andruch?
Ms. Andruch. Yes.
Mr. Ose. And Ambassador Crocker. Are we, the United States,
issuing visas to--excuse me. Are we issuing visas to Saudi
citizens who are not diplomats today?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. How many?
Ms. Andruch. I'd have to get those numbers for you.
Mr. Ose. Is it hundreds or tens or thousands or----
Ms. Andruch. Just visas in general to Saudi nationals,
hundreds.
Mr. Ose. Are we issuing--when a Saudi diplomat comes to the
United States, we issue that person a diplomatic visa. Is that
correct?
Ms. Andruch. That's correct.
Mr. Ose. How do we differentiate between those who are
issued diplomatic visas and those who just get a regular visa?
Ms. Andruch. We don't differentiate as far as the process.
There is a process to check names and a system, a data base, in
the United States, and a visa issued to that person for their
intent--for the intent of their travel if there is no
derogatory information in the system about them.
Mr. Ose. How many diplomatic visas have been issued to
persons from Saudi Arabia?
Ms. Andruch. I'd have to take that question, but I would
say that it's more than the tens.
Mr. Ose. Is it inordinately high? I mean, is it as many as
a country like Germany or France or China? I mean, they have a
large--much larger----
Ms. Andruch. Yeah. I don't know, sir. I think, though, that
because we do tend to issue diplomatic passports fairly
regularly, I think that there are probably--it would be--the
country--they would certainly compare with a country like
Germany.
Mr. Ose. Does the State Department track--when a diplomatic
visa is issued, does the State Department track whether or not
the person actually engages in diplomatic work?
Ms. Andruch. If a diplomatic visa is issued for someone to
work in the Embassy or consulate, yes. Very often a diplomatic
visa may be for--to attend a meeting or something like that,
and I'm not--I'm not sure that they actually check the
attendance of the meeting. But very often there is State
Department involvement in that particular meeting, so they
would be aware of it.
Mr. Ose. Who makes the decisions on whether or not to issue
diplomatic visas for that purpose?
Ms. Andruch. That would be made at the Embassy by the
officers there, again with coming back and checking the records
in Washington, seeking advice, if necessary, depending again on
the stated purpose of the travel.
Mr. Ose. So the Gheshayan family could go to the Embassy
and seek a diplomatic visa, and it would be a judgment call at
the Embassy?
Ms. Andruch. In that particular case, because we know of
them, if they came with a diplomatic passport and made
applications for a visa, they would not be given a visa,
because we now have a statute that would allow us to deny the
visa based on the abduction of the child, or their--in the case
of the more extended family, assistance in the abduction or
retention of the child.
Mr. Ose. You're going to get back to us in terms of the
number of diplomatic visas issued pursuant to diplomatic
passports?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. For Saudi citizens in the United States?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. OK. We only have a few more questions.
I am a little bit curious. Ambassador Horan, how did you
handle the issuance of diplomatic visas when you were the
Ambassador?
Mr. Horan. I've tried to remember. For a long time, the
Saudis all got diplomatic visas. This goes back to the 1950's
and 1960's, because they seemed to be, most of them, already
connected to sort of royal-type families. And then the feeling
was, they were so unsophisticated, coming to the States, they
wanted to have the--what they thought was the additional
protection of a diplomatic visa.
In point of fact, the diplomatic visa shouldn't do anything
for you at all. It might get you a little bit more courtesy,
but it doesn't entitle you to any kind of diplomatic
privileges.
It was sometime--I'm trying to remember. It was toward the
end of my tour or soon thereafter that the decision was made
that this practice of giving diplomatic visas--and to them, it
is kind of a prestige thing; oh, I've got a diplomatic visa.
Saudi Arabia was now kind of a grown-up country, thousands of
students in the States; let's treat them like regular visa
applicants.
But I don't know when happened.
Mr. Ose. The students get a regular visa, then?
Mr. Horan. Students should be getting a regular student
visa, yes. This is my understanding.
Mr. Ose. Is that still the case with Saudi students
visiting the United States, they get a regular visa?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. All right. Is the State Department willing to
answer some written questions that we would then include in the
hearing record?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. We will be submitting those.
I'm going to ask unanimous consent that the set of exhibits
prepared for this hearing be included in the record, and
without objection, that's ordered.
The record will remain open pending the issuance of the
questions to the witnesses and the answers having been
received.
We do appreciate the witnesses taking time to come down
here. This is a very difficult question that we're struggling
with.
Dr. Pipes, you know, if I give you an opportunity to speak,
I've got to give them all, so Ambassador Horan, here's your
chance to offer one last comment.
Mr. Horan. Not entirely germane, sir, but the State
Department people do step up in order to help their fellow
Americans. Our Deputy Chief of Mission in Guinea, Conakry,
where I was last as a private citizen, there were two Americans
that were really being pressured by the Guinean police. They
were really facing some great hardships and even dangers. He
and his wife took them into their house and kept them there for
about 6 weeks, fed them until the Consul, working with the
Guinean foreign ministry, managed to get them out, safe and
sound.
So you do----
Mr. Ose. Is that contrary to Guinean law?
Mr. Horan. Sorry, sir?
Mr. Ose. Was that contrary to the Guinean law? I can't
imagine that being----
Mr. Horan. The Guineans weren't very happy that the person
was--these people who were being unjustly accused by Guinean
law were sitting within the DCM's, the Deputy Chief of Mission
residence.
But, you know, they understood it, and they knew that at
least they were trying to squeeze these Americans improperly;
and that the DCM and his wife kept them for going on 2 months.
And I thought that was, you know, doing the right thing.
Mr. Ose. Dr. Pipes.
Mr. Pipes. Sir, at first, two points. First, a small one
about the visas.
So far as I know, at this time there still is a Web page on
the Riyadh Embassy, information about U.S. visa express. This
permits Saudis and non-Saudi residents--residents, Saudi
citizens--residents of Saudi Arabia who are not Saudi citizens,
in other words, third party--third country. I'm not too good at
this language. In other words, they can all apply for an
expedited visa.
It's my understanding in the aftermath of September 11th
this was shut down. I believe it is still up, and I would hope
that you would look at it. This means that Saudis and others
coming from Saudi Arabia can go through the system expedited
without even showing up, having travel agents do the work.
Ms. Andruch. No. That has been shut down.
Mr. Pipes. It's still there.
Ms. Andruch. OK. We will look into that, but that is shut
down, because now there's a waiting period, as well, for male
applicants.
Mr. Pipes. Do make sure that it's clear.
Mr. Ose. Your second point?
Mr. Pipes. And the second point would be a more general
one.
I think we have a culture here, a culture of obsequiousness
that's very distinct to Saudi Arabia and, I think, requires
your urgent attention to think through mechanisms to prevent
the Saudi Government, in effect, from preemptively bribing our
officials by keeping a lure out there for them, just as was
done, say, with the insurance companies.
Mr. Ose. Thank you.
Mr. Bandow.
Mr. Bandow. Mr. Chairman, I think the Americans murdered
last September and the Americans currently held in Saudi Arabia
against their will provide us at least 3,000 reasons for the
U.S. Government to take a much tougher policy toward Riyadh.
It's time to stop treating Saudi Arabia like an indispensable
ally and more like a regular country, in this case, a
totalitarian state which routinely has subsidized terrorist
theologies and violated basic human rights.
It's the U.S. Government's responsibility to its own
citizens to take a much tougher stance toward this government.
Thank you.
Mr. Ose. Ms. Andruch.
Ms. Andruch. I'd just like to again say that I think, you
know--unfortunately, you know, employees of the State
Department, who are public servants in the best cases and,
unfortunately, often seen as difficult bureaucrats in the worst
cases, we don't have a heartectomy when we come to our jobs,
and we really do care about the work we do and the protection
and welfare of American citizens being the No. 1 priority.
So to the extent that we can all work together to allow us
to do a better job, working within our laws and the laws of the
host country, we look forward to working with you. Thank you.
Mr. Ose. Ambassador Crocker.
Mr. Crocker. Nothing further, sir.
Mr. Ose. I thank our witnesses for appearing today. We're
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:21 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns, the
complete set of exhibits, and additional information submitted
for the hearing record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
AMERICANS KIDNAPPED TO SAUDI ARABIA: IS THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT
RESPONSIBLE?
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:55 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Gilman, Shays, Ose,
Weldon, Duncan, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich, Watson, and
Sanders.
Also present: Representatives Kerns and Berry.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; James C.
Wilson, chief counsel; David A. Kass, deputy chief counsel; S.
Elizabeth Clay and Caroline Katzin, professional staff members;
Jason Foster and Randall Kaplan, counsels; Blain Rethmeier,
communications director; Allyson Blandford, assistant to chief
counsel; Robert A. Briggs, chief clerk; Robin Butler, office
manager; Joshua E. Gillespie, deputy chief clerk; Nicholis
Mutton, deputy communications director; Corinne Zaccagnini,
systems administrator; Sarah Despres, minority counsel; Ellen
Rayner, minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa and Earley Green,
minority assistant clerks.
Mr. Burton. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
Committee on Government Reform will come to order. There will
be more Members showing up here in just a few minutes I hope.
Here comes one of our fine Members right now.
Before we start this morning, I want to say a few words
about a good friend of ours and our colleague, Patsy Mink. She
was not only a valuable member of this committee, she was a
very nice lady and she was well informed. She studied the
issues and when she talked, people listened. She had a terrible
problem. I think she developed chicken pox, which is unusual
for older folks like us, and it turned into I guess pneumonia
and other complications, and she passed away over the weekend.
She was very well liked by Members on both sides of the aisle,
and I think everybody on the committee held her in very high
regard, and on behalf of the committee, I want to extend
condolences to Ms. Mink and her family. This is a very
difficult time for all of them, and we will be thinking of them
and praying for them and Patsy as well.
Let me get some more formal things out of the way.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witnesses'
opening statements be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all written questions
submitted to witnesses and answers provided by witnesses after
the conclusion of this hearing be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that a set of exhibits relating to
this hearing which have been shared with the minority staff
prior to the hearing be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits, and
extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in the
record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that questioning for Panel III
of this hearing proceed under clause 2(j)2 of House rule XI and
committee rule 14 in which the chairman and ranking minority
member allocate time to committee counsel as they deem
appropriate for extended questioning, not to exceed 60 minutes,
to be divided equally between the majority and minority.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Kerns and
Congressman Berry, who are not members of this committee, be
permitted to participate in this hearing. I believe Congressman
Kerns will be back, but he has another hearing, so he may or
may not be here. He has some constituents who I think he holds
in high regard and who he helped when we were in Riyadh who are
here.
Today we are meeting once again to talk about Saudi Arabia
and child abduction cases. The last time we held a hearing on
this issue it was June. A lot has happened since then. I wish I
could report that a lot of good things have happened, but
unfortunately I can't.
When I first got involved in this issue and the committee
did, all we wanted to do was to try to help American mothers be
reunited with their kidnapped children. I was really hoping
that the Saudis would work with us to try to fix these
problems. Unfortunately, that did not happen, and the more time
we spent looking at this issue, the worst things occurred.
On the positive side, President Bush and Secretary of State
Colin Powell have started to step up to the plate. One of my
biggest concerns has been that over the years the State
Department hasn't done enough to help these families.
Hopefully, that is going to change.
President Bush met with Prince Bandar and asked him to help
resolve these cases. Unfortunately, Prince Bandar didn't pay
much attention. I met with Secretary Powell, and he promised to
raise the profile of this issue with the Saudis. He called me
when one Saudi young lady was freed from Saudi Arabia--she was
in Kuala Lumpur, and I think we are going to hear from them
today--they were able to get her out. That was covered by 60
Minutes last weekend and we will be talking about that in a few
minutes. We are very pleased that our State Department and
Colin Powell did the right thing in that particular case.
When we traveled to Saudi Arabia, Ambassador Jordan pledged
to us that no American who needs help will ever again be turned
away from the U.S. Embassy. That hasn't been the case in the
past. We have had Americans go to the U.S. Embassy and been
turned out on the street, the mother to be arrested and the
children to be put through hell once again.
These are all good signs. I hope that by working together
we can continue to keep the pressure on. We owe it to these
families to keep this issue on the front burner and to not let
it drift off into obscurity.
On the negative side, the Saudis have really dug in their
feet. Today I understand they are meeting with some of our
Senators to try to convince them they are doing the right thing
and want to help, when in fact it is just the opposite.
The Saudis are not budging an inch. I led a delegation of
Congressmen to Saudi Arabia in August, and I was hoping the
Saudis would deal with us in good faith and help us to solve
some of these cases. Instead, we got disinformation and PR
stunts.
I will never forget sitting in a Starbucks restaurant in
Riyadh with Amjad Radwan. She is an American citizen. She has
been trying to get out of Saudi Arabia her whole life. She was
one of the two children led to the front gate by our embassy
officials and the marines, back when she was 12 years old, and
her father ended up having her married off to somebody when she
was 12. She rebelled against that and left, ran away, and now
she has been married off again now that she is 19.
President Bush specifically talked to Prince Bandar about
Amjad's case and my understanding was that Prince Bandar told
the President he would help get it resolved. But in the weeks
before we arrived, as I said, she was married off to a 42-year-
old man, who has already married--she was taken from her home
in the middle of the night, made to undergo painful surgery to
reduce her weight. And it is true they gave her an exit visa
and passport, but it is also true they put unbelievable
pressure on her to stay.
When I talked to her, there were tears in her eyes. She was
wearing her abayah. That means she was completely covered from
head to toe, except for her eyes. All I could see was her eyes.
She was crying, her hands were trembling, and she said over and
over again, ``I want to go to America, I want to be free,'' but
then she would look at her new husband and say, ``but not
now.''
And what about Pat Roush's two daughters, which we just
referred to a moment ago? We told the Saudis that our
delegation was going to make an official request when we got to
Saudi Arabia, let the girls come to America to meet with their
mother. The Saudi Government couldn't even wait for the
official request to be made. Instead, on the day we arrived,
they sent those two young women to London. They were surrounded
by Saudi men and high-priced handlers, and it is impossible to
tell if they were speaking their own minds. They were very
possibly under a great deal of pressure.
The reason I say that is because we had a young woman
testify in June named Dria Davis. She was kidnapped by her
father and kept in Saudi Arabia. At one point, she was
interviewed by one of our embassy officials. She told them that
she was happy in Saudi Arabia and she did not want to leave.
Later, her mother helped her escape and she had a different
story to tell, a very different story. She told us that she had
to say those things when she was interviewed because she had
been told by her father--and she was afraid that her father
would beat her or even kill her. She desperately wanted to
leave, but she had been told in no uncertain terms what she had
to say, and she said it, and couldn't speak freely.
By the same token, we can't tell if Pat Roush's daughters
were speaking freely. Pat Roush never got a chance to talk to
her daughters and ask them if they wanted to come to America. I
think it is a real shame.
Maybe the Saudis think we are stupid. Maybe they think we
don't recognize coercion when we see it. But this much is clear
to me: The Saudis wanted to say and do all the right things in
public, but behind the scenes, they did everything they could
to undermine us.
They even tried to manufacture a story that--if you want to
believe this--that I tried to bribe Amjad Radwan with $1
million if she would come to the United States. First of all, I
don't know where I would get that $1 million. But it is really
ridiculous. That is just inexcusable. I was a guest in their
country and I reached out to them along with our CODEL to try
to work with them. And I get falsely accused of offering a $1
million bribe. That doesn't speak well of the Saudi rulers.
They also said that they went to the Saudi Foreign Ministry
and said if they would offer them more money, she would stay. I
will tell you, you don't say that to the Saudi rulers. You end
up in the slammer, or getting whipped violently. So the whole
story is ridiculous.
I want to play a short tape that I think demonstrates how
hard it is to get straight answers about Amjad Radwan. This is
from 60 Minutes last Sunday, and the Saudi's main spokesman,
Adel Al-Jubeir, is being interviewed. I want you to watch what
happens. He is asked a question about this.
[Tape played.]
Mr. Burton. I just want you to pay attention to that. He
said, we did something about it as soon as we found out about
it. Immediately.
Well, I don't know what they think about time passing, but
1988 is not 2002. It is 14 years later, 14 years. She is 19. It
is incredulous that they would lie like that.
In addition to that, I have been watching television the
last couple of weeks and they have had their mouthpieces on
television all over this country, many of them American
officials, American ambassadors that worked for us in Saudi
Arabia that are now on the payroll of the Saudis. I want to
read you something that Prince Bandar said, ``the colorful
Saudi Ambassador to the United States, makes no bones about how
it works; that is, hiring Americans to speak for them and
paying them very well.''
The Washington Post quoted Bandar as observing, ``If the
reputation builds that the Saudis take care of friends that
they leave office, you would be surprised how much better
friends you have who are just coming into office.''
What he is saying very clearly is that we know how to let
these people who work for our embassies and who become our
Ambassadors, we let them know when they come over there, if
they are our buddies, when they leave they can get good fees,
$100,000, $200,000, $1 million a year, to be our spokesmen.
It is a pretty good deal. You go over there and work in the
Saudi Embassy, and if you are a good boy or woman and you speak
the line of the Saudi Government on all these issues, when you
leave they will hire you and pay you a pretty good fee. If you
don't believe it, just look at what has been on the television
networks over the past few weeks. It is unfortunate.
What you saw just a minute ago on the 60 Minutes piece
might have been surprising to 60 Minutes, but that is the kind
of thing that has been coming from the Saudis the whole time we
were looking into this.
Yesterday there was an article in the New York Times. Now,
I wasn't a big close friend of the Clinton administration, as
many people might know. We had a lot of investigations going
on; Ms. Watson knows that and a lot of my Democrat friends like
Mr. Waxman knows. But I want to quote two of President
Clinton's top antiterrorism aides who just wrote a book, and I
agree with what they said.
They said that Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the
United States, repeatedly lied to the Director of the FBI about
the Khobar Tower bombing that killed 19 American servicemen
when they were attacked by terrorists. That was their
Ambassador to the United States. He lied about that to the FBI,
according to Clinton administration terrorist officials.
What is to create any doubt about him and the Saudis lying
about these poor women who have had their kids kidnapped and
held by them in Saudi Arabia for 10, 15, 20 years, and to say
they didn't know anything about it?
Now with these kidnapping cases, we have been given
misinformation again. Saudi Arabia is supposed to our ally, and
they are running commercials in Washington and running them in
my district, saying they are one of our best friends and we can
always count on them. And if you believe that, I have got a
couple of bottles of salt you can eat.
Now, let's turn to today's hearing.
It is to their benefit that we have a base there, because
they are in peril, just like a lot of other people over there.
The Saudi family is in peril with some of the radicals in the
Middle East, and they need us a lot more than we need them. We
used to get about 50 to 60 percent of our oil from Saudi
Arabia. Now we get 15 percent. They used to have a huge balance
of payments surplus. Now they have a balance of payments
deficit. So for us to kowtow to the Saudis, our State
Department or anything else, is a terrible mistake, and I think
Colin Powell understands that and he is doing the right thing.
He helped us get one person out, and I know he will help us
with others. And our Ambassador over there said very clearly
that no American citizen is going to be denied sanctuary in an
embassy or consulate in Saudi Arabia, and that is a giant step
in the right direction, and I believe that is going to be our
policy elsewhere.
But we must keep the Saudis under close scrutiny. We must
not allow them to get away with this sort of thing. We must not
allow them to violate U.S. law. If there is a court order
giving custody to the mother, and they kidnap the child to
leave this country and take them over there, never to be seen
by their parent again, then we need to keep the heat on them.
There's some legislative measures we are going to be
talking about. I am going to have Democrat as well as
Republican supporters on that, I believe Ms. Watson and I have
talked about this and others, and that legislation, which I
have also talked to Secretary Powell about, I think, will be
very helpful in keeping the pressure on and stopping these
sorts of things from happening in the future.
We are not requesting to stop on this. This isn't the last
hearing or last thing that is going to be heard about it. I
hope if our Saudi friends are paying attention, I want them to
know, pardon my English, this ain't going to stop. You are
either going to start observing U.S. law and treating Americans
as they should be treated, or you are going to suffer the
consequences in the public arena.
On September 12, Prince Bandar wrote a letter to the editor
of the Wall Street Journal. In the very first paragraph, this
is what he says: ``some have charged that Saudi Arabia is
holding Americans against their will. This is absolutely not
true.''
Today we are going to hear from several families. At the
end of the day, everyone can make up their own minds about that
statement he made.
Today we are going to hear from six families. I would love
to spend a lot of time talking about each one of these cases,
but they will tell their stories much better than I can. I do
want to mention just a few points.
On our first panel, we are going to hear from Sam Seramur.
Sam has her daughter Maha here today. They were separated for 8
years. Sam was reunited with her daughter not because she
received any help from the Saudi Government. They were reunited
because she staged what I can only describe as a heroic rescue
while her ex-husband had the children on vacation in Malaysia,
in Kuala Lumpur.
I want to play a short tape once again from 60 Minutes so
everyone can see what it is like. I wish everyone in America
could see this, so everyone can see what it is like for a
mother and daughter to be reunited after the daughter being
held in captivity in Saudi Arabia for 8 years. Would you play
the tape, please.
[Tape played.]
Mr. Burton. You know, when we were in Saudi Arabia, I
talked to a number of women who were absolutely terrified--and
my colleagues on the CODEL, the women were absolutely terrified
they would be found to even talk to you as Congressmen. They
told us horror stories that I can't repeat in some cases
because I am afraid that their husbands might find out and do
them bodily harm.
In this case that you just saw there, and that
reunification, is something that should take place in I believe
hundreds of families where the children are being held captive
against their will in Saudi Arabia. Can you imagine the emotion
that mothers are feeling? We are going to talk to some of them
today whose children are over there and they haven't talked to
them for years or even seen a picture or know what their health
is. And they have legal custody here in the United States, and
the kids were kidnapped? It is just unbelievable.
Let's get back to this case. Unfortunately, Sam still has
two children she hasn't been able to get out. I want to ask a
number of questions of her daughter Maha today, and want to
find out what it is like for young women like Maha and Amjad
when they are held in Saudi Arabia for years. I want it to be
pointed out that there is coercion. In many, or all cases
probably, they are not able to speak their minds. Is there
physical abuse? All these issues are going to be discussed.
Finally I want to say a few words about Joanna Stephenson
Tonetti from our home State of Indiana. I don't think Brian
Kerns is here, but this is a case where she was awarded custody
of her children in Indiana. A judge allowed their father to
have unsupervised visits with the children. She was very
concerned that he might take the kids to Saudi Arabia, so the
father was ordered to stay in the United States and not to take
the children out of the United States.
The judge in the case even contacted the Saudi Embassy to
make sure that they knew that the Saudi father did not have
custody of the children and that he was not allowed to leave
the country or get passports for them.
So the father said OK, and everything was fine. He took the
children immediately when he got them to the Saudi Embassy, got
them passports, kidnapped them, took them to Saudi Arabia, and
the mother hasn't seen them since. She hasn't even heard from
them or about them for 2 years, until Brian Kerns, one of the
colleagues on the CODEL with us, went to see the children and
was able to take get them on the phone with their mother and
take a few pictures. She was very happy to see the kids for the
first time in 2 years.
The Saudi Government was complicitous in the kidnapping. I
want you to hear that. You heard that the Saudis denied all
this. They were involved in the kidnapping. They granted
passports to these two kids after a U.S. judge called them or
contacted them and told them the children were not to leave the
country. So when they say that they are going to be helpful and
they are not doing anything to impede bringing families back
together or bringing kidnapped children home, it is just a
bunch of bull, because here is a case very clearly where they
were involved in the kidnapping.
Joanna, as I said, wasn't allowed to talk to her children
for 2 years. Congressman Kerns was allowed to arrange for that
when we were over there. Her daughter Rose is now 12, and I
want to show you a little school project she did back in
Indiana when she was 10, 2 years ago, before she was kidnapped.
It is hard to read, so I will tell you what it says on each
page.
It is entitled, ``Proud to be an American'' by Rose Al-
Arifi.
you get to play in the snow.
You get to dance and do gymnastics.
You get to take ballet classes.
You get to have a cat.
The women can drive in America.
Now, Rose knew what life was like in Saudi Arabia and she
didn't want to go. For 2 years she and her brother and sister
have been held against their will in Saudi Arabia. They have
not even been allowed to talk to their mother. There is an
arrest warrant out for her father for kidnapping.
Ms. Tonetti, we appreciate your being here today. She was
contacted by our State Department and there was maybe some
miscommunication there, so I don't want to say the State
Department said the wrong thing, but the impression was that
she might have a better chance of seeing the children if she
didn't do anything publicly about this. So I want to tell her
how brave she is to be here today. I am hoping that wasn't the
message that was communicated by the State Department, and I
don't believe it was. I think it was just a miscommunication.
But the one thing is this: We as Americans must not be
intimidated by the Saudi Government, and people who have had
their kids kidnapped or being held against their will in Saudi
Arabia must not be intimidated by the Saudi Government. We need
to keep putting pressure on them until they bring about some
changes that will bring these families back together and bring
these children back to America, who are American citizens. I am
sorry we haven't been able to do much more to help you at this
point, but we are going to keep trying.
This is my final point, and I want to apologize to my
colleagues for talking so long today, so please forgive me for
this. I see one of my colleagues on the CODEL is here and I
know he wants to make a point too. The Saudis are engaged in a
full-court press right now. They are spending millions on
television ads telling us what great allies they are. We could
save them a lot of money. If they want to get good publicity,
all they have to do is do the right thing, help us resolve
these cases, bring these kids home who were kidnapped by their
fathers. There are arrest warrants issued for some of those
guys. If they return the children to the United States, they
will get good publicity, the kind they want, and they won't
have to pay a penny for it.
They are also spending millions of dollars on high-priced
lobbyists. I mentioned that before. Some of those are former
Ambassadors, our Ambassadors to Riyadh. They have gone to work
for the Saudis and they make a lot of money.
I have read to you what Prince Bandar said. I think that is
just terrible.
I want to thank all of our witnesses today. We will get to
them in just a minute. First I want to yield to my colleagues.
Since I have a colleague here who was on the CODEL with us who
saw firsthand the problems, let me yield to my colleague from
Vermont.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much, guests, for being with us today.
As the chairman indicated, I was on the trip with him to
Saudi Arabia and I shared the concerns that he has raised and I
applaud him for his leadership on this effort.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there are two
fundamental issues as Americans that we should be raising in
this process. That is that, first, currently as you know, U.S.
citizens are required to relinquish their passports upon
arrival in Saudi Arabia. Second, they must apply for exit visas
from the Saudi Arabia Government when they want to return home
to the United States.
Both of these practices contribute to the difficulties that
American women who are married to and have children with Saudi
men are experiencing today, and they have wider implications.
We are here today to discuss the Saudi Government's role in
keeping U.S. citizens separated from their children, and I
would like to broaden that discussion to determine what the
United States can and should do to prevent this problem from
occurring in the future. Officials in Saudi Arabia tell us that
they want to be our allies, that they are our allies, and, if
so, their policies which affect American citizens should
reflect what allies do. Today, to that end, I make the
following suggestions:
Our government should officially request that the Saudi
Arabians end the policies that restrict freedom of movement for
our citizens. Specifically, U.S. citizens should not be
required to surrender their passports when they travel to Saudi
Arabia and they should not need exit visas or the approval of
the Saudi Government to return home to the United States.
These are two particular policies that play a role in the
children custody and abduction cases that we are discussing
today.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank our guests and
our friends. We appreciate what you have gone through and your
courage in the process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much, Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sanders,
I think, very clearly points out this is a bipartisan effort. I
think we will have very strong support on both sides of the
aisle as well as our independents, and Ms. Watson, who is a
Democrat. I think we will be able to get some positive things
done.
Also on the trip was Mr. Ben Gilman, former chairman of the
International Relations Committee. Mr. Gilman.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we want to get
on to our witnesses today, but I want to commend you, Mr.
Chairman, for your tireless heroic efforts on this issue. Had
you not raised this initially, I think it would have just lain
dormant.
Mr. Chairman, I know you speak from the heart on this
matter, because we heard you speak about your own experiences.
You also made known your commitment by--we recognized your
commitment by watching you in action in Saudi Arabia when we
met with the Foreign Minister and with other officials.
I want to let everyone know in this room that the Americans
in trouble abroad will always have a strong advocate in our
chairman, Mr. Burton. We had a great awakening to the problem
when we went to Saudi Arabia and spoke firsthand with some of
the families there. The Saudi Government's Foreign Minister has
made a start in his statements to our committee in appointing a
commission to look into this.
Well, that is a first step. The American Embassy in Riyadh
has certainly been energized by Ambassador Robert Jordan. We
know that under Ambassador Jordan's watch, and we hope under
the watch of all future Ambassadors, no American children will
ever be turned away from our embassy in Saudi Arabia in their
hour of need, as did occur in the past.
The key, it seems to me, is to find a way to work with the
Saudi Government to minimize the number, hopefully down to
total zero, of these incidents of retained or abducted children
or situations where women cannot leave the country because they
fear they will never again see their children.
We look forward to hearing our witnesses today, and we
thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for conducting this hearing and
for looking into this abominable situation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Chairman Gilman.
Ms. Watson.
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This issue that the Chair has discussed and outlined so
well is an issue that some people even here in our country and
in the Saudi Government would like to dismiss as being
peripheral: the holding of American citizens in Saudi Arabia
against their will. Indeed, as we prepare for war in the Gulf,
the plight of these few Americans might seem to pale in
contrast to the dangers of war. But this issue cannot be
brushed aside so easily.
Saudi Arabia and the United States have been allies for
half a century. We have remained allies, despite the fact that
our countries have very different cultures and political
traditions. In Saudi, women are denied rights that they are
both born with and rights that they are guaranteed by the
universal declaration of human rights.
During the hearing I am sure we will hear that many of the
American women trapped in Saudi Arabia are there by choice, but
the reality is that in Saudi Arabia, for women, choice simply
does not exist and neither does it exist for their children.
Our Nations, the United States and Saudi Arabia, are bound
by shared strategic imperatives. I do not question the value of
that relationship. But what concerns me and the rest of us are
the moral imperatives that are pressing on this relationship.
We are not here to lecture to Saudi Arabia, but we are here
to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Saudi
Government: No matter who is in charge in Washington, DC, the
American people cannot long tolerate a relationship that
militates against the principles on which our Nation is
founded.
If the Saudi Government does not solve its problems with
providing basic human rights to many in its population, our
strategic relationship will be severely strained.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony.
I can't stay long. Like the rest of us, I am conflicted. But I
certainly will be hear here to hear from these courageous
people.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Judge Duncan, I think you came next.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this hearing today and for your continued interest in this
issue. I think it says a lot, Mr. Chairman, about your
commitment to our country and our fellow citizens that you led
a delegation of Members to Saudi Arabia to take a firsthand
look at some of these cases that we heard about at our hearing
in June. I happen also to have seen the 60 Minutes show, and I
listened very closely to the statements you made on Sunday
night on that show.
It is unbelievable to me that the Saudi Government keeps
denying the fact that there are Americans who are trapped there
in Saudi Arabia against their will. This committee heard from
witnesses in the June hearing who have suffered tremendous
heartache, abuse, and pain because the Saudi Government will
not cooperate by letting their family members come home to the
United States.
I think what we are hearing is that these stories of those
witnesses is just the tip of the iceberg. As you just mentioned
a few moments ago, there could possibly be hundreds more cases
just like the ones that we have heard about.
If the Saudis really want to be our friends, their actions
should match their words. Right now, Mr. Chairman, they do not,
as you and some of my colleagues recently experienced
firsthand.
In a Washington Times column entitled, ``Arabian
Nightmare,'' Joel Mowbray said the Saudi Government ought to
free the 15 Americans held hostage, 1 for each of the 15
terrorists they sent us. Of course, as you mentioned, there are
far more than 15 being held there.
I think this statement reflects what many Americans are
feeling, and that is that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is
becoming very, very troublesome to say the least. The witnesses
that are here today are prime examples of these problems that
continue to plague us.
I hope that these hearings will continue to bring light to
these tragic situations and that they will result in effective
actions by our State Department and the Saudi Government to let
our people come home.
I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing and thank the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Judge Duncan, very much.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, we meet again today to bring attention and
focus to the problem of kidnapped American children living in
Saudi Arabia. The committee has reviewed several cases
involving U.S. citizens held against their will in Saudi
Arabia. These children, because of Saudi law, are not free to
leave Saudi Arabia, despite having American citizenship and a
custody order from an American court giving the American parent
custody.
The question of who retains custody of the children when a
couple divorces is a serious issue. In the United States,
custody cases are usually decided on the basis of the best
interests of the child. However, Saudi law dictates that the
father has legal responsibility and custody of his children.
Most custody cases in Saudi Arabia are handled by the
Islamic courts. According to the State Department, when these
courts decide custody cases, their primary concern is that the
child is raised as a Muslim. Saudi courts generally do not
award custody of children to women, especially nonSaudi women.
Because Saudi Arabia is not a signatory to the Hague
Convention, there are no legal standards governing the return
of kidnapped children. Custody orders of foreign courts are
generally not acknowledged nor enforceable in Saudi Arabia.
It has been argued that cases such as the ones before us
are merely child custody issues. While that is true, these
cases should also be considered as parental kidnapping or child
abduction cases. I believe that shining the spotlight on
parental abductions of American children to Saudi Arabia by
this committee will bring this issue to the forefront and
persuade the State Department to reevaluate its policies.
Many of our U.S. citizens, like the witnesses before our
committee today, have tried unsuccessfully to have their
children returned from Saudi Arabia. I look forward to hearing
from the witnesses who will present their stories about their
hardships in trying to secure the return of their children out
of Saudi Arabia. I am also interested in hearing from the State
Department officials.
Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearings,
and I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. I think Mr. Shays was next.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, thank you, No. 1, for holding this
hearing. Thank you for going to Saudi Arabia to speak out for
children that have basically been kidnapped. Thank you for your
courage. I thank this committee for its courage to take on this
issue. There have been a lot who have tried to discourage our
confronting Saudi Arabia on a number of issues, and this is
clearly one of them.
I thank our witnesses for their courage. And just to say
that no one can know who will be in charge next year of this
committee in terms of Republicans or Democrats, but I think our
witnesses should feel fairly comfortable that this is a
bipartisan effort and one which you started, Mr. Chairman, but
one that will be carried out no matter which party is in power.
This is just too important an issue.
I myself want to express my outrage that any American
citizen, any American citizen, can walk into a U.S. Embassy and
be thrown out and not allowed to stay in the protective custody
of our embassy when their lives are threatened and when they
have been held captive. I hope and pray we never see that
happen again.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
Dr. Weldon.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, just
to commend you for the work you are doing in this area.
I find it extremely troubling that Saudi Arabia is
repeatedly described as being our ally, but yet their
government pursues an agenda that I find extremely
objectionable.
I know that some of these divorce cases are extremely
complicated, but what I find extremely disturbing is in some of
these cases, I think particularly one that I have read here,
Michael Rives, the children are U.S. citizens, both under U.S.
law and Saudi law, but yet the Saudi Government is refusing to
cooperate with returning these children to their father.
I am also very disappointed that our own State Department
is not taking more aggressive action. I again commend you for
the work you have done in this arena.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Dr. Weldon.
Mr. Ose do you have a comment?
Mr. Ose. No, thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being
here. There will probably be other Members coming and going. We
are at the end of our session and there is a lot going on
around here today, so I want to apologize for more Members not
being here. I do appreciate the ones who are here.
We will now hear from our witnesses. Our first panel
consists of Samiah Seramur, Maha Al-Rehaili--you have to
forgive me--Debra Docekal, and Ramie Basrawi. I am sorry about
that. As we go through the committee hearing, I will get that
down better.
Would you please stand so you can be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Burton. Let me start with Ms. Seramur. Can you pull the
mic close to you and be sure you turn on? We ask our witnesses
to try to keep their statements to 5 minutes, but we will allow
you a little more time if you need it.
STATEMENTS OF SAMIAH SERAMUR, ACCOMPANIED BY HER DAUGHTER, MAHA
AL-REHAILI; AND DEBRA DOCEKAL, ACCOMPANIED BY HER SON, RAMIE
BASRAWI
Ms. Seramur. Mine is short.
Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress, last month I was graced
by God to become one of the privileged few to ever see her
American child again, after being held against her will in
Saudi Arabia for over 8 years. No words can express how it
feels to be able to touch my daughter again, watch her sleep,
kiss her goodnight, or see her walking down the street with her
head held high.
We thank the Committee on Government Reform for all its
concerted efforts to assist American citizens overseas and
especially for its efforts to make it possible to bring my
American daughter, Maha, home. We also want to thank Colonel
Norville DeAtkine, Ambassador Hume Horan, Admiral James Lyons,
Secretary of State Powell, and President Bush for the
initiatives taken toward resolving the issues pertaining to
American citizens in Saudi Arabia.
Last but not least, my daughter Maha and I extend our
greatest gratitude to all the Saudi Arabian citizens who risked
their lives to assist us throughout all of these years in
bringing her home.
We have been asked here today to testify. The core of my
testimony is the protection of American citizens overseas,
irrespective of political influence, age, or gender. I realize
that today's hearing specifically addresses Saudi Arabia, and I
am here to tell you the truth about my case, my daughter's
heroic escape for freedom and our two heroes left behind.
For over 8 years I have been refused all but limited tape-
recorded telephone contact with my three children. The U.S.
Department of State attempted to conduct welfare visits, to no
avail. Every time I officially requested a welfare visit, and
the U.S. Department of State made attempts to visit my
children, I was warned by my Saudi ex-husband and certain Saudi
officials against getting the U.S. Government involved. When my
children informed me that my son was beaten, I contacted the
Department of State immediately. They informed me that since my
son was alive, it was in his interests that I do not ask them
to contact the local authorities to get involved, since the
consequences may be even more severe for my son.
This past summer, some Saudi nationals contacted me,
fearing for the safety of my children. I was able to establish
secret contact with Maha June 17, using Microsoft Messenger.
For over 1\1/2\ months my daughter and I planned her escape to
freedom. On July 3rd, I requested the children's American
passports to be expedited to me. I received them in America
after August 18th. I notified the U.S. Department of State that
Maha and her family were going on vacation to Malaysia and my
children were begging me to meet them there, where they could
return to America.
The U.S. Department of State warned me against going to
Malaysia, stating that I may be accused of kidnapping and sent
to prison. I was informed that I would be subject to Shariah
law and that other countries such as Morocco or Bahrain would
have been all right, but not Malaysia. They contacted me by
telephone daily, warning me to reconsider my plans. I refused.
They told me tens of times that I should get an attorney and be
prepared for a very long drawn-out Shariah court hearing. I was
told numerous times I should have a lot of money and be
prepared to pay for lodgings that they would suggest to me
should we be prevented from leaving Malaysia.
Both the Department of State and the Malaysian Embassy
official told me to inform my children about the fact that they
could be returned to their abusive father and that our plans
could have very serious consequences. I refused.
The Department of State told me on more than one occasion
within a couple of weeks before my departure for Malaysia that
they wanted to go meet with the children in Saudi Arabia. I
told them that under no circumstances should they contact the
children or attempt to contact them in Saudi Arabia on numerous
occasions. The Department of State then asked to contact the
Malaysian Government on numerous occasions and informed me if
they could not contact the Malaysian Government before my
daughter attempted her escape, that the escape would not be
possible. I informed them on numerous occasions that they
should under no circumstances contact either the Malaysian or
the Saudi Governments.
I was asked for photos of the children for their passports
three separate times, from two embassies and the Department of
State. Correspondence was inaccurately forwarded to the parties
concerned in Malaysia, to the point when I arrived they had
none of the photos or e-mails detailing the abuse suffered by
my children. My e-mails were often returned, bounced off the
Department of State servers.
I was asked to come to the embassy in Malaysia on three
occasions before my children arrived, only to be threatened
again to reconsider my plans.
To sum it up, my daughter's heroic escape was one of the
worst nightmares any mother could ever imagine, but we pulled
through. Now it is time to look back and reflect. We beseech
you to use the information from these hearings in a positive
way to come up with a solution, a new system with uniform
procedures, guidelines, progress reports, checks and balances,
a supervisory interagency working group and accountability to
protect not only American citizens in Saudi Arabia, but all
over the world.
Page one of all U.S. passports reads ``The Secretary of
State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom
it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United
States named herein to pass without delay or hinderance and in
case of need to give all lawful aid and protection.''
Perhaps it is time those words had meaning. I welcome your
questions. We are here to speak the truth.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Seramur follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Well, thank you very much. It is nice to see
that your beautiful daughter is here in the United States, safe
with you. I can see you are both very happy about that. I think
the one thing that you didn't mention and I normally don't do
this, but I think to the people, 60 Minutes deserves a real pat
on the back, too, for doing what they did. They pretty much
guaranteed there wasn't going to be any backing out on this
deal.
The admonishment that you just made to our State
Department, we have State Department officials here today. I
hope you all maybe get a copy, I will give you a copy of this
tape so you can show it to the other officials, including
Secretary of State Powell over there. There are some
recommendations that were just made that ought to be looked at
very seriously by the State Department to make sure this sort
of thing doesn't happen in the future.
With that, Maha, would you like to say a few words? We
would love to hear you comment, if you like. Would you rather
wait until questions?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. I will wait until questions.
Mr. Burton. OK. We have some questions as well for you.
Mr. Burton. Ms. Docekal, excuse me for not knowing that
better.
Ms. Docekal. That is OK. I am just kind of writing about
what happened. I came back to the USA in January 1988 with the
intention of staying in America with my two children. I had
their father's Saudi passport with me, so I thought he could
not come to the United States, but he went to his government
and told them my children and I were in a bad car accident and
were almost to die, so they gave him a temporary passport, and
he told me if he did not bring back our children to Saudi
Arabia that he would go to prison for many years.
He said to me he would go back for 10 days and make
arrangements to come back here and live in Des Moines, Iowa,
where he could find a job and see the children. After a lot of
thought, I let the children go back for the 10 days. The day he
got back to Saudi Arabia, he called me and told me I would
never see the kids again. After many phone calls to try to
convince him to return the kids, on the last call he told me he
was going to make my life a living hell. And he did.
For 14\1/2\ years I only got information from my children's
grandfather, who always treated me good on the phone in the 4
years that I spent in Saudi Arabia. But I only got little
information, how they are doing in school, what grade they were
in. Basically little information was given, some due to the
language barrier. I talked to my children about 5 years ago,
and about a month and a half ago.
In 14\1/2\ years I got one letter from my son, 5 years ago,
during the phone call when I gave him my address. He sent me
some pictures and then they took my address from him, and their
father called me and told me never to write letters to my
children or call them, because if I did, he told me he would
put a stop to it and make threats to me to stop all
communication with my children and his father. If I did as he
said, he would write and tell me about my children and send me
pictures. I got one letter about my children and some pictures
taken at the time. The rest of the letters he sent were mean.
And then he stopped all communications, so I knew nothing.
I got a phone call from my best friend in Saudi Arabia
telling me--this was in August--that my ex-father-in-law died
that day. So I called over to the grandfather's house to say
sorry, and my daughter answered the phone. I was so happy, she
talked little English and I talk little Arabic, so I told her I
loved her and missed her and wanted to see her. She got my son
and I talked to him for a long time. He knows English and he
gave me his e-mail address and his mobile phone number.
He started calling me and I started calling him, and then
we started talking on the computer hours at a time, and I
encouraged him to talk to his father and ask him to let him
come to see me. He said he was scared to ask him now since his
grandfather just died. I told him it was the best time to ask
him, because he is under a lot of pressure and not thinking
right. And it worked, and my son came to me on August 22, 2002.
He left me as a small boy, 4\1/2\ years old, and came back
to me as a 19-year-old man. But my 15-year-old daughter Susan
is still stuck in Saudi Arabia, 14\1/2\ years and counting.
Mr. Burton. These stories are all heart-rending. Would your
son like to make a comment?
Mr. Basrawi. No.
Mr. Burton. Then we will go to questions.
Ms. Seramur, you had almost no contact with your children
between 1994 and 2002; is that correct?
Ms. Seramur. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Burton. For 8 years. Can you tell us how your children
were treated in Saudi Arabia?
Ms. Seramur. Well, I think Maha might be able to answer
that a little bit better than myself.
Mr. Burton. Sure.
Ms. Seramur. From what I understood, in 1997 there were
some teachers in Saudi Arabia and they actually tried to inform
me that my children were in trouble and they needed help, they
didn't have the clothes that they needed, and that my ex-
husband's new wife was treating my daughter very bad and didn't
come to--I mean, she was living without a mother in effect, and
my daughters were crying every day in school and the teachers
were very concerned about them.
So they were trying to get a letter out from my daughter,
which they did. They got a letter out, but the children are not
treated well over there because--I mean, my son in particular,
he is beaten, he is tied up, he is locked up in his room. He is
actually in the street most of the time because the family does
not live like a normal family.
So, perhaps I can stop at that and let Maha answer.
Mr. Burton. Maha, why don't you tell us how you were
treated and how your brother was treated? Maybe that would give
us a better idea.
Ms. Al-Rehaili. We didn't live like a normal family.
Mr. Burton. Can you pull the mic closer, please?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. We didn't live like a normal family. We
didn't eat together. We communicated just a little bit to get
around the house. There was no emotions between us, no love, no
affection. I didn't see my father a lot. He was always in his
room watching TV. We didn't go out a lot together like a
family. My brother was treated badly. He didn't have--his
grades weren't that good in school, so my dad used to beat him
a lot. My stepmother used to report to him everything we did,
just to make him beat my brother or scream at us. We weren't
allowed outside the house without permission. We would have a
little bit of allowance. My dad wouldn't give us a lot of
money. If he did, he would ask us why and what we wanted to do
with the money.
I didn't have a lot of contact with my mother at that time,
just some phone calls that were recorded. Even with my
girlfriends, all the phone calls are recorded and taped. My dad
listens to them. I don't know why. Especially for my brother,
it is really hard since he is a boy. And my stepmother has 6
kids there, my stepsisters and my stepbrother. It is just not a
normal life.
Mr. Burton. Were you abused yourself?
Ms. Rehaili. Physically, no; but emotionally, yes.
Mr. Burton. And your brother was beaten quite a bit?
Ms. Rehaili. Yes, he was tied up and beaten and locked up.
Mr. Burton. Tied up and beaten?
Ms. Rehaili. Yes, and my dad would threaten him always.
Mr. Burton. He wants to come to America as well?
Ms. Rehaili. Yes, he wants to.
Mr. Burton. You just have the one brother? You just have
the one brother?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. Yes.
Mr. Burton. And you have another child?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. A sister.
Mr. Burton. What about your sister, how is she treated.
Ms. Al-Rehaili. She's trying to adjust to the system over
there. It's really hard. Over the past 8 years we just tried to
get used to the system. We got used to it, just to go on and
move on with our life, but we couldn't. We can't live over
there.
Mr. Burton. Does she want to come to America?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. She wants to come but she is afraid that
she won't be accepted here.
Mr. Burton. I am sure she will, and you will be as well.
How about you Mr. Basrawi? How were you treated?
Mr. Basrawi. It was a bad life. No communication with
anyone. You have to stay at home. You have to do what they
want--the father ways.
Mr. Burton. Were you physically abused?
Mr. Basrawi. Huh?
Mr. Burton. Were you beaten at all?
Mr. Basrawi. Yeah. Locked in the room. They think this is
the way raising of the children. Make them good in the future
by beating and hitting and like that.
Mr. Burton. Your sister, how is she treated?
Mr. Basrawi. She treat bad, but no one loves me there. They
hated me. I don't know why. But my sister--my grandmother love
her; but me, no one loved me or anything. They always away from
me. They don't understand with me. I don't know why.
And when he married--my father married my stepmother, she's
so bad. She always makes problems with me every day about silly
things.
Mr. Burton. Your sister, did she want to come to America as
well but she can't get out?
Mr. Basrawi. She can't.
Mr. Burton. Ms. Watson?
Ms. Watson. It was mentioned about the heroic escape from
Saudi Arabia. Can you describe, Mrs. Seramur, how you were
aided at the U.S. Embassy? Were you aided? And were there any
obstacles in the way for you? I'm a former Ambassador. I was in
Micronesia and we had a couple of cases, similar; not
kidnapping cases but people who wanted to reach America and
were eligible, and we had to really help them every step of the
way. So can you clarify for me what kind of help you got and
what kind of help you didn't get?
Ms. Seramur. I have all the documentation here between
myself and the Department of State and it is pretty heavy
file--maybe 2 weeks that I was on a regular basis, we were
sending e-mails back and forth. But when I first mentioned it
to them that I was going to get my children, I was told to
reconsider my plans because it wasn't Bahrain or Morocco, that
Malaysia was a different kind of country. And they said, ``we
would be asking them to basically make an exception to two
Malaysian laws. Our government can't ask for any more favors.''
So actually I was discouraged from going over there to get
my daughter from the time I mentioned it to the end. And even
when I went to the embassy in Malaysia, I was told that--they
said that it's irrelevant whether your daughter--whether your
children are American citizens. I was told--I was screamed at
and told that I didn't understand the seriousness of what I was
going to do. And I was--they asked several times to contact the
Malaysian Government and I said no, because I was afraid. They
said the Malaysian Government and Saudi Government are good
friends and therefore we have to contact them before so they
don't tell the Saudi Government. I said well, if that's the
case, then they're more likely to tell the Saudi Government. I
mean, before they're good friends.
Ms. Watson. Let me just interrupt you a minute. I am
appalled at the treatment and the screaming and yelling at you,
because it is the responsibility and the authority to assist
any American citizen that comes to your embassy, and I don't
care where it is. And so if you have that documented, I would
like it to be given to the Chair because we need to question
the State Department. As an ambassador, you're there to oversee
what happens to Americans in the host country. And if they
weren't helpful to you, I think they have violated their
authority and we should followup on that.
Ms. Seramur. Excuse me ma'am. The Ambassador herself was
fantastic. She helped me through--I mean from the time I met
with her on the third occasion I went to the embassy, she was
very, very nice, very understanding. It was not the Ambassador
who had harassed me. It was the consular at that time. But then
the Ambassador apologized for it, stating that he was new there
and he had only been working for 1 year and this was all new to
him. And she said she was very sorry for what happened, and he
felt sorry about it after.
Ms. Watson. I hope he's no longer there.
Ms. Seramur. But it was really, really--they wanted to
contact my children also in Saudi Arabia before it happened and
they wanted to go to the house in Saudi Arabia to take pictures
of my children, and it was just horrendous. I had told them on
repeated times that they couldn't approach my children in any
way because it was a life-threatening situation for them. So
they kept asking me are you still going to go through with
this? Are you still going through with this, to the point that
the telephone harassment became so severe that emotionally I
was trying to keep my daughter on--the Internet at night--
strong and still going, because she wasn't eating, she wasn't
drinking. And at the same time I had the State Department all
day harassing me about what I was going to do.
So it got to the point where I had to tell them, please, no
more telephone. If you want to say something, by e-mail only.
Ms. Watson. The consuls that are located in the embassies
are--they have the authority to give out visas etc. And
sometimes they act independently. And I am pleased to know that
the Ambassador herself followed protocol. And I would still
like to get something in writing to the Chair, so there are
implications and indications for our consuls that are located
in the embassies, too. The final authority rests with the
Ambassador.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Watson. What we would like to do
is get the documentation that you have to us to make copies of
it. We will. And then we will send a letter of inquiry to the
State Department asking them about each one of these issues. To
try to make sure that if there is a policy--I mean, if somebody
who is a career diplomat over there said what you wanted was
irrelevant, and you're an American citizen, if you got their
name I sure would like to have it, and we will find out how
relevant they are and bring that to the attention of the State
Department, because that shouldn't happen, as Ms. Watson said.
She knows. She was a former Ambassador herself.
Ms. Seramur. They kept insisting on interrogating my
daughter or my children after I had already provided them with
all of the evidence, which were written e-mail statements from
my daughters, etc., but they still wanted to interrogate them.
Mr. Burton. After they got out?
Ms. Seramur. During our escape. When we were at the embassy
they insisted on interrogating them, and I said not unless you
have a medical profession. And she refused to be interrogated
until she was on a plane home.
Mr. Burton. Let Maha speak for herself today.
Mr. Shays. The only question I have is tell me the most
helpful thing our embassy did to help either family.
Ms. Seramur. They gave us a new passport.
Mr. Shays. And what was the most difficult--what was the
most helpful thing the embassy did for you?
Ms. Docekal. The only helpful thing they did for me was,
well, I called David Kass because Ramie's father was only going
to let him out of the country on that date, and if he didn't
get out he wasn't going to let him have another chance. And his
passport, we didn't know where it was and he needed it that
day.
And I called you, David--no, you called me, because I
couldn't find your number--and told him the situation if he
doesn't get the passport in his hand, and they said it was
going to take 2 weeks and his flight was leaving before.
Mr. Burton. This is David Kass. The good-looking guy with
the beard.
Ms. Docekal. He had called me the next day and Ramie got
his passport 45 minutes before I left to New York to go pick
him up, and he got it that day a few hours before he left Saudi
Arabia to come to America. And I thank David Kass for it. But
the State Department has done nothing. I feel like I have been
alone. No help whatsoever.
Mr. Shays. Your testimony is they have really done nothing
to help you.
Ms. Docekal. I found out my kids were coming to the States
about 5 years ago. And they told me if you ever find out from a
friend your kids are coming into America, let us know. We will
trace their passport. This is when it first happened.
Five years ago, I heard from a friend that they were coming
to Disney World or Disneyland. I called them and said I think
it's 90 percent true they are coming to the States. And the man
in charge at that time of the kids overseas in Saudi Arabia, he
told me that he would be breaking jihad's privacy act if he
traced their passports; that he couldn't do it. And my kids did
come to Los Angeles for a month-and-a-half. And in all reality,
I think my government should have done something. I have rights
over my kids, too. Could I not have broken his privacy act? But
they were minors.
Mr. Shays. What was the most hurtful thing your government
did? What was the most disappointing thing that your government
didn't do or did?
Ms. Docekal. I just feel like my government didn't help me
in any way. They took these kids that are kidnapped--I call
them kidnapped over there--and sweep them under the table and
don't want to do anything for us.
Mr. Shays. Was there any one contact, one memorable moment
that hurt you the most?
Ms. Docekal. That one, when the guy told me he could not
trace the passport because it was jihad's privacy act. That
really hurt me because I'm their mother and they are minors.
Mr. Shays. What was the most hurtful experience you had
with your own government?
Ms. Seramur. I was locked up and imprisoned in a room, and
I broke through this cement wall in Saudi Arabia, in our villa.
And I slowly hammered through the cement wall and got the
telephone lines for the neighbors' villa which is connected to
ours, and I put together my own telephone so that I could call
over a period of several days, months, so I could call the
American Embassy.
And I called the American Embassy and I told them I needed
help. And they said, well, we're not a hotel. What do you
expect us to do? But they said we can give you a list of
attorneys if you can get down to the embassy.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. This is pretty damning on the State Department.
I think one of the things that Ms. Watson just suggested is we
ought to have some kind of a committee at the State Department
that reviews these cases and that career diplomats over there
who may have been--what do they call it when somebody has been
in a country so long they become--they go native--where State
Department officials go native and think that the government in
question is more important than U.S. citizens. Maybe we ought
to have a review panel to make sure that we set them straight
and put the American citizens' interests first.
Ms. Seramur, the Saudi government says that it acts quickly
to solve these cases once they learn about it. Is that true?
Ms. Seramur. No, it's not.
Mr. Burton. You and Maha planned for Maha to escape for a--
while she was on vacation with her father in Malaysia. Why did
you wait until she was in Malaysia?
Ms. Seramur. Because we knew if she went to the American
Embassy that there might not be any way they could assist us.
U.S. Department of State told me that if--they said if it was
any other country but Saudi Arabia it would be OK. So that's
why when she----
Ms. Al-Rehaili. Well, in Saudi Arabia whatever your mother
is--her nationality--you're Saudi because your father is Saudi.
Over there I wasn't American; I was Saudi. Everybody would tell
me that. And I knew if I went to the American Embassy they
wouldn't help me. Everybody told me that.
Mr. Burton. Well, if you're born of an American parent,
whether you are in some other country or the United States,
you're an American citizen. And our embassy should know that
and should make sure that you're protected. And I think maybe
we ought to admonish the State Department to make sure in the
future that they help American citizens get back to the United
States, as the passport says, if there's any way possible to do
it.
Now I know that they run the risk of becoming persona non
grata and that some of our embassy officials may be sent out of
the country if they participate in helping. I think that's
probably true in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia as well. But that's
a risk our State Department should take. They should say, look,
American citizens come first and I am here to help American
citizens. And they help a person out of a country who is held
against their will and they are excommunicated from that
country and sent back to the United States, we ought to give
them a medal. We ought to give them a raise, because they're
protecting American citizens. And we ought to hold that
country--we ought to hold that country responsible for the pain
that they've been inflicting on American citizens.
And I hope the people here from the State Department are
listening to that. Their responsibility first is to American
citizens. And if it means they help an American citizen get out
and they have to be punished for it by being kicked out of that
country, then so be it. We'll find another job for them. Come
see me. We'll see what we can do to help you.
The State Department had Maha take pictures of herself,
brother, and sister so they could make passports for them.
Could you explain the risks that she took and whether those
pictures even ended up being used?
Ms. Seramur. Well, first I was asked by the embassy in
Malta where I was for the photographs of all my children so
they could be sent to Washington to have pictures for their
passports made out of those photos. And it resulted in
Washington or whoever the Maltese Embassy was communicating
with, that the son of my son Faisal was a little bit to the
side. So they said we really need a better photo, Faisal's
photo is no good. So I said, OK, I will ask Maha to take
another photo with his face facing more forward for you and
closer to the camera.
So Maha risked her life taking better photographs of her
brother, sneaking in, finding a digital camera, taking these
photographs. And then when I sent the photos back to Malta,
then I was contacted by the Department of State and they said
we need photographs of all the children. And I said well, I
sent them to the Maltese Embassy and they said they were
forwarding them per your request. And they said we never
received them, can you please send them yourself?
I sent them the same day, all the photographs again of my
children. And then when I got to Malaysia, the first thing that
the consul in Malaysia stated was that, well, where's all the
information? I have nothing. I have no photographs of your
children and I have no e-mails. And he asked me to go somehow
find whatever I could find, because I didn't bring anything
with me, it was too dangerous for me to be carting all those
things around with me under the circumstances. I didn't want
anybody to know what I was doing there. But I guess apparently
the State Department told me that they had had the wrong e-mail
address.
Mr. Burton. You know, I can't believe that the State
Department that works for the U.S. Government--I don't believe
that's being inept; I think they just deliberately didn't send
those pictures over there. You know, they set up every
impediment they could possibly set up to keep you from getting
your daughter back to the United States.
I think that's tragic. The State Department, there's going
to be some heads rolling over there. Where are the State
Department people here? Are you guys listening to this? Jesus
Criminy.
Let me see, what do you have here? Do you have some
questions that you would like to ask? Maha, the whole time you
were gone, did you want to come back to the United States?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. Yes. All the time.
Mr. Burton. While you were living in Saudi Arabia, were you
free to tell your father that you wanted to come back to
America?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. No. My sister once told him she wanted to
come to America, and he locked up the doors, took away the
phones, wouldn't let her out of the house.
Mr. Burton. Put her in prison.
Ms. Al-Rehaili. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Your mother said when you took pictures of your
brother, you were endangering your life. Do you think your
father would have hurt you if he had known you were taking the
pictures and sent them to your mother?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. Yes, he would have.
Mr. Burton. What do you think he would have done?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. What he always does. He takes away anything
we like, the stereos, the phone. We can't see our friends. Just
go to school and come back. Don't go anywhere. We were locked
up in the house.
Mr. Burton. Do you think that other young people,
especially women being held in Saudi Arabia, are free to speak
their minds?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. No, they're not.
Mr. Burton. Especially if they want to come back to the
United States, they're not able to say that?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. They're threatened.
Mr. Burton. With physical harm.
Ms. Al-Rehaili. Physical harm, emotional.
Mr. Burton. Ramie, how about you? If your sister said or
you had said you wanted to come back to America, what kind of
response would you have had from your father?
Mr. Basrawi. My sister want to come here, she can't.
Mr. Burton. If she said to your dad, I want to go to----
Mr. Basrawi. I said that to him. He started to like cry and
if you don't care, he start to scream many times.
Mr. Burton. Did he physically abuse you, hit you ever?
Mr. Basrawi. No. Just sometimes, not all the time.
Mr. Burton. He did hit you sometimes?
Mr. Basrawi. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Does your mother have something she would like
to say?
That's all you have to say?
Mr. Basrawi. Yeah.
Ms. Docekal. I do have something I want to say. I am able
to talk to my daughter now through the help of Ramie, because
he knows where she is at what time and she can answer the
phone. So I talked to her 2 days ago.
Mr. Burton. Does the father know about that?
Ms. Docekal. No, and she don't want the father to know
because she's scared. She wants to come back. So we have a
certain time we call her where--she sits by the phone and
waits. But you know, there's the language barrier between me
and her. I can tell her I love her and miss her and want to see
her all day, but I can't tell her my inner emotions of how I
feel about her. And 2 days ago she gave me a kiss on the phone
for the first time in 14\1/2\ years. She is scared to death.
She don't go to her father and ask him anything. She has no
rights. And like him, he stayed in his room the whole time. And
now without him, she has nobody, and that's even harder on me.
I want him here, but she also now lost the only thing she was
secure with, her brother.
Mr. Burton. Maha, right before you went to the U.S. Embassy
in Malaysia, you recorded a statement saying if you were forced
to go back to Saudi Arabia you would kill yourself. Can you
explain why you felt so strongly about leaving?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. I was dreaming about it for the past 8
years. And I planned for this with my mom on the computer for a
couple of months before. And I was really--I put all I had in
it, and I risked my life in getting onto the computer every
night and communicating with her, sending her pictures. And she
called me at my friend's house sometimes. And when you think
about it for 8 years and you just have the chance to do it, you
just do it.
Mr. Burton. You were just depressed about not getting out.
Ms. Al-Rehaili. Yes.
Mr. Burton. You know, I think I've already covered this,
but I'll ask one more time. A lot of people have never been to
Saudi Arabia and they don't understand how difficult it is for
children or women to get out of Saudi Arabia. Can you explain
just a little bit about why it's so difficult and why we ought
to understand it better?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. How we can't get out of Saudi Arabia? We
have to get permission from our guardian, father or husband.
And my father wouldn't grant me that permission in any way.
Mr. Burton. And if you ask, many times you're punished for
that?
Ms. Al-Rehaili. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Berry, do you have any questions?
Mr. Berry. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I have to ask some other questions for the
record, and if my colleagues want to ask questions all you have
to do is let me know.
You lived in Saudi Arabia for several years. Can you--and
you know how women are treated there. You know about the abaya
and all that sort of thing. Can you tell us what your daughter
Suzanne's life is like?
Ms. Docekal. Ramie would probably know more what her life
is like there, but my life was a living hell. You know, you
come as an American. And when I met my husband, he fell in love
with me as an American and treated me like an American. But
when I went to Saudi Arabia everything changed. I was treated
like an Arab woman and he started acting like an Arab man. And
basically you are in prison in your home. You have no life. And
like the lady you're talking about--and I won't mention her
name--I know who you talked to in Saudi Arabia, and actually
she's married to my ex-husband's cousin.
Mr. Burton. Wait. Wait. Wait. I don't want you to go into
any details. I don't want you to go to into any details. And if
that's known, I think she's told me--and I know about her
physical condition--she might be in great physical jeopardy.
Don't mention about any connection you have with her or
anything, OK?
Ms. Docekal. But it's no life for a girl there.
Mr. Burton. Is that a live feed going out of here?
Ms. Docekal. I would say in Saudi Arabia there is no life
for the woman at all, or for the daughter. And the boys have a
life. They're free. But for us, it's just like going and living
in hell.
Mr. Burton. Do you think your daughter or your other
children can get out of Saudi Arabia now without the help of
our government?
Ms. Docekal. No.
Ms. Seramur. Yes.
Mr. Burton. You think they can get out without the help of
our government?
Ms. Seramur. They will risk their lives doing it, but I
mean, if the governments don't help us, we don't have a choice.
Mr. Burton. In other words, you're talking about finding a
connection like you did with your daughter and literally
smuggling them out.
Ms. Seramur. Well, I mean the Saudi citizens, they feel for
the American citizens who are being abused over there without
any support system. So it's the Saudi citizens, you know; some
Saudi citizens were contacting me and trying to assist us.
Mr. Burton. There are people in the country that want to
help you.
Ms. Seramur. There are Saudi citizens who are trying to
help these Americans out of the country.
Mr. Burton. That's not unlike that movie, Not Without My
Daughter. Did you see that movie? You remember there were
people in Iran that helped get that child out of that country?
Ms. Seramur. Right.
Mr. Burton. But our government has not been very helpful
and you can't--you felt like you couldn't count on them?
Ms. Seramur. No.
Mr. Burton. Is that what you felt, too?
Ms. Docekal. No. I felt that way, too.
Mr. Burton. I have some other questions--do you think that
your daughter will ever be able to come back unless you find
some other way to do it? Do you think your daughter will ever
be able to come back with the help of our government being
forceful and putting some pressure on the Saudis?
Ms. Docekal. I don't think her dad will ever let her come
back. He told me when she grew up someday like Ramie, he would
tell her where I am. But the girls are too scared. And even
Ramie when he came back, he said the same as her, I'll kill
myself if I have to go back.
Mr. Burton. I looked at women and children over there that
had tears in their eyes and were trembling. I know what you're
talking about.
Ms. Docekal. So, no; I feel without either of us doing
something on our own, I don't feel like if our American
government doesn't do something, we won't get her out.
Especially now that Ramie is here, that is going to make her
dad more mad and retaliate.
Mr. Burton. I hope--well, I hope that doesn't happen and I
hope that our embassy people over there will do everything they
can to help. You know, the one thing that our Ambassador
promised me personally was that he would never turn away an
American citizen from an embassy or consulate as long as he was
the Ambassador. And if there is a threat to American citizens
over there, they should know that commitment has been made by
our Ambassador; that American citizens will be safe, have a
safe haven in our embassy and consulate. And if there's
anything different than that goes on, then there will be hell
to pay about that. Once they get to that the embassy they're
supposed to be protected.
Are there any other questions that we need to ask of this
panel? We will have some other questions that we will submit to
you that maybe you can answer in writing.
I want to tell you we really appreciate you being here
today. We appreciate both the young people who are here today,
and we are very glad you're in America and you're free, and
hopefully we'll be able to do something to help other people
like you in the future.
Our next panel is Joanna Tonetti and Margaret McClain,
Michael Rives, and Maureen Dabbagh. Would you please come
forward and approach the witness table?
And I understand Representative Berry would like to
introduce Mrs. McClain. So as soon as we swear them in, I'll
let you do that. If you have any notes that you would like to
give us, we'll copy them for you so we have a record and we can
forward that to the State Department. If you have information
you want to give us, we will followup with it.
Ms. Tonetti, Ms. McClain, Mr. Rives, and Ms. Dabbagh, would
you please come forward? Sorry you had to wait so long but we
want to make sure we cover this very thoroughly so we have all
the answers. Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Burton. Ms. Tonetti, we'll start with you. Do you have
a statement you would like to make? You need to pull the mic
close and turn it on.
STATEMENTS OF JOANNA STEPHENSON TONETTI, MOTHER OF ROSEMARY,
SARAH, AND ABDULAZIZ AL-ARIFI; MARGARET McCLAIN, MOTHER OF
HEIDE AL-OMARY; MAUREEN DABBAGH, MOTHER OF NADIA DABBAGH; AND
MICHAEL RIVES, FATHER OF LILLY AND SAMI RIVES
Ms. Tonetti. I would first like to thank Chairman Burton
and Congressman Brian Kerns, who isn't here right now. I must
say that I am extremely proud that these two distinguished
members of the committee are from the great State of Indiana
where I'm from. For 2 years I heard nothing from my three
American children. That was until Congressman Kerns was able to
facilitate the first and only contact I have had with my three
children, at 6 in the morning.
My name is Joanna Stephenson Tonetti and I'm from Terre
Haute. I am the mother of three children who were abducted by
their noncustodial father to Saudi Arabia 2 years ago. My
marriage to my ex-husband lasted 7 years, producing three
beautiful children: Rosemary Helen who is now 12; Sarah Frances
who is now 10; and Abdulazia who is now 7.
My ex-husband, Abdullah Al-Arifi, had been in America for
approximately 18 years on various student visas at the time he
stole my children. One year before he took the children, he
left the country, at which time the INS barred him from
returning into the country due to several serious violations of
his visa. He was nonetheless allowed back into the country and
once again given another visa to stay, and that summer he
abducted my children.
Throughout the divorce, which lasted almost 2 years, I
continuously voiced my concerns that my ex-husband would take
my children. As a precautionary measure, the presiding judge
ordered my ex-husband to turn over all passports for the
children and ordered him not to have any new passports issued.
In a further measure to attempt to secure the safety of my
American children, the judge gave notice to the Saudi Embassy
they were not to issue new passports to my ex-husband. Copies
of the final divorce decree were mailed to the Saudi Embassy
and all other Saudi offices in the United States. It is all too
apparent that the Saudis disregarded the decree and court order
and issued new passports to my ex-husband, making them knowing
and willing accomplices in the abduction of three American
citizens. Not only do the Saudis hide, harbor, and shelter
criminals, they also aid and abet them.
For 18 years my ex-husband lived in the United States. He
enjoyed our freedoms and our way of life. He openly expressed
his love of this country and all that it stands for. He
professed how much better our way of life was compared to Saudi
Arabia's. He attended several universities during his 18-year
stay, but was unable to attain a degree. Now he hides behind
the laws of a country that he barely lived in during his adult
life and openly disdained during his life in America.
Rosemary, Sarah and Z are beautiful American children. My
oldest daughter was a terrific student and loved by everyone in
her class. Excuse me if I cry. She loves to play tennis and
softball and to swim. She was a Girl Scout and she's my best
friend. I still receive phone calls from her friends wanting to
know when she's coming home. Rose met Miss America during her
third-grade year and it became her dream to someday become Miss
America herself. Now that dream is locked behind veils and
abayas.
Sarah played softball and was my bookworm. She was bright
and funny and incredibly intelligent. She was also a Girl Scout
and was very much loved by her classmates and teachers. She's
the master of all things computer related, and managed to make
me feel about 20 years older than I really was.
My baby is my son Z, and he is my little boy who loved to
play football but could never figure out which direction to
run. Parents would cringe when he took the field. He loved to
fish and to swim and to play and anything involved hitting
another player. Every night he would cuddle up in my arms and
asked how many times I loved him. I knew this was a delay
tactic to avoid going to bed, but I bought into it every time.
Now my arms are empty and no little boy counts my kisses or
my love. No more Girl Scout meetings. No more tennis matches or
softball games. Only memories of three lives lost behind a
Saudi sword. The absence of my three children has left an
incredible void in my heart and in my life. I miss the
laughter, the kisses, and the feel of their arms around my
neck.
One month before my children were taken from the only home
they ever knew, I had reached the end of my rope. My ex-husband
had drug me into court on almost a weekly basis. I had been to
the edge emotionally and financially. On the way home from
picking up the children from school, I broke down into tears. I
couldn't take it anymore. I asked my children what they wanted,
and my oldest daughter spoke up first. In a quiet voice she
said the words I still hear today: ``Oh, Mommy, please don't
give up. Don't ever give up.'' Sarah then added, ``Mom we want
to stay with you.'' And my son just smiled at me with a smile
that said more than words.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's hard not to give up. I have
turned for help from every source I can think of. There is not
one politician that I have not written and begged for help and
in return received silence. Up until a few months ago, nobody
cared about my three American children, and I suppose when this
is all over and dust settles things will go back to the way
they were. You will all go home to your families and your
lives, new causes will come along and thoughts of American
children trapped in Saudi Arabia will fade.
So who will move a mountain for three children? Who will
salvage their childhood when there's still time left? Who will
bring them back to the only home they ever knew or wanted?
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tonetti follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Representative Berry would like to introduce
Ms. McClain. Mr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you
for allowing me to address the committee in order to introduce
a constituent of mine, Mrs. Margaret McClain. I also want to
thank the committee and you for your leadership on this issue.
The committee's efforts have gone a long way toward shedding
light on this enormous problem.
The testimony we are hearing here today leaves no doubt as
to how much of a problem it is and that something needs to be
done about it. It saddens me a great deal that these hearings
are again necessary, but I hope that what is said today is
heard by both the Saudi Government and our own State
Department.
This past July, Ms. McClain saw her daughter Heidi for the
first time in 5 years. During those 5 years she fought tooth
and nail with both the United States and Saudi Government to do
whatever it took just to visit her daughter. Ms. McClain does
not know when she will see Heidi again; which begs the
question, at what point do we make the goal of her case not
just visitation but the permanent return of Heidi to her
mother?
Along with Ms. McClain, I too urge the State Department to
shift its efforts from just locating abducted children to
actually bringing them back home. As a father, I cannot begin
to understand the grief that Margaret McClain has gone through.
However, I do understand the determination she has and the
lengths she will go to to be with her daughter.
As part of the evidence submitted to the committee today,
there is an account of Margaret McClain's brief visit with
Heidi last July. After the visit, she was asked if everything
she went through was worth seeing Heidi for just a short period
of time. Unhesitatingly, she said yes.
Margaret McClain has demonstrated she will do whatever is
necessary to be with her child and has shown admirable resolve
in her fight to get her daughter back. We owe her our best
efforts to bring Heidi back to the United States of America.
And with that, I introduce to you Margaret McClain.
Ms. McClain. Thank you Mr. Berry.
Chairman Burton and members of the committee, I thank this
committee for giving me the opportunity to speak for my
daughter, Macheal Heidi Al-Omary, who has been a hostage in the
Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for over 5 years. She was
kidnapped in 1997 at the age of 5, and is now 10 years of age.
Last week our whole Nation cheered as a group of American
and foreign children were rescued from the missionary school in
the Ivory Coast. According to Fox News, on September 25, 2002,
this rescue was a State Department operation. Yet apparently
the Wahhabi terrorists who hold American children hostage in
Saudi Arabia are the untouchables.
This situation must change. The kidnapping of American
children to Saudi Arabia, contrary to what the State Department
and Ari Fleischer at the White House have claimed, is not a
private custody matter. It is Saudi Wahhabi terrorism, pure and
simple, a jihad against defenseless American children.
These terrorist acts against our children are being
committed with the full knowledge and even complicity of the
Saudi Embassy in Washington, the Saudi consulates, the Saudi
Royal Family, Saudi Arabian Airlines and Saudi government
officials.
In December 1989, Abdulbaset Ahmed Mohammed Al-Omary and I
were married in a civil ceremony. He was a citizen of Saudi
Arabia but immediately began pressing me to sponsor him for a
green card, which he easily obtained.
Our daughter had been born in Jonesboro, Arkansas in 1992.
I became subject to mental and physical abuse, suffering
several broken bones and a miscarriage due to Al-Omary's
beatings. Meanwhile, he began to abuse Heidi as well. On one
occasion I was getting ready to take my daughter to a day-care
center when Al-Omary blocked me in and began karate kicking the
car window next to Heidi. I feared he'd shatter the glass and
blind his own child. He was totally out of control. And I
determined that the only way to save my child's life and mine
would be to get out of this marriage from hell.
In 1993, I finally found the courage to have this Wahhabi
fanatic thrown out of my house. When it became clear that the
marriage was doomed, I knew that Heidi would be kidnapped. I
tried to protect my child by requesting supervised visitation,
which was denied. Unfortunately, I had not been devious enough
to tape-record conversations in which Al-Omary had flatly
stated that he would not allow his child to grow up in the
United States and that if I ever divorced him, I would never
see her again.
In 1994, I wrote to the Embassy of Saudi Arabia and its
consulates to notify them that I was Heidi's legal custodial
parent, enclosing certified copies of Al-Omary's and my divorce
decree in which Al-Omary agreed to all terms and accordingly
affixed his signature.
I am including as an exhibit a photocopy of the notarized
Arabic translation of these documents, authenticated by the
State Department, bearing the signature of Madeleine Albright.
In my 1994 letter to the Saudi Government, I stated
explicitly that Heidi did not have my permission to travel to
Saudi Arabia, that she was not be issued travel documents of
any kind in her name or in any alias, and that she not be
included in the travel documents of any Saudi citizen. I have
submitted both a copy of the 1994 letter with my notarized
signature as well as registered mail receipts.
Then in 1995, becoming more desperate as the result of
increasingly bizarre behavior and more threats by Al-Omary, I
sent handwritten letters to the Saudi officials, this time to
Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan at the Saudi Embassy and the CEO
of Saudi Arabian Airlines. These letters along with registered
mail receipts comprise exhibit No. 4.
I informed Saudi Airlines that a court decision precluded
my ex-husband from taking my child out of the State of Arkansas
without my permission and named one of their flight attendants,
my ex-brother-in-law, Samir Jawdat, and Al-Omary's American
wife, Jayne Brussell Smith, as potential co-conspirators.
Al-Omary's Saudi wife, Wafa Al-Dugail, had already been
summarily sent home after Al-Omary's bigamy was exposed.
Pursuant to a 1995 court order Al-Omary asked the Saudi
Government to provide documentation that they would recognize
and enforce this court's jurisdiction with regard to legal
custody. According to Al-Omary the Saudi Embassy refused
because they did not recognize U.S. law.
To this day, the Government of Saudi Arabia has never
answered any of my communications regarding their culpability
in Heidi's kidnapping. Steeped in Wahhabi Islamocentrism, the
Saudi Royals and the majority of their subjects truly believe
that a female should not be able to travel, drive, go to
school, marry, or make any major decisions without the
permission of her closest male relative.
The Saudis have no intention of returning my child because
I am a mere female, a mother, a Christian and an American. The
Saudis practice sex discrimination, religious persecution, and
discrimination based on national origin. While the Saudis and
their lobbying groups in the United States, most notably the
Council on American Islamic Relations, constantly cry
discrimination, they themselves are the most flagrant violators
of human rights on Earth. That is the same Islamic lobbying
group that forced the State Department to take down its
marriage-to-Saudis warning from the Web page and replace it
with a kinder, gentler version, which I have included, thus
placing thousands of American women in peril.
Meanwhile, the Saudis hypocritically sign all kinds of
human rights treaties so they can retain their standing in the
United Nations. They have, for example, signed the U.N.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which calls for the
right of children not to be kidnapped; however, the Saudis
always weasel out of their obligations under any treaties they
have signed by adding a disclaimer that they will only honor
those terms that conform to their version of Islam. Since the
Saudis view children, especially girls, as property to be
bought and sold, the United Nations treaties signed by the
Saudis aren't worth the paper they're written on. The Saudis
will never return any of these children voluntarily. They must
be forced to do so by any means necessary, including covert
rescues.
The Saudi Government, having been duly warned, not only
issued travel documents to my child, but their government
airline whisked her out of the United States. Employees of the
Saudi Government, like Saudi Airlines flight attendant Samir
Jawdat, were accomplices in the illegal removal of my child. A
high-ranking official of the Saudi National Guard, Dr. Salman
Al-Hedaithy, and his wife, Farida Al-Ghofaili Al-Hedaithy, gave
aid and comfort to the terrorist kidnapper at their home in
Fairfax, Virginia according to the last words I heard from my
daughter.
Between 1994 and 97, Al-Omary and his American wife
constantly harassed me and made threats to kidnap Heidi. On one
occasion Jayne told me, ``I will get custody of your child and
I will be your worst nightmare.'' Al-Omary married Jayne so he
could legally stay in the United States to finish his master's
degree in computer science and so he would have someone to
support him. Meanwhile, I had to go back to court on several
occasions to try to collect over $12,000 in child support,
medical expenses, legal expenses, and repayment of a debt.
Whatever income he had from his assistant directorship at the
Islamic Center of Jonesboro was in cash payments from the Saudi
Government on which he never paid income taxes.
In addition to neglecting his own daughter for 5 years, Al-
Omary left her for extended periods of time, and, according to
Heidi, sexually molested her and allowed his friends at the
Islamic Center of Jonesboro to molest her as well. I reported
these events to Heidi's doctor and the authorities, but due to
a lack of physical evidence, Al-Omary was merely questioned and
released. It seems no one believed what a 3-year-old had to
say. What that small child told me was so disgusting that no 3-
year-old could have made it up.
On August 12, 1997, the evening Heidi was due back home
from a visitation, Al-Omary left a chilling message on my
answering machine. He stated that he and Heidi were in Saudi
Arabia and that I would never see her again. He threatened dire
consequences if I contacted the police or involved his wife
Jayne or any of his accomplices at the mosque. I was sick to my
stomach.
About an hour after I listened to the recording, Al-Omary
phoned in person. This time he intimated he had people watching
my every action to report back to him, and I believed him. He
also stated that he could have me killed if he wished, and I
believed that too. I begged to speak with my daughter and he
relented, with the warning that I not upset her. Heidi came on
the phone acting quite normal. She did not even know she had
been kidnapped. I spoke to her for only about 10 seconds. My
last question to her was, ``Where are you sweetie?'' before Al-
Omary snatched the phone out of her hand, she was able to tell
me that she was at her 5-year-old cousin Dima's house in
Fairfax, Virginia. Her father, Suleiman Al-Hedaithy, a high-
ranking official of the Saudi National Guard, was just
finishing his Ph.D. Degree in computer science.
After hanging up, I reported the kidnapping to the
Jonesboro police who checked out Jayne Brussell Smith's for the
presence of my daughter. This woman knew for 2 days that a
crime had been committed and didn't report it, yet no charges
have ever been filed against her.
The following weeks Jayne kept in contact with her husband
via e-mail, and, according to my private detective, even ran up
thousands of dollars in charges on Al-Omary's credit card. The
detective revealed that Al-Omary made several calls to the
Islamic Center right after the kidnapping. We also learned that
Al-Omary and Al-Hedaithy's wife probably posed as a couple,
luring my daughter with promises of a trip to Disney World, and
left from Orlando, Florida on one of the last flights of the
season of Saudi Airlines.
Eleven calls from the Fairfax address to the Orlando
Marriott Hotel switchboard were made the day after Heidi
disappeared from Fairfax. Fairfax County Police did a search of
the Al-Hedaithy home for the presence of my child. Sadly, too
much time had passed.
And I include as exhibit A all the State, Federal and
Interpol warrants issued again Al-Omary.
I began receiving e-mails from the kidnapper a few months
after the crime. I have attached these illiterate documents as
exhibit 9.
I turned the first one over to my FBI agent who merely
said, ``I will have to send this to our computer people in
Washington.'' I never heard the outcome. Al-Omary's first e-
mail warned me not to try to trace it because he was using an
untraceable account at hotmail.com. My private detective
approached the Jonesboro police, who sought the assistance of
the Sunnyvale, CA police. That is the headquarters of
hotmail.com. And they were very cooperative in determining that
the messages had come from a computer belonging to the ARAMCO
Oil Co.
Concurrently, a friend of my son's with a computer science
degree took about 5 minutes to establish the identity of the
exact computer at ARAMCO's Dhahran headquarters that had sent
the e-mail. So the untraceable message was easily traced, but
not by the people who should have investigated: the FBI.
The Saudi Government certainly wasted its money on the
education of Mr. Al-Omary. One would think that a so-called
computer expert could indeed make their e-mails untraceable. He
demanded Heidi's immunization records, ostensibly so he could
enter her in school in Libya. I was not about to help a
fugitive take my daughter to Libya. I told the State Department
that Al-Omary was working in Dhahran at the ARAMCO Oil Co., yet
still they could not locate him.
I was shocked on July 2002 to notice that ARAMCO was
practically across the highway from the U.S. consulate there.
Inquiries by the U.S. consulate to the Saudi Government yielded
only lies from the Saudis. They couldn't locate Al-Omary
either. What a crock. I don't for 1 second believe that the
Saudi Government could not locate one of its own employees. In
fact, history has proven that it is not wise to believe
anything the Saudis say.
While I was making the rounds to get assistance in locating
Heidi, my other daughter had the brilliant idea of calling
directory assistance in Dhahran. Within minutes, she had Al-
Omary's office number in her hands. Surely the U.S. consulate
right across the road from ARAMCO knew that work numbers could
be obtained in this way. I had wasted 2 years appealing to the
State Department to locate my daughter. I can only conclude
that they purposely did not want to find her.
I told them in 1997 of the ARAMCO e-mails. Yet even as late
as May 1998, a State Department internal memo sent by Jeffrey
Tunis to Heidi's case worker, Steve Sena, states emphatically
that, ``Al-Omary is not a Dhahran case. The last thing we heard
about it was an e-mail on 12/14/97 from you, mentioning it.''
They knew in 1997 by their own admission where Al-Omary was. In
a letter from former Ambassador Wyche Fowler to my Senator Tim
Hutchinson, dated May 7, 1999, Fowler claims he has still not
located Al-Omary, a full 2 years after I advised these people
that the kidnapper was working at ARAMCO.
Fowler also brags about how he had, ``raised child custody
issues with the highest levels of the Saudi Government,
including King Fahad and Crown Prince Abdullah.'' I guess
that's why Pat Roush and her girls were railroaded and Monica
Stowers was thrown out on the street.
Other parts of the file discuss the wording of replies to
Senator Tim Hutchinson and Governor Huckabee of Arkansas, or
talk brazenly about how the case worker avoided answering the
officials' questions.
Exhibit 12 indicates that even in 1999, the State
Department was still looking for Al-Omary in Riyadh, but they
never checked with ARAMCO in Dhahran. In the same exhibit, Sena
casts aspersions on my honesty, describing my information about
Al-Omary's ARAMCO office phone number as ``an assertion, an
allegation.'' Of course, when they finally called the number,
my 2-year-long assertions that Al-Omary was employed at ARAMCO
proved to be correct and was confirmed by a concerned citizen
whose anonymous e-mail to me is included as exhibit 13.
Exhibit 14 discusses how to get Senator Hutchinson off
their backs as regards his demands that according to H.R. 4328,
the kidnappers' accomplices' visas be withheld permanently.
Just prior to today's hearing, 2 years after the Senator's
admonition that the State Department obey U.S. law, I was
informed that State is now willing to enforce H.R. 4328. A very
disturbing aspect of my State Department file is that State
apparently has a mole working among missing children's
organizations to spy on victimized parents and report our
activities.
Exhibit 15, signed by Albright, says, ``FYI, the State
Department has heard from another source that Ms. McClain may
be in the process of organizing a rescue attempt.''
In the past, other parents have told me that State always
alerted the Saudis to such plans. If the State and Justice
Departments did their jobs, parents would not have to resort to
extreme measures.
Exhibit 16 contains e-mails between Heidi's former case
worker--who had wasted 2 years of my daughter's life--the mole
and Anne McGaughey in reference to a letter to the editor I had
written to Insight Magazine. My letter was in answer to Mary
Ryan's whiny defense of her Department's less-than-stellar
performance. Believe me, the day she was fired there was a
cheer heard by God himself from all the parents Mary Ryan had
sabotaged.
I am sorry to say this, and I wish to offend no other
Americans who have incurred losses at the hands of the Saudi
terrorists. The situation has improved after September 11th for
parents like me. I have been able to travel into the pit of
hell for a brief visit with Heidi, during which the kidnapper
and his thugs abused me before I was even able to lay eyes on
my child for the first time in 5 years.
I submit as exhibit 17 the whitewashed State Department
report of my visit to Saudi Arabia. The report makes it sound
as if my initial meeting with Al-Omary was brief and amicable
in spite of the fact that the consular employee was in a
conversation across the hotel lobby during the hour my ex-
husband and his brothers verbally abused me. During the
inquisition, the Al-Omary Jawdat clan made outlandish demands.
He was more delusional than ever and obviously desperate to
receive visas to countries with Interpol notices on file,
including Sweden, where two of his brothers had citizenship.
The consular report hints that Heidi was shy, when in fact
she is anorexic and desperately in need of psychological
counseling. The report neglects to mention that my ex-husband
violated every agreement he had made with the Consulate and the
Emir of the Eastern Province, while I adhered to all the
demands placed on me by Al-Omary and the Saudi Embassy. I was
forced to fax the embassy a document stating that I would not
harass him or any of his family while in the kingdom nor that I
would break any Saudi laws. Al-Omary's plan was to get my son
and me on a plane to Riyadh away from consular witnesses.
I commend Anne O'Barr of the Dhahran Consulate for
providing us with a body guard/driver, interpreter who checked
for bombs every time we entered the armored vehicle. However
the same official who wrote the report is a Muslim who doesn't
care about my child's religious persecution as a baptized
Christian. I was outraged when this State Department employee
told me that I shouldn't worry about my daughter because she
was with a good family. In my lexicon a good family does not
kidnap, terrorize, starve and deny a little girl contact with
her mother.
What Heidi is suffering today is nothing compared to what
Al-Omary will do to her as she grows up. He once told me that
when he'd get older, he'd look for a 9-year-old wife because
his prophet had married a child of that age. In Al-Omary's
twisted mind, it would be perfectly reasonable for him to sell
my precious Heidi off to a man three times her age. By the
family's own admission, Heidi went through a lot when they
first stole her, as if it was my fault. Like the Saudi regime
that won't take responsibility for its role in terrorism, the
completely sociopathic Al-Omary is in denial about what he has
done to Heidi.
When first in Saudi Arabia, she was apparently so disturbed
that she played video games for 6 hours a day.
The consular report then gushes about what a nice, lenient
father Al-Omary is. I wanted to throw up when I read this
glowing recommendation of Al-Omary's fathering skills. I do not
believe it is the State Department's business to defend foreign
criminals; it is an insult to the mothers who have suffered
almost as much as the children.
State Department reports must be read with some skepticism.
Another illustration is State Department exhibit 2, presented
before this committee only in June of this year. On the bottom
of page 2, the date of Heidi's kidnapping is incorrectly listed
as 1998, and the entry refers to my missing ``children.'' The
devil is in the details.
When I first saw my daughter again after all those years, I
was shocked at how she looked and acted. Her behavior was
bizarre and disturbing, to say the least. Heidi is now 10 years
old, but has the social skills of a 2-year-old. She is
extremely intelligent, but is one of the saddest little girls I
have seen in my life. She doesn't smile, but of course, the al
Qaeda-Wahhabi in Afghanistan beat people for smiling, singing,
dancing, or anything else that is fun.
It took Heidi half an hour to come out from under a veil
she was wearing. Meanwhile, when we spoke to her and asked her
questions, she gyrated in a strange, spastic way and would only
answer us in cat noises from under the veil. All I could see
were bones sticking out in all directions.
Finally, when I did look into her eyes, I saw someone whose
soul had been sucked right out of her body. I hold the Saudi
Government and their Wahhabi fanaticism directly responsible.
My child has known happiness and laughter and singing here in
her own country. Do the Saudis imagine they can drive out all
these happy memories? All they have created is a girl destined
to become a woman with lifelong emotional problems, longing
forever for what was taken away from her.
I am tired of our government leaders telling the world that
the Saudis are our allies against terrorism, or that Saudi
Arabia is a moderate Arab state. I am here to set the record
straight. Our leaders have not lived in a Wahhabi nightmare and
seen its malevolence up close, as I have. The aim of Saudi
Wahhabism is the same as it was during the middle ages, world
domination.
I admit that the Office of Children's Issues has provided
Heidi with better caseworkers over time. But there is no amount
of back-peddling that can give my daughter back the 5 years she
was without her mother. It is a shame that changes only occur
when some legislator exerts pressure or when the Saudis blow up
thousands of Americans.
This committee is interested in knowing what the State
Department has done in trying to obtain the return of my child.
The answer is simple: Nothing. They have never given me any
hope at all that Heidi could be recovered, nor have they
suggested other departments of the government that could help.
They have, in fact, worked on my psyche to lower my
expectations of a successful recovery. They were instrumental
in arranging the visit with Heidi, again under a lot of
pressure from my legislators. It helped that Senators Blanche
Lincoln and Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas contacted the Emir of
the Eastern Province and the CEO of ARAMCO, respectively.
However, these Saudi governmental entities did nothing to
protect my son and me while we were there, nor did they force
Al-Omary to adhere to the terms we had agreed to.
Returning to whitewashes, in 1998, the GAO was conducting
an audit of the Office of Children's Issues. Mr. Rolf Nilsson,
a senior evaluator, attended the annual PARENT Conference in
Washington to obtain input from victim parents. As a
consequence, I compiled an informal survey and sent the results
to Mr. Nilsson, but it was too late. When his boss, Boris
Kachura, found out that Nilsson's report was going to be
negative, Nilsson was reassigned. The result was another
whitewash, enabling Madeleine Albright and her staff to look
better and more productive than they actually were.
At the same PARENT Conference, State and Justice Department
lawyer Mary Grotenrath was invited to explain Interpol
procedures to the group. To our utter amazement and disgust, we
all found out that a simple FBI UFAP warrant, or an
international kidnapping warrant, offered no assurance that the
fugitive could be arrested in a foreign country. Mary informed
us that we all needed to go out and apply for provisional
arrest requests whereby a Federal prosecutor had to agree to
extradite should the fugitive be caught. None of our kids were
listed with Interpol. That meant these criminals were able to
move freely around the world, provided they stayed out of the
United States.
This was valuable information, but the Justice Department
did not like one of their employees doing something concrete to
help a seeking parent. As a result, Mary was ordered not to
attend our conference the following year. The State and Justice
Departments should be the ones to give us that information as
soon as a child is reported missing, give us the paperwork and
place the kidnappers in the Interpol system immediately, just
as is now required for the NCIC system.
To this day, the Secretary of State must go hat in hand to
OPEC and the Saudis to beg for oil output, or he must finesse
the Saudis to, please, let him use their bases. At the same
time, he is responsible for the Office of Children's Issues
that is supposed to demand the return of American hostages.
Which do you think the Secretary of State wants more, the
bases and oil, or the children? So if the Secretary of State's
position on Saudi Arabia is not a conflict of interest, then I
don't know what it is.
The kidnappings of Americans is terrorism, and this issue
must be dealt with accordingly, perhaps under a department like
Homeland Security. The security of American children is at
risk. The counterterrorism legislation includes the conspiracy
to kidnap Americans overseas as terrorist acts. Our children
have indeed been taken overseas and the kidnapping conspiracies
were hatched overseas. So what is the hold up in charging the
criminals with terrorism, especially when the perpetrators are
Wahhabi radicals?
I would like to categorize a series of crimes that Al-Omary
and the Saudi Government were party to in his capacity as the
assistant and/or acting director of the Islamic Center of
Jonesboro.
Mr. Burton. Ms. McClain, could we have the rest of that for
the record? I think you have made a very, very strong point;
and I am sorry to interrupt you, but I want to make sure we get
to the questions. So if you are near the end, if you want to
summarize, we would be glad to have you do that.
Ms. McClain. Let me just summarize my final information
about the people that the Saudis hire to harass American
mothers who have lost their children over there.
Ms. Gabbayh, Ms. Roush and myself went in protest to the
Saudi embassy a couple of years ago. It was a peaceful protest.
We went across the street to Hill & Knowlton, which is one of
the big PR firms that the Saudis use in order to intimidate
people like us. Those people had hacked into our e-mail. Those
people had made veiled threats against us. We went into their
offices. We found files about ourselves, and I am wondering
what kind of a big threat we are to Hill & Knowlton because we
are boycotting some of their companies they represent or
because we are attacking the Saudis in some way.
We find this reprehensible, that other Americans would team
up with the Saudis and become complicit in their kidnapping
schemes.
Mr. Burton. OK. Thank you very much, Ms. McClain.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McClain follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Mr. Rives.
Mr. Rives. Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today regarding my children's
illegal abduction and retention in Saudi Arabia. Along with me
are my three other children, Ginger Ann McKay, Benjamin Michael
Rives and Aaron Scott Rives, who have come here today to show
support for me, as well as their love and concern for their
brother and sister, Lilly Michelle Rives and Sami Michael
Rives, who are being held in Saudi Arabia illegally by my ex-
wife with the help of the Saudi Arabian Government.
Normally, I am a very private person and seldom ever share
anything of a personal nature outside my immediate family. In
fact, there have been only two times in my life important
enough to share my personal feelings in a public forum: my
father's eulogy and the discussion before you today, because I
need your help to get Sami and Lilly out of Saudi Arabia and
returned home to Texas, as ordered by the District Court in
Dallas.
To begin, let me introduce my precious babies, Lilly and
Sami.
Lilly is my treasure. She is my first daughter from scratch
and she is only 4 years old. She has the sweetness of an angel,
a giggle that can tickle your spine, and a look that can melt
the coldest of hearts. Our relationship was such that we could
communicate just by looking at each other. In just 6 days
though, I am going to miss yet another one of her birthdays
when she turns 5.
And Sami, he is my buddy. He is only 3 years old and has
the perkiness of a puppy, always following me around and
wanting to sit by me at all times. Right now, he likes Batman
and farm animals and finds joy in the most unusual things. He
loves the commercial for Mattress Giant and the game show, The
Weakest Link. In fact, the only English he was speaking before
he left a year ago was the end of that show's tag line. We'd
go, ``Sami, you are the weakest link,'' and he would go ``Good-
bye.'' It was so cute.
I cannot imagine any more wonderful children than Sami and
Lilly, because they are just like their brothers and sister. As
you can imagine, this has been a very tough time for us,
continually wondering whether we will ever be able to see them
again and now wondering whether we will be able to extract them
from a country to which they don't belong.
Lilly and Sami are citizens of the United States of America
and of the United States only. As you may know, under Saudi
law, children take the nationality of their father, regardless
of where they are born. Also under Saudi law, dual or multiple
citizenships are not allowed. A person can be only Saudi or be
only something else. Of course, the Saudi Government can bestow
the nationality on those to whom they wish if that individual
will also give up their previous nationality. This is what
happened in my ex-wife's case and, God forbid, might be
happening to Lilly and Sami right now.
My ex-wife is Syrian national by birth. She was a Syrian
national at the time we married in 1996 and a Syrian national
at the time of each of my children's birth.
However, 2 years ago, her father requested and got the
Saudi Government to give the Saudi nationality to my ex-wife
and to her sister because of his personal relationship with
certain members of the royal family. As a result, she is no
longer considered a Syrian and, since our divorce, has been
using the Saudi nationality solely as a tool to keep my
children in Saudi Arabia.
Now she and her father appear to be in the process of
getting the Saudi nationality for my children in order to keep
them in Saudi Arabia and to take away their birthrights as
Americans. If she succeeds, it will be particularly damaging to
my daughter's rights and freedoms. She will automatically be
limited to the type of education she can receive, the type of
profession she can aspire to, and even to the person she may
marry. A Saudi woman can marry only a Saudi man. Moreover, both
Lilly and Sami will lose liberties we as Americans enjoy, most
important of which is the freedom of religion.
To get them the Saudi nationality though, my ex-wife must
request and obtain the direct involvement of the Saudi
Government and the Saudi Government's complicity in violating
not only my rights as Lilly and Sami's father under Saudi law,
but also in violating the orders issued by the District Court
having jurisdiction over my children.
Apparently, this is not a problem for the Saudi Government.
In fact, that government has already taken direct action to
camouflage my children's identities as Americans. This past
June, that government, the Saudi Government, readily provided
my ex-wife with Saudi passports for Lilly and Sami and took
away their American passports. The Saudi Government did this
with the full knowledge that Lilly, Sami and I are American
nationals only, since this is clearly stated on my children's
Saudi birth certificates, as well as their American birth
certificates issued by the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh.
The Saudi Government also restricts my ability to see my
children. For example, I cannot get a visa to Saudi Arabia
unless my ex-wife agrees to my going over there. And, of
course, her agreement depends more on how she feels about me
than my rights to see my children or my children's rights to
see me.
When my--in fact, that is the reason I filed for a divorce
in the first place. When my ex-wife and children left for Saudi
Arabia in July 2001, I believed their trip to be their usual
vacation to visit her parents. Unlike before, though, I
insisted I have a visa to Saudi for the length of their 2-month
planned vacation in advance of their going. During the trip, I
spoke with her frequently over the telephone and never had an
indication of anything out of the ordinary.
Then the day after September 11, 2001, my ex-wife called to
say that she planned to stay a little longer. At first, I
didn't think anything about it, but I did remind her that my
visa, coincidentally, had just expired and needed to be
renewed. After several days of one delay after another, I told
her flat out I had to have the visa. That is when she told me,
no, and told me that she had her father stop his efforts to get
one for me. She said she was having second thoughts about her
life in the United States away from her family and that she
didn't want me to come over there until I could guarantee that
I would not take the children.
I told her I had a right to go over there and see my
children, and that if she didn't get a visa for me, I would
cutoff her credit cards and use the money to take legal action
against her. Although her parents are very wealthy and were
providing, and are continuing to provide, for all their needs,
she didn't like the idea of her extra money being cutoff. So on
September 22, 2001, I got a voice mail that stated, in part,
``You have gone too far. I am taking the children where you
will never, ever find us, so don't bother looking.''
According to the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, DC,
at that time, there was nothing I could do to compel her to
return the children nor any way I could get a visa to Saudi
Arabia, even though we were still married. I requested
assistance from my ex-wife's brothers and sister, but they
refused to help.
At this point, I knew I had to have something legal in hand
if I was ever to see my children again, and filed for divorce,
on October 15 of last year.
On December 18, 2001, I got my first divorce by default
from my ex-wife and was awarded custody of Lilly and Sami. Then
I got in touch with the State Department. The State Department
official with whom I dealt, Ms. Beth Payne, Office of
Children's Issues, has been very helpful and outlined what the
Department, FBI and INS could do to help encourage my ex-wife
to return my children to the United States.
However, before any action could be implemented, my ex-wife
filed a counter petition for divorce in April of this year in
the Dallas District Court, and thereby, according to my lawyer,
conceded to the jurisdiction of the Dallas court. I willingly
agreed to reopen the case to let her have her day in court. But
it soon became apparent that all she was doing was having her
father try to break me financially.
They attempted one ploy after another to delay or prolong
the process. Fortunately, the court saw through their actions
and set the final trial date for July 29, 2002. At that time I
got my second divorce and was once again awarded total custody
of Lilly and Sami.
So after 9 months and over $33,000 in legal fees, I got two
divorces and twice received sole custody of my children. But
what I didn't get were Lilly and Sami, or a way to get them out
of Saudi Arabia.
Since that time, the State Department has made the decision
to deny visas to the United States to my ex-wife's parents and
siblings. In my situation, this may be an effective tool to
encourage her to return my children, because her family, as I
said, is wealthy and is held in high regard in Saudi society,
the government and the business community and will likely need
to come to the United States in the future.
Additionally, the FBI recently issued a warrant for my ex-
wife's arrest and plans to forward it to Interpol, through
which it will be enforced in countries that are signatories to
the Hague Convention. Upon entry into such countries, my ex-
wife would be arrested and the children returned to me.
Unfortunately, countries in the Middle East will not honor this
warrant. Finally, INS has suspended my ex-wife's Green Card.
All of this, though, even if it works, will take time, but
as we have seen from the testimony to date, time is so
precious. It has been over 1 year since I have seen Lilly and
Sami, and there is no way I can have a relationship with them
while they are in Saudi Arabia.
Until recently, I have been able to speak with them over
the telephone, but they are taught to speak Arabic only, which
I do not speak. So all we have been able to do is just listen
to each other's voices. And now because of the actions I have
taken, they have even stopped that.
Additionally, when I do go to Saudi Arabia, I will be
extremely vulnerable because of the influence my ex-wife's
father and brothers have and the ill will she and they now have
toward me because of my actions to rescue my children. In fact,
I just found out that my ex-wife has brought, or plans to
bring, criminal charges against me in the Saudi court for
crimes against Islam, accusing me of baptizing my children and
taking them to church.
Also she tells me that her father has hired 24-hour armed
security guards to keep me away from the children without her
permission. As a result, once in the country, they could easily
have me jailed or even killed and be completely justified in
their actions.
Aside from the risks, though, involved in trying to see my
children, I am more concerned about my children's future rights
as citizens of the United States. As I have emphasized
throughout this statement, the Saudi Government is stealing
their rights from them as the U.S. State Department stands by
helplessly and watches. Yet the Saudi Government has no legal
basis to do anything in regard to my children's nationality or
in preventing them from coming home.
Lilly and Sami are not Saudi nationals and never legally
could be without my involvement. Therefore, I beseech you, Mr.
Chairman, the committee and President Bush, to demand that
Crown Prince Abdullah order the return of my children to the
United States immediately. After all, the Saudis' argument in
the past in regard to these custody issues was that it was a
private matter about the children they considered to be Saudi
nationals and that we should respect their laws. Well, in my
case, they have no such argument because under their own law,
my children are American nationals only, and I, as their
father, and as stated in three court orders issued by the
District Court in Dallas, have the sole right to decide where
and with whom they should live.
Chairman Burton and members, let me conclude by saying that
I was quite taken by the outrage that you all expressed during
your hearing last June when you all heard about how the Saudis
were trampling on the rights of American parents and their
children who were illegally held in Saudi Arabia. I was equally
impressed with the direct action you took to go to Saudi Arabia
in August to work out a solution regarding our children.
However, as you found out, the Saudis simply will not listen to
what they are not made to hear.
Therefore, I believe that it is time for the United States
to make the Saudis sit up and listen and let them know that we
are serious about getting our American children home, instead
of letting the Saudis continue to kick sand in our faces.
Thank you. This concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rives follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Let me just correct you on one point, and that
is, our State Department can do something about it. The problem
is they haven't because they haven't really wanted to. We just
have to keep pressure on them.
I do believe that Secretary Powell is moving in the right
direction, and I think the President is, and we will just have
to keep making sure they head in that direction.
The problem is we have this darned war staring us in the
face. Hopefully, that will not be a very big impediment.
Ms. Dabbagh.
Ms. Dabbagh. Congressman Burton and members for Government
Reform, I come before you today as yet another parent whose
child has been abducted to Saudi Arabia. My child is not Saudi.
My ex-husband is not a Saudi either.
I have a U.S. custody order. I have an Islamic custody
order from Syria, quite a feat for an American Christian woman.
Our FBI has issued a Federal warrant for the arrest of Mohamad
Hisham. Syria, likewise, has issued warrant for his arrest for
kidnapping my daughter. Our Congress and our U.S. Senate passed
the first and only Sense of Congress and Sense of the Senate
resolution asking that Saudi Arabia and Syria return Nadia to
the United States. Yet, all efforts have failed to produce even
the most meager results.
Nadia is now 12 years old. I kissed her good-bye just
before her third birthday on November 3, 1992, for a court-
ordered, unsupervised visitation, knowing that I would never
see her again. You see, my ex had promised to kidnap her, but
the courts didn't find my testimony credible.
The night before Nadia was to go visit her father, I sat by
her bed watching her sleep. As the clock quickly ticked off the
minutes that I had left with her, I knew when morning came, she
would be gone forever. It was the longest night of my life, and
the torturous hours were witness to my fear.
As I watched Nadia sleep, I told myself to memorize every
detail of her chubby little cheeks. I caressed the dimples on
the back of her hand and brushed a wisp of hair from her eyes.
She slept the sound sleep of the innocent. I choked back tears
so that my grief would not awaken her. I sat remembering our
conversation the day before.
It was the start of the holiday season. My curious toddler
asked what a Christmas tree was in the department store. The
lights and brightly colored ornaments held her gaze. I
explained to her that we would have a Christmas tree like that
and that her grandmother and aunts and uncles and cousins would
all be together, and we would eat all our favorite foods. She
turned her little face toward me and, smiling, said, ``I want
to eat hamburgers under the Christmas tree.''
Ladies and gentlemen, Christmas never came to our house
that year and Nadia never ate hamburgers under the Christmas
tree. Where Nadia was taken, they don't have stockings hanging
on the fireplace and no Christmas trees to eat hamburgers
under. There are no Easter parades and no tooth fairies. Her
magical world of childhood was left behind when she was
kidnapped. She even left her favorite blanket behind, the one
she cuddled with at night. I dared not wash it after she was
taken for fear I would lose the faint scent of her that still
lingered on the beloved Kool-Aid stained ``blankie.''
While it would take more than a year for Interpol to
determine that Nadia had been taken to Saudi Arabia, the
information provided no relief. Efforts to bring Nadia home
were met with disappointment after disappointment.
I continue to worry about Nadia. I have not seen her since
she left the United States nearly a decade ago. I have not had
a phone call with her or a photo or a letter. There has been
absolutely no communication of any kind, either directly or
indirectly.
I worry about Nadia because no one has seen her. My ex-
husband had threatened to kill her. I worry about Nadia because
my ex-husband had revealed to me that his family had arranged
her marriage to a cousin in Syria when she was only 9 weeks
old. My ex-husband's mother married at the age of 13 and his
sister married at the age of 14. Nadia is now 12, and my fears
increase with each passing year.
Things are different for Nadia and me since that fateful
day in 1992. She was ripped from everything that had served to
identify who she was. This tiny child of just 2 years old was
taken from her mother, her relatives and her community. She was
not allowed to take her pet bird, Chiquita, that she loved. She
would be forced to leave behind her toys, her friends and her
language. Even trips to Taco Bell for her favorite food would
be denied her now, and she would never again feed the ducks in
the small pond behind our house. For me, I would continue to be
a parent, but my role would be redefined in a most drastic way.
For 10 years I have been a left-behind parent. I am a
parent that does not tuck a child in bed at night. My arms are
empty and my heart aches. I do not get annual school photos of
Nadia. Instead, I get computer-age enhanced photos
periodically, showing what she might look like today. I do not
throw Nadia birthday parties, celebrating each year as she
grows. Instead, I receive condolence cards from various missing
children's organizations on her birthday.
I do not walk into Wal-Mart stores to do back-to-school
shopping. When I go to Wal-Mart, I silently gaze up at the wall
of missing children's posters and note that Nadia's is still
hanging there. Through the years, I have not saved money for
her college education. Instead, every available dollar was used
to pay for lawyers, investigators, long distance telephone
calls and overseas travel expenses. I have spent $200,000
trying to bring her home.
I come before Congress today pleading that Nadia be
returned. Nadia was sexually abused by her father and underwent
investigation by Social Services at the time he fled the
country with the tiny toddler. He was under investigation by
the Secret Service for laundering money for arms.
I request that the Saudis would immediately provide
American authorities with specific details and the history of
recent travel to Saudi Arabia, including when she entered the
country, if she has left, where she stayed and all other
information. While they may very well consider a man with my
ex-husband's background an asset and may wish to continue
providing him sanctuary, my child is young and not capable of
providing the Saudis with any particular contribution that
would support their efforts to destroy international threads of
cooperation.
Saudi Arabia became a signatory to the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child January 26, 1996. Their
obligation under this treaty in regards to Nadia are as
follows:
Article 2: State parties shall respect and ensure the
rights set forth in the present convention to each child within
their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind,
irrespective of that child's or his or her parents' or legal
guardian's race, color, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property,
birth or other status.
State parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure
that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination
or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed
opinions or belief of the child's parent, legal guardian or
family members.
State parties undertake to respect the right of a child to
preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and
family relations as recognized by law without unlawful
interference.
State parties shall ensure that a child not be separated
from his or her parents against their will.
State parties shall respect the right of the child who is
separated from one or both parents to maintain personal
relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular
basis.
Saudi Arabia has not facilitated any action, program or
laws that would effectively address their obligation under the
child's rights treaties. Their blatant disregard for
international law, Islamic law and basic human compassion is
well documented, and a reputation earned long before they began
the practice of killing females before burying them instead of
burying them alive. Their barbaric culture has long been under
fire by human rights groups worldwide.
My ex-husband found a haven where he can continue
practicing his debauchery without fear of reprisal. He can
continue to sexually abuse toddlers without fear of
persecution. He can continue to support and be part of
extremist religious factions that support jihad. He can
continue to disregard any law, whether it be civil, religious
or moral, in this desert kingdom that spends more time, energy
and effort on covering up the truth of their decadence than
they do at attempting to provide remedies.
For the Saudis, the ideology that they are a privileged
people and exempt from all accountability continues to cause
havoc, chaos and harm. They have disenfranchised themselves as
part of the international community of human rights, while at
the same time demanding that they be recognized as world
partners in improving the lives of humankind. They are bullies.
They have not been able to fool the world into believing
otherwise by sending their expensive public relations experts
to spin half-truths, lies and cover-ups.
My child is not a Saudi.
Ladies and gentlemen of this Congress, I conclude my
address by stating, Nadia means hope. It is hope that fuels my
efforts to free Nadia. Perhaps 1 day, if it is God's will,
Nadia and I will eat hamburgers under the Christmas tree.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dabbagh follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. You know, I don't like bullies very much, and I
don't like the Saudi leaders very much after what I found out
about them. I had a chance to talk personally to their foreign
minister, and I think the attitude that they had was very
similar to what you ladies and gentleman have stated here
today.
Our State Department can do a lot to put pressure on them.
The administration can do a lot to put pressure on them. Even
though we are in the throes of a war and may have to use our
base in Saudi Arabia to prosecute that war against Iraq, that
doesn't change the fact that we can put pressure on the Saudi
Government, and we should.
Some of the things that I have thought about while you were
talking here today is, there are 600 to 900 Saudi students
that, when I was over there, did not get their visas to come
back to the United States to study. I think maybe we ought to
hold those visas up indefinitely, until we get some of these
kids back. Obviously, to the people at the State Department, we
ought to consider that. We ought to consider holding up any
visas for Saudis who are students, who are going to study here
in the United States, until we get some positive reaction from
the Saudi Government.
We have legislative proposals that we are going to make,
and I am sure I will have strong Democrat and Republican
support to get those passed. But that takes time. We are at the
end of our session and most of that probably won't get done
until next year.
In the meantime, you folks at the State Department who are
here--and you know who you are--I want you to take this message
back to the leaders at the State Department, including Colin
Powell:
We will take the tape we are having made here today of the
hearing, and we will condense it down so that the most salient
points being made by our witnesses are on that tape; and I am
going to urge the people who have control over at the State
Department, who are in leadership positions at the State
Department, watch this tape so they understand personally the
gravity of this situation.
I mean, unless somebody sits here and hears this stuff,
they can't possibly know how bad it is. Unless you go over
there and talk to these people, you just don't understand how
bad it is.
Let me just ask a few questions here of Ms. Tonetti first.
When you got your divorce, you were afraid your ex-husband
was going to kidnap your kids and take them away, right?
Ms. Tonetti. Correct.
Mr. Burton. I think you said that too. I think it has been
stated by all of you here.
Did you talk to your children about the possibility that
they might be kidnapped?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes, I did. I prepared them for it as best I
could.
Mr. Burton. And none of them wanted to go?
Ms. Tonetti. None of them wanted to go.
Mr. Burton. The judge granted--these judges, I tell you,
that really bugs me. I mean, your husband was suspected of
being an arms dealer and he was Syrian.
Ms. Dabbagh. He was under investigation.
Mr. Burton. He was under investigation. Did the judge know
that?
Ms. Dabbagh. I don't know.
Mr. Burton. Was it brought up in court?
Well, you know, it amazes me that these judges think
unsupervised visitation with the kids doesn't present a real
threat.
But he did, your judge did make it clear, they were not to
be taken out of the country?
Ms. Tonetti. Correct.
Mr. Burton. He write or call the embassy?
Ms. Tonetti. He wrote, I believe, and you should have a
copy of the divorce decree.
Mr. Burton. He wrote to the embassy, and there was a copy
of the divorce decree sent to the Saudi embassy----
Ms. Tonetti. Yes.
Mr. Burton [continuing]. Saying, don't take these kids out
of the country.
Ms. Tonetti. Exactly, not to issue passports.
It was mailed, registered and certified, so there are
signed copies.
Mr. Burton. So it was certified?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes, you should have copies of all of the
certifications.
Mr. Burton. So the Saudis knew about this?
Ms. Tonetti. Oh, yes.
Mr. Burton. And they were complicit. They were parties to
the kidnapping of your children?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes, they were.
Mr. Burton. They knew it?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes, they did.
Mr. Burton. So they broke the law?
Ms. Tonetti. They don't recognize our law.
Mr. Burton. No, they broke our law.
Ms. Tonetti. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Maybe we will make them more aware of our law.
You haven't had any contact with your kids, or very little,
since they were kidnapped?
Ms. Tonetti. No, thanks to Congressman Kerns, I had one
phone call.
Mr. Burton. I was supposed to go to that meeting, but I was
talking to some other women over there. I am sorry I didn't go,
because I would have liked to have seen your kids.
Ms. Tonetti. One phone call in 2 years for about 20
minutes.
Mr. Burton. He got you some pictures too, didn't he?
Ms. Tonetti. They were wonderful pictures. They looked very
happy to talk to me.
Mr. Burton. Do you know if the State Department ever
demanded the return of your children from Saudi Arabia?
Ms. Tonetti. I don't know much of anything that the State
Department has done.
Mr. Burton. They haven't given you much on that?
Ms. Tonetti. No.
Mr. Burton. Good. Do you know if the State Department ever
demanded the return of your children from Saudi Arabia?
Ms. Tonetti. I don't know much of anything that the State
Department has done.
Mr. Burton. They haven't given you much on that?
Ms. Tonetti. No.
Mr. Burton. How about you?
Ms. McClain. No, they have not demanded the return and have
not led me to the expectation they ever will. They want me to
just be satisfied with some visitation now and then.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Rives, have you talked to the State
Department?
Mr. Rives. Yes, frequently.
Mr. Burton. What kind of response did you?
Mr. Rives. Last week I believe they sent a communique, a
diplomatic message, requesting the return of the kids or
wanting to know why they are being held over there.
Mr. Burton. They have done something positive in your case?
Mr. Rives. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Ms. Dabbagh?
Ms. Dabbagh. Agencies falling under the U.S. Department of
Justice have been very aggressive in asking for the return, as
well as our U.S. Congress, while the U.S. Department of State,
specifically the Office of Children's Issues and the U.S.
consulars in the American embassy in Riyadh and in Damascus,
Syria, have--and I have the documentation--worked very
aggressively to prevent recovery by various actions, including
withholding information from former President Jimmy Carter; and
my file describes how they circumvented all these efforts.
Mr. Burton. So the State Department has been an impediment
in your case?
Ms. Dabbagh. Only the Office of Children's Issues and the
Counsel General at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus and the U.S.
Embassy in Riyadh. Diplomatic security is real heavily involved
in my case. They are fantastic.
Mr. Burton. But the State Department itself?
Ms. Dabbagh. The case has been cloaked from them for well
over a year, and if they have any knowledge of what is going on
in my case today, it is only because they have been talking
with you guys.
It is cloaked. It is very protected.
We can give you the file, the directives they gave to
circumvent the action.
Mr. Burton. In all your cases, with the possible exception
of your case, you really haven't had any help from the State
Department.
Judge Duncan, do you have any questions?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don't have
any questions, but I will tell you that I really admire the
fact that you, Mr. Chairman, are continuing to call attention
to this, because I think that you may be these people's only
hope.
I think that almost everybody who hears about these
situations totally sympathizes with the people who have
suffered these tragedies, and I think the only thing--nothing
is ever going to be done about this unless we continue to call
some attention to these situations.
Unfortunately, I am a little pessimistic because we are now
about to enter into a war which I personally think is
unnecessary, but we are going to go into it, and I am sure the
State Department is going to feel we need Saudi Arabia as an
ally. And then also we need their oil, I guess. So they will
put all that first.
But I want to say that I will support Chairman Burton in
every way that I possibly can, and I think that about 99
percent of my constituents would be in favor of anything that
we can do. If the State Department does not act and take strong
action in regard to these situations, I think they will be very
much ignoring or going against the will of the American people
on this.
So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Burton. Let me just say to my colleague, Judge Duncan--
I call him Judge Duncan because he was a former judge and a
good one--we only get about 15 percent of our oil from the
Saudis now. It used to be about 50 percent. As a result, we can
tell them to eat their oil.
We can get it from someplace else. We can get it from
Venezuela, we can get it from Mexico. We can make that up.
The Saudis, when we had the problems back in the 1970's and
the OPEC countries, including Saudi Arabia, raised the oil
prices so high that we had big long gas lines, they had a
tremendous surplus. They had a balance of payments surplus. Now
they have a balance of payments deficit. They are hurting. They
need us a lot more than we need them.
What we need to do is, we need to put pressure on them to
adhere to and recognize U.S. law, and we don't have to go hat
in hand to them anymore. We just don't have to do it.
I hope that some of this gets on television, because I am
going to be telling all my colleagues that, because most of my
colleagues still believe that we are very dependent on Saudi
oil. We are not. We don't need them. And if they don't start
working with the United States, especially in cases as serious
as the ones we are talking about today, they ought to pound
sand and eat their own oil.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, can I say that I agree with you
on that statement also. I heard you mention that in your
earlier opening statement.
I will tell you, though, that a few moments ago when you
were talking about you didn't understand how these judges could
make these rulings, I can tell you that I never handled any
divorce or domestic relations cases. I tried the felony
criminal cases.
Mr. Burton. I wasn't talking about you, Judge.
Ms. Tonetti, it is my understanding the Saudi Government
said they would be willing to drop your crimes against Islam if
you dropped the kidnapping charges against your husband. Do you
consider that a serious offer?
Ms. Tonetti. No, I do not.
Mr. Burton. What crimes against Islam did you commit?
Ms. Tonetti. I am not quite sure. I think the fact--the
fact that I have a child and I have a new husband, and I don't
believe they ever recognized I divorced from my ex-husband. So
perhaps----
Mr. Burton. But the Saudis can have four wives?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes.
Mr. Burton. They can have up to four wives, and they have
complete control over all of their wives and children.
Ms. Tonetti. It is good to be a man in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Burton. Yes.
I don't know that I want to prolong the questioning. Are
there any other questions we ought to get on the record?
Did you have any questions, Mr. Berry?
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the
remarks that you have already made, and I want to thank you
for, once again, attempting to bring the necessity that our own
government has got to do something about this.
If there was ever anything worth fighting for, this is it.
And I think we have, as a Congress, we have got to force this
issue to the point where we get something done about it.
I appreciate the efforts you have already made and that I
know you will continue to make, and I offer my support in
anything you attempt to do.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Berry, what I will do is get you copies of
the legislation we are going to be proposing and we are going
to try to talk to the Women's Caucus and try to get them on
board as well. There will be a growing amount of support. I
appreciate your help.
Let me ask a couple more questions before we finish here,
and then we will let you go.
Do you know if the President has ever raised any of your
cases with the Saudis? Or the State Department, only in your
case the State Department.
Mr. Rives. Has raised the question?
Mr. Burton. And do you think the President should?
Mr. Rives. Yes.
Ms. Tonetti. Yes.
Mr. Rives. I think it is the only way.
Ms. McClain. Yes.
Mr. Burton. We will see if we can't get a message to him.
We are going to condense this tape down. I can't take all
of the six or eight statements we heard today and have somebody
who is in the midst of a war watch all of them, but what we
will do is condense it down so that the guts of your statement
is very clearly expressed, and we will get that on tape to
everybody we possibly can in leadership in our country and see
if they can't understand how important this is.
I give you my word, I don't know if any of you saw the ``60
Minutes'' piece, but the Saudi Ambassador said I went over
there for publicity reasons. You know, what I said to them was
my father went to prison for abusing me and my mom and my
brothers and sisters, and I don't like people like that very
much. The Saudis fall right into the category of my dad who
should have gone to prison and did go to prison.
As long as I am in the Congress in a position where I can
do something about this, you can count on me pounding on them.
I won't quit, I promise.
With that, I know that you don't have a lot of hope, and
the only reason I am telling you that is because, don't give
up. You know, Winston Churchill said never, never, never, never
give in. You just hang in there and keep pleading your case.
And you talk to your other Congressmen, who may not be here
today, talk to your Senators, talk to the media, talk to
everybody you can; and we will keep the heat on the Saudis
until we start getting some results.
Thanks an awful lot. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:36 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
and the exhibits referred to follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
AMERICANS KIDNAPPED TO SAUDI ARABIA: IS THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT
RESPONSIBLE?
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Morella, Shays, Horn, Ose,
Duncan, Waxman, Maloney, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich, Clay, and
Kerns.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Daniel R.
Moll, deputy staff director; James C. Wilson, chief counsel;
David A. Kass, deputy chief counsel; Pablo Carrillo and Jason
Foster, counsels; Scott Feeney, Caroline Katzin, and Gil
Macklin, professional staff members; Blain Rethmeier,
communications director; Allyson Blandford, assistant to chief
counsel; Robert A. Briggs, chief clerk; Robin Butler, office
manager; Joshua E. Gillespie, deputy chief clerk; Michael
Layman, legislative assistant; Nicholis Mutton, deputy
communications director; Leneal Scott, computer systems
manager; Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator; T.J.
Lightle, systems administrative assistant; Sarah Despres,
minority counsel; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; and Jean
Gosa and Earley Green, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Burton. First of all, I want to ask you to excuse me
for not wearing my coat, but I am dying from the heat from
running back and forth to the House Chamber. And I have asked
them to turn the air down a little bit, so if anybody gets too
cold raise your hand. I am dying.
A quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform
will come to order, and I assume that others Members will be
here. One of the things that we are going to have to do if I
don't have another Member or two here, we are going to have
votes on the war resolution on the Committee on Foreign Affairs
and I will probably have to excuse myself to run and cast a few
votes on that. So we will just be prepared for it.
This is day 2 of our hearing on Saudi Arabian child
abduction cases. Yesterday's hearing was one of the toughest,
most emotional hearings that I have ever had to sit through. It
was almost unbearable to sit here and listen to four parents
whose children were snatched away from them. It was heart
wrenching to hear how much these parents love their kids and
how they have been kept from seeing them for years.
When I think about the fact that in many cases these Saudi
men violated U.S. court orders when they took these children
from their mothers, I get angry. And when I think about the
fact that the Saudi Government was complicit in some of these
kidnappings, I get even angrier.
The story of Joanna Stephenson Tonetti is a good example.
She and her Saudi husband were divorced in 1997. She got sole
custody of their three children. Two years ago her husband
asked for an unsupervised visit. The judge agreed, but only if
the husband promised not to leave the country with the kids. He
promised. The judge sent a copy of the custody orders to the
Saudi embassy to make sure that they wouldn't issue passports
or visas to the children if the husband did not keep his
promise. Well, as soon as he got the kids he took them straight
to the embassy, and the embassy gave him passports and visas
and off they went to Saudi Arabia. Until 2 months ago, Joanna
hadn't been able to speak to her children in 2 years. The Saudi
Government was complicit in that kidnapping. An arrest warrant
has been issued for that man and the Saudi Government is
protecting him. And yesterday, she was asked by Senator Bayh if
she wanted to come over and she did come over there yesterday.
She asked me to go with her, and the Saudi Government
representative that was there said that he would not meet with
her if I was in the meeting. That is not a good sign.
On September 12, Prince Bandar wrote a letter to the editor
of the Wall Street Journal. The very first paragraph, here's
what he said. ``some have charged that Saudi Arabia is holding
Americans against their will. This is absolutely not true.''
After yesterday's hearing we know that his statement is
false. He lied. And after being in Saudi Arabia with five of my
colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats as well as
Independents, we all know that's not true, because we talked to
women who are being held against their will and their children
as well.
We asked Debra Docekal, her son, Ramie, Ramie was one of
the fortunate few. He got out. For 14 years he was separated
from his mother in a country where he didn't want to live. Two
months ago he was finally allowed to leave. But the sad part is
he had to leave his 15-year-old sister behind. Yesterday he
told us in no uncertain terms that she wants to return to the
United States.
We heard from Sam Seramur's daughter, Maha. She saw the
amazing--we saw the amazing videotape of her escape in
Malaysia. Maha testified about the terrible situation that
American kids endure in Saudi Arabia and once again I want to
play a short segment of that, of her testimony.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Burton. When we were in Saudi Arabia in August we saw
with our own eyes that Americans there were living in fear. We
met with women who were desperate to get out, but they were
terrified of being beaten or killed by their husbands if they
said anything or if their husbands found out that they met with
us. So when Prince Bandar said there are no Americans being
held against their will in Saudi Arabia, we know that he lied.
We heard firsthand testimony yesterday from six families, and
that is just a fraction of the cases.
As I said yesterday, when I first got involved in the
issue, all I wanted to do was help a few mothers be reunited
with their kidnapped kids. I hoped that the Saudi Government
would work with us. That hasn't happened. In public they say
and do all the right things, but behind the scenes they've done
everything they could to undermine our efforts. When I was
meeting with the Foreign Minister, Prince Saud, in Saudi
Arabia, I asked if my staff could sit down with his staff and
talk about the details of the cases. He said no, and I couldn't
believe it. He said it should be done on a diplomatic basis. He
didn't want our lawyers talking to theirs. I don't know what he
was hiding.
They concocted a story that I tried to bribe Amjad Radwan
with $1 million if she'd come back to the United States, which
is just nonsense. But they said she was free to go at any time
she wanted. But when I met with her, I could see there were
tears in her eyes. I couldn't see the rest of her because she
was wearing one of those abayas and her hands were trembling
and she was afraid. I think she was terrified.
We've been hearing for weeks that the Saudis have a list of
Saudi children who have been kidnapped to the United States.
That would be a pretty effective PR device if it was true.
Yesterday we finally got a copy of the list, and it's just
nonsense. There were four names on the list. One was not any
kind of a kidnapping suspect. The first name on the list was
Dria Davis who's testified that she got out because she wanted
to get out and she had--they had to figure out a way to smuggle
her out. She was held against her will in Saudi Arabia for
years before she escaped. She's an American citizen. She
testified in June. She said she'd rather die than go back to
Saudi Arabia, and I'd like for you to listen to her tape. This
is one of the people they said we kidnapped.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Burton. Now, the Saudis say that woman was kidnapped
and brought to America. Her grandmother had to sell her house
to get $200,000 so that they could help rescue her from that
place. But the Saudis are telling the world that's a
kidnapping. We are not the only ones. Two of President
Clinton's top anti-terrorism aides--once again we are getting
disinformation from the Saudi Government and we are not the
only ones. Two of President Clinton's top anti-terrorism aides
just wrote a book. They said that Prince Bandar, who's lied to
the media and to this committee through the media, they said
that Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States,
repeatedly lied to the Director of FBI about the Khobar Tower
bombing. This isn't the Republican administration. This is the
previous administration. And their Ambassador to the United
States lied to the FBI in this country about that bombing.
Nineteen American servicemen died in the terrorist attack and
the Saudi Ambassador misled us. Now, with these kidnapping
cases we have been given misinformation again and that's not
acceptable.
We invited the Saudi embassy spokesman Adel al-Jubeir to
come and testify today. Yesterday we heard from five mothers
and one father. Today we wanted to give the Saudis a chance to
give us their side of the story. In fact, when al-Jubeir spoke
to 60 Minutes, he complained that we had not invited him to our
first hearing. But he refused to testify. So we subpoenaed
their top lobbyist, Michael Petruzzello. He's been called the
leader of the Saudi efforts to deal with our committee. Mr.
Petruzzello is the head of Qorvis Communications. His firm is
paid more than $200,000 a month to represent the Saudis.
One point--let's see. How much is that? $200,000 a month.
That's $1.4 million a year. We have a lot of questions for Mr.
Petruzzello. I'd like to know if he agrees with Prince Bandar's
statements that no Americans are being held against their will
in Saudi Arabia. And I'd like to know what their position is on
each of the cases that we've heard about today. And I would
like to know why the Saudi Government is harboring men who have
abducted their children when arrest warrants have been issued
here in the United States. They violated U.S. court orders. I'd
like to know why Pat Roush's daughters were sent to London to
meet with strangers instead of to California to meet with their
mother. I'd like to know if he believes in his heart that a
Saudi woman can really say what she thinks if her father or
husband disagrees.
I think these are fair questions, and I think these
families that are here today deserve answers. We're also going
to hear from two State Department officials. For a long time
the State Department didn't want to deal with that issue.
However, I think that's starting to change.
Twelve years ago when Monica Stowers gathered up her
children and took them to the U.S. Embassy, they were ordered
out and removed by Marine guards. She was arrested. Her 12-
year-old daughter--her daughter was 12 at the time, right? A
little before that. Was she the one that was married off? She
was married off at age 12 as a reprisal, I guess, against the
kids going to the embassy and the mother was arrested.
This year when Sam Seramur got her daughter in Malaysia and
took her to the U.S. Embassy, they helped her in Kuala Lumpur.
They took them in and got them home to the United States and I
want to--and she said that our Ambassador in Kuala Lumpur was
extremely helpful and our Ambassador deserves credit for that,
and I also want to thank Colin Powell, our Secretary of State
for helping get that lady back to the United States. When we
were in Riyadh, Ambassador Jordan pledged that never again
would a citizen of the United States who needed help be turned
away, and I applaud that. When I met with Secretary of State
Powell in September, he told me they're going to work very hard
to keep this issue on the front burner. I think that's very
positive.
So I'd like to hear from our witnesses today what's going
to be done by the State Department as we move forward to help
get these cases resolved. And finally I've invited one of our
former U.S. Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia, Ray Mabus. It seems
like Ambassador Mabus was one of the few State Department
officials who really pushed the Saudis to return kidnapped
children. When Pat Roush's ex-husband refused to return their
daughters, Ambassador Mabus stopped approving visas for his
extended family. That caused a lot of problems for that family
and it almost worked. Unfortunately, when Ambassador Mabus
left, his successor, Wyche Fowler, discontinued that policy.
Now his successor has been on TV supporting the Saudis. I can
only wonder if he has been funded by the Saudi Government.
It's been reported in the press that some of our former
Ambassadors to Riyadh have gone to work for the Saudis and make
a lot of money. Listen to this quote that was attributed to
Prince Bandar in the Washington Post. ``If the reputation
builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave
office you would be surprised how much better friends you have
who are just coming into office.'' And I think that's the real
problem. Ambassadors are supposed to be working for the
American people, not foreign interests. I think this area needs
a lot more scrutiny.
I want to thank Ambassador Mabus for being here today. I
think he deserves our thanks for his efforts while he was in
Riyadh, and I will be interested in hearing what he thinks we
can do from here on out to resolve these cases.
And with that I yield to my colleague, Mr. Waxman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These are valuable
hearings that you are holding that remind us that there are
fundamental differences between democratic governments like
ours and Saudi Arabia. The United States is a pluralistic
democracy where religious freedoms are not only tolerated, they
are encouraged. American laws do not differentiate between
genders, religions, races or ethnicities. People in the United
States enjoy freedom of speech and the right to travel. These
are not just American values. They are basic human rights
espoused by many countries around the world.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a theocracy. There is
no public participation in government. Religious freedom is
prohibited, and there is no freedom of speech or assembly. Men
and women are treated very differently by Saudi law. Women do
not have the same educational opportunities as men. They cannot
be admitted to a hospital without the permission of their
nearest male relative. Women cannot drive and they cannot
associate freely with men in public. Women cannot travel
without permission from their fathers or their husbands.
These hearings have focused in particular on an aspect of
Saudi Arabia that directly affects American parents: How
Americans who divorce their Saudi spouses can essentially be
denied the right to be a part of their children's lives. The
committee has heard compelling testimony from women who have
not had contact with their children in years because the Saudi
fathers would not grant them permission to come to Saudi
Arabia. We have also heard testimony from women who were forced
to take extreme measures, such as orchestrating a rescue or
living under discriminatory conditions in Saudi Arabia, to have
any contact with their children. And we have even heard from a
man, Michael Rives, who was denied contact with his children
after his ex-wife kidnapped their children to Saudi Arabia.
One key question that I hope we will be able to explore
today is to what extent is the Saudi Government complicit in
keeping these families apart. There appears to be significant
evidence of Saudi Government involvement. For example, the
committee heard yesterday from two witnesses who, fearing that
their husbands would violate American court orders giving them
custody of their children, made the Saudi Government aware that
their children were not to be taken out of the country.
Nonetheless, in both of these cases the Saudi Government
allowed these men and their children to travel to Saudi Arabia
in violation of American law.
I recognize that Michael Petruzzello, who has been
subpoenaed here today, is not an official in the Saudi
Government, but he has been hired as a public relations
specialist by the Saudis to present their case to the American
public. I hope he will be able to answer some of these
questions.
We have also heard complaints about the role our own
government has played in these cases. I am glad that we will
have witnesses from the State Department here today so that we
will be able to inquire whether the U.S. Government has done
everything that it could.
In closing, let me thank the chairman for holding this
hearing and tell the witnesses that I look forward to their
testimony. Even though other business will require me to be out
of the hearing room, I will have a chance to review their
testimony and the record, which we will be able to share with
all of our colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. The gentleman from
California.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to visit and attend this hearing today. This is a
followup to a June 12 hearing. My particular interest, and for
which I am grateful for you calling this, is we asked a number
of questions at the June 12 hearing of State Department and we
have had some written answers. In the time that you are going
to allot to me we're going to go through those responses one by
one and clarify them. I'm looking forward to that exchange. I
am particularly interested in the list of child custody and
U.S. citizen departure cases that is appended to the responses
from the State Department. I'm just giving the State
Department's person just a heads up. We're going through this
one by one.
So I thank you for doing this.
Mr. Burton. OK, Mr. Ose.
Mr. Horn.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted that you took a sort
of very important step with this, because this happens all over
the world. But it happens and it shouldn't happen, and the
Saudis should know what the outside world thinks, and I'm sure
that women in Saudi Arabia are not too pleased with that
policy, and so are we.
So thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Horn. Would the witnesses please
rise so we can have you sworn?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Burton. I have been told that the witnesses we had
before us yesterday don't have an opening statement, so Mr.
Petruzzello, we will let you go ahead and start.
STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL PETRUZZELLO, MANAGING PARTNER, QORVIS
COMMUNICATIONS, PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
SAUDI ARABIA; MICHAEL RIVES, FATHER OF LILLY AND SAMI RIVES;
MAUREEN DABBAGH, MOTHER OF NADIA DABBAGH; MARGARET McCLAIN,
MOTHER OF HEIDI AL-OMARY; AND JOANNA STEPHENSON TONETTI, MOTHER
OF ROSEMARY, SARAH, AND ABDULAZIZ AL-ARIFI
Mr. Petruzzello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. My name is Michael Petruzzello. I am the Managing
Partner of Qorvis Communications, an outside communications
firm for the Saudi Embassy in Washington. I'm here today in
response to the committee subpoena.
Let me take a moment to explain the role of Qorvis
Communications. We were hired late last year to assist the
Saudi Embassy on media and communications matters in the United
States. The vast majority of our communications work is related
to bilateral U.S.-Saudi relations and the war on terrorism. We
do not set policy or implement policy. We are a facilitator for
media and public relations.
On the issue before the committee today we have helped the
embassy prepare materials and respond to information requests
such as requests for interviews of embassy officials.
As I indicated, I am here in response to the committee's
subpoena. I am not here as a representative of the embassy or
to speak on its behalf in connection with the matter before the
committee. Within that framework I will answer any questions
the committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Petruzzello follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Thank you. Mr. Cummings, did you have an
opening statement?
Let me start off by saying that the reason we asked you to
be here and issued a subpoena was because on television on 60
Minutes one of the representatives of the Saudi Government
speaking for, I presume, the embassy and Prince Bandar stated
that they weren't invited to testify before this committee. We
corrected that by inviting them and they chose not to come
because I don't think they really wanted to be asked questions
about these things. So we felt like you as their representative
would probably be the only one that we could get here. Did
you--Mr. Petruzzello.
Mr. Petruzzello. Petruzzello.
Mr. Burton. Petruzzello. Mr. Petruzzello, did you or your
firm help draft Prince Bandar's letter to the Wall Street
Journal, the letter that said, ``Some have charged that Saudia
Arabia is holding Americans against their will, and this is
absolutely not true''?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, I believe we provided some
early drafts and talking points for that letter.
Mr. Burton. So you did help draft that?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. Do you really believe that statement?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, it is the position and
statement of the Government of Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Burton. But you helped draft it?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. And if you drafted it, it says, ``Some have
charged that Saudi Arabia is holding Americans against their
will. This is absolutely not true.'' Since you helped draft it,
don't you think that you ought to know whether or not that's
true? Do you think they are not holding Americans against their
will over there?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, that is the position that
Saudi Arabia has publicly stated. I really don't have anything
more to add to that.
Mr. Burton. Do you believe that they're not holding people
against their will over there?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, these are very complex legal
matters and matters of international law, which I really don't
have a full grasp of, so I really can't comment any further on
that.
Mr. Burton. You saw the testimony of some of these young
ladies over here who have escaped from Saudi Arabia. Do you
think they lied?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't have any reason to believe they
lied. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. And you get $200,000 a month from the Saudi
Government.
Mr. Petruzzello. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Did you watch any of yesterday's hearing?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. Burton. Did you get a briefing about our hearing?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. Burton. How can you really speak honestly about this
issue if you didn't pay any attention to what we talked about
yesterday?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. You knew you were going to testify today,
didn't you?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, I am not a spokesperson for
the Saudi Government. But I'm here to respond to any questions
of me you have.
Mr. Burton. You're not a spokesman for the government and
yet you helped draft this letter that said some have charged
that Saudi Arabia is holding Americans against their will and
it's not true. It's absolutely not true. You helped draft that
letter.
Mr. Petruzzello. I helped draft it, yes.
Mr. Burton. Do you think these people here who have their
kids in Saudi Arabia that have been kidnapped by their fathers
and in violation of court orders, do you think that they should
have their children returned to them?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, you know, I believe the King
of Saudi Arabia has stated publicly a desire to work
constructively with the U.S. Government to help resolve these
cases and I do not--I do not have information on any of the
individual cases nor do I understand the legal ins and outs of
them. But I do, you know, I can only state what the government
has said publicly.
Mr. Burton. Well, you have children, don't you?
Mr. Petruzzello. I have a son.
Mr. Burton. How old is your boy?
Mr. Petruzzello. He's 6 years old.
Mr. Burton. Do you think an American child, that American
citizens who have been kidnapped from the United States and
taken to Saudi Arabia enjoy the same rights that your kids do?
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm sorry, I didn't understand the
question.
Mr. Burton. Do you think the kids who have been kidnapped
from the United States, children of these people who have been
kidnapped from the United States and taken to Saudi Arabia, do
you think those children enjoy the same human rights that your
boy does?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, it's my understanding that the
laws and customs of Saudi Arabia are different than our own.
Mr. Burton. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by
that. Their customs are different than our own. Tying a boy up
and beating him, does that sound like something that's just a
different custom?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, I would say tying up a boy
and beating him would be wrong in any country.
Mr. Burton. Well, you ought to check out that place over
there. I was in a--for your information, I was in a meeting
with a woman who didn't have her head completely covered with
her abaya and the religious police came in and threatened to
arrest those of us in that meeting just because her head wasn't
covered. If a woman has her ankles uncovered, they beat her
ankles with a whip, and if they don't obey the law, they put
the Koran under the arm and they can beat you up to 40 times
with a whip and in some cases they can whip you up to 8,000
times. Of course they don't do that all at once. They spread it
out over a few weeks. You can choose to do that.
Does that sound like human rights?
Let me just say this to the mothers that are here. Do you
think the children who have been taken from you have the same
rights that Mr. Petruzzello's son has? How about you, Ms.
Tonetti?
Ms. Tonetti. No, they don't. No, my children have no
rights.
Mr. Burton. How about you, Ms. McClain?
Ms. McClain. My daughter does not have any human rights or
any constitutional rights in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Burton. And she's a citizen of the United States?
Ms. McClain. Yes, sir, she is.
Mr. Burton. How about you, Mr. Rives?
Mr. Rives. No, sir, not my daughter, and if he looks at a
picture of my son----
Mr. Burton. Can you turn the mic on? We can't hear you,
sir.
Mr. Rives. Certainly my daughter does not have any rights
to freedom as we as Americans have. And if he, Mr. Petruzzello,
could look over there at my blonde headed boy over there and if
you don't think he is going to be discriminated against with
the current resentment against Americans in Saudi Arabia, I'm
sure you wouldn't want your American son over there.
Mr. Burton. How about you, Ms. Dabbagh?
Ms. Dabbagh. My daughter has no rights or protections in
Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Burton. Prince Saud told us when we were in Saudi
Arabia that this country does not recognize U.S. law in
situations that apply to families and children. Do you think
that Saudi should recognize U.S. law when a court makes a
decision? Do you think they should recognize our laws?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, again, I'm no expert in
international law or the recognition of law of one country to
another. So I wouldn't know how to comment on that.
Mr. Burton. Is it true that no U.S. citizen is being held
against their will in Saudi Arabia? What do you think about
that?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, I--Mr. Chairman, I'll just
restate that is the position of the Saudi Government, and I
have nothing more to add to that.
Mr. Burton. Before our hearings and our trip to Saudi
Arabia, we were told in no uncertain terms that Amjad Radwan,
an adult American woman, could not be allowed to leave Saudi
Arabia without the permission of her father. But when we got to
Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud said that any adult American woman
can leave if she wants. Doesn't that prove that the Saudi royal
family can change their policy if they want to?
Mr. Petruzzello. Could you restate the question, please?
Mr. Burton. When we were there, we were told that in very
clear terms that no--no woman could leave Saudi Arabia, no
child, no female, could leave without the permission of her
father. But when we got there, as far as Amjad Radwan was
concerned, Prince Saud, the Foreign Minister, said that any
adult American woman could leave if she wants to. Now, doesn't
that prove that the Saudi royal family can change that policy
if they want to?
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm not familiar with the statement of
Prince Saud. You know, what I would say is that the--Saudi
Arabia is working diligently and trying to find resolutions to
this issue.
Mr. Burton. Well, doesn't this flip-flop show that the
argument that you kept advancing about how the royal families
hands are tied by the laws of Islam is just a red herring?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, what the government has said
is that they are--take this issue very seriously and are
working to try and resolve individual cases and that there are
complexities between United States and Saudi law, that they
feel that new mechanisms are needed to help resolve these cases
more quickly. And as I understand, they have proposed to the
State Department a formation of an international protocol to
address that.
Mr. Burton. Well, my time has expired. I am going to have
to yield to my colleagues, but let me just say this. American
citizens that have been kidnapped in violation of American law,
with the help of the Saudi Government, shows very clearly that
they do not recognize American law. Prince Saud told me they
don't recognize U.S. law. They recognize only Saudi law, and
that has to be changed. And we're going to continue to push on
this, even though you and others are paid exorbitant amounts of
money by the Saudi Government to represent them and to try to
make them look good.
In my district and here in Washington, and I don't know if
it's throughout the country, this past week or 2 weeks since we
held our first hearing I have seen tremendous numbers of
commercials talking about what great allies and friends the
Saudis are. And I'm sure your firm had a lot to do with placing
those ads. Putting them in my district isn't going to influence
me. So you can save your money. Don't spend any more of the
Saudis' money in Indiana because I'm going to continue to have
these hearings as long as I'm in the Congress until they change
their policies.
And with that, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just
want to just ask a few questions. Your role--do you provide
advice to the Government of Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Petruzzello. My role and the role of my firm is to act
as a facilitator for the embassy, to provide information to the
media and to the public.
Mr. Cummings. And you said that you--but you personally,
are you involved, you, yourself, not just your firm? I'm
talking about you.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, sir, I am personally involved.
Mr. Cummings. And you said--I was just reading and you were
involved in the writing of the letter, is that right? The
letter that Mr. Burton, Chairman Burton referred to.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. There's a part of the letter that I was just
curious about and it's very interesting and, since you were
part of it, I guess you might be able to explain it. It says,
``Many things have been attributed to the visit,'' meaning
Chairman Burton's visit, ``of the congressional delegation led
by Representative Burton that do not reflect what was actually
discussed during the visit. We are frankly surprised that the
delegation itself has not clarified thus far what was
attributed to it.''
Can you explain that paragraph? What that means and what
you're talking about?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I'm not familiar with what
Prince Bandar meant specifically in that paragraph. I, you
know, I guess, you know, what the Saudis have said in other
forums is that they feel that they haven't had their views
fully expressed and want to enter a more constructive dialog
with this committee and with the U.S. Government to try and
seek solutions to this issue.
Mr. Cummings. And when this letter was put together, was
this a team effort? And who did you communicate with? I mean,
who helped you--who did you help write this letter?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, we provide some talking
points to the embassy, but, you know, the letter itself is a
product of the embassy and the embassy staff and Prince Bandar.
Mr. Cummings. All right. Now, it talks here about--it says
``My government is also seeking solutions to these cases, and
we have requested the assistance of the U.S. Government in this
matter,'' talking about the 10 cases that you all claim are
still outstanding. Are we--are you getting the kind of
cooperation that you need with regard to the United States?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I'm not involved in the
individual cases or the efforts to find solutions to the cases.
I think that question would probably be best directed to the
embassy and the State Department.
Mr. Cummings. OK. Is there someone who has more information
than you had, because you're not being very helpful this
morning, to be very frank with you, is there someone in your
firm that knows more than you or somebody who we could subpoena
and get in here?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, not in my firm. You know,
again to restate, our role is media relations, communications.
We're not attorneys and we're not involved in the legal
proceedings that people within the embassy and within the
foreign ministry have that specific information and I----
Mr. Cummings. Did you have a conversation with anyone
before coming here from the embassy, I mean, anyone at the
embassy before coming here today?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I informed the embassy that I
was subpoenaed to testify, but I have had no further
conversation with them about this.
Mr. Cummings. And who did you tell that to?
Mr. Petruzzello. I informed Adel al-Jubeir, who is the
Foreign Policy Advisor to the Crown Prince.
Mr. Cummings. And that was the end of the conversation;
I've been subpoenaed and I'm going in, and that was it? He said
OK?
Mr. Petruzzello. That's it, yes.
Mr. Cummings. Nobody asked you what you were going to be
talking about?
Mr. Petruzzello. I was given no instruction by the embassy.
Mr. Cummings. Now, can you just tell us what you all do for
this $200,000 a month?
Mr. Petruzzello. We help the embassy develop information
materials or respond to media requests. Congressman, the vast
majority of our work has to do with questions about U.S.-Saudi
relations, questions regarding the war on terrorism and
questions regarding, you know, our national interests in Iraq.
You know, most--that's where--there's been a lot of questions
since last year when we were hired and that's really where our
work is largely focused on.
Mr. Cummings. So you would say, I guess, based upon what
you have said so far, you would have--your firm would have no
real influence on trying to bring these cases to some type of
conclusion; in other words, you don't--you just sort of--you're
just sort of a mouthpiece?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I'm not a spokesperson for
the Saudi Government. But to answer your question, no, we're
not involved in the resolution of cases.
Mr. Cummings. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ose [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Petruzzello, I want to go through a couple of things.
Were you aware that Chairman Burton and a number of Members
were headed to Saudi Arabia in August? Were you aware of that
trip?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, I was aware of that.
Mr. Ose. The question was whether or not Mr. Petruzzello
was aware of the trip that Chairman Burton and others took to
Saudi. Did you discuss Chairman Burton's delegation trip to
Saudi Arabia with any members of the Saudi embassy?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, yes, I did.
Mr. Ose. Who?
Mr. Petruzzello. We had discussions about the trip with
Nail al-Jubeir, who is the Director, Deputy Director of the
Information Office.
Mr. Ose. Only him?
Mr. Petruzzello. At the embassy, yes.
Mr. Ose. Anybody else besides Mr. Jubeir at the embassy?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, not at the embassy.
Mr. Ose. Anybody else outside the embassy?
Mr. Petruzzello. Outside the embassy would be Adel al-
Jubeir, who is the Foreign Policy Advisor to the Crown Prince.
Mr. Ose. Now is the Foreign Policy Advisor of the Crown
Prince based at the embassy?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, he's part of the royal court in
Riyadh.
Mr. Ose. OK, so you called him on the phone or something?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, and he is occasionally here in
Washington.
Mr. Ose. Now, you're the Managing General Partner of
Qorvis?
Mr. Petruzzello. Managing Partner of Qorvis Communications.
Mr. Ose. All right. And the Saudis pay you $200,000 a month
to assist them in their communications here in the United
States?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Mr. Ose. OK. You answer in the affirmative that you were
aware of Chairman Burton's trip to Saudi Arabia with his
delegation. Were you aware before Chairman Burton left the
United States that the al Gheshayan daughters were going to
London for an interview with--who is the guy? The guy that did
the interview in London. O'Reilly?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Congressman, I'm not sure the exact
dates of when Mr. Burton left the United States. But I was made
aware that the al Gheshayan girls were going to London a day or
two before they arrived in London.
Mr. Ose. Who advised you of that?
Mr. Petruzzello. Adel al-Jubeir.
Mr. Ose. So apparently at some point within the embassy a
decision was made to have the al Gheshayan girls go to London
for the purpose of the interview?
Mr. Petruzzello. Uhm----
Mr. Ose. And you were so advised?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, it was my understanding that
the trip to London was inspired by Adel al-Jubeir's appearance
on the Fox O'Reilly Show some weeks before where he made a
commitment to work to have the girls meet with the U.S.
Government officials and the media outside of Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Ose. That's a remarkable coincidence. Now, you knew
that the congressional delegation was going to Saudi Arabia.
Did you know the purpose of their visit?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Ose. And what was, in your understanding, what was the
purpose of that visit?
Mr. Petruzzello. As I understand it, it was to meet with
the Saudi Government officials to discuss the issue before the
committee today as well as other issues of mutual interest to
the United States and Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Ose. Were you aware that the delegation's specific
interest was to arrange visits between the kidnapping victims
and their left behind parents?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, Congressman. It was actually, I think,
the understanding of the Government of Saudi Arabia that
meetings with the individual families was not part of the
delegation's agenda.
Mr. Ose. Is there anybody here that you recognize in the
audience that's otherwise here on behalf of the Saudi Arabian
Government?
Mr. Petruzzello. People who represent----
Mr. Ose. Just take a look around here.
Mr. Petruzzello [continuing]. Who represent, like outside
counsel?
Mr. Ose. Yes.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, these two, three gentlemen right
behind in the one, two, three, fourth row behind me.
Mr. Ose. OK. Now, the visit to London with the al Gheshayan
girls, who made the decision to have those women transported
from Saudi Arabia to London, remarkably coincident to the
arrival of Chairman Burton's delegation in Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I don't know who specifically
made that decision.
Mr. Ose. All right. I'm going to recognize the gentleman
from California, Mr. Horn, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Horn. I came in a little late, but I don't know if
we've covered this on the facts of the various cases. And do
you think the Saudi Government has helped some of the Saudi
parents kidnap their U.S. citizen children?
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm sorry, sir. I couldn't--I could not
hear the question.
Mr. Horn. Well, based on your review of the facts of the
various cases, do you think the Saudi Government has helped
some of the Saudi parents kidnap their U.S. citizen children?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, before I answer that
question, I just want to go back to the Congressman's previous
question just to clarify, if I misunderstood, that if he asked
if there were representatives from the Saudi Government, the
embassy here. There isn't anyone from the embassy staff that is
here today.
But to address your question, sir, I have not reviewed in
detail any of the specifics of any of the individual cases.
And--but what I say is what the Saudi Government has said
publicly, is that they are looking for a more constructive
dialog with the U.S. Government. They believe that more
mechanisms are needed to bridge the gap between United States
and Saudi law and have--and are working to propose and work
with the State Department to develop those mechanisms.
Mr. Horn. You have been asked a couple of times as to what
the embassy thought of all this. And I guess I would ask, did
anything--did you have any relationships with the American
embassy on this--these cases?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, Congressman, I've never spoken to the
American embassy about these cases.
Mr. Horn. You haven't. Well, I would like to hear from the
mothers and the children. And did you work with the American
embassy, and what kind of help did they give, if any? So can we
just start from the bottom here of those who did any working
with the embassy? Is that Ms. Dabbagh?
Ms. Dabbagh. I asked--I made many requests to the American
embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for assistance in doing what is
called a welfare and whereabouts check in which an attempt is
made to locate the child as well as try to visit with her. They
have numerous times spoken with my ex-husband. They know where
he works. My ex-husband tells the diplomatic staff, no, you
can't see her. Then I'm called and said, oh, well, he won't let
us see her. There's nothing we can do.
Other attempts working through the U.S. embassy in Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia have included determining when she leaves the
country, when she reenters the country.
Mr. Horn. Well, I am just interested in----
Ms. Dabbagh. Yeah. That's about it. But nothing has ever
happened.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Rives, what kind of help did you get from the
American embassy?
Mr. Rives. Help from the American embassy?
Mr. Horn. Yes. In Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Rives. I got the same thing, whereabouts and welfare
visits. Also I have asked the U.S. Embassy how according to
worldwide Web site for Saudi Arabia it says that you cannot
have a visa for Saudi Arabia unless you have a valid passport
for at least 6 months. And my daughter's American passport
which she entered in expires January the 9, 2003, so I was
wondering why my child was not returned July 10th of this year.
I mean that's the visa requirements there.
Also I have asked the U.S. embassy how the Saudi Government
took away my children's American passports. This has more to do
with U.S.-Saudi relations, which you said that were the area of
your expertise, as opposed to custody issues. So also I've
asked the U.S. embassy how come I cannot get the passport
numbers and also the State Department has not been able to get
passport numbers of the Saudi Arabian passports that were given
to my kids when they took the American passports away.
And finally, how can they do anything, and I addressed this
at the embassy as well. How can the Saudi Government do
anything since I am their father, without my involvement. And,
you know, since this is U.S.-Saudi relationship, I was
wondering if Mr. Petruzzello, you know, knows something about
that. They published this on the Web about the visa
requirements, and so forth.
Thank you.
Mr. Horn. My--I have only a few minutes. Mrs. Tonetti and
Mrs. McClain, I'd like to know did the Saudis help kidnap the
children?
Ms. McClain. Yes. The Saudi Government did help kidnap my
daughter. I made them aware in both 1994 and 1995 that she was
an American citizen, that I had legal custody of her. I sent
them all the divorce and custody decree documents which my ex-
husband signed and agreed to in a court of law. I also
contacted the CEO of Saudi Arabian Airlines, which is a
government airline, that they were not to take my child out of
the country. And they proceeded to do so anyway.
Mr. Horn. Well, for the rest of you that's gone through
there, what did you think of the testimony of Mrs. Tonetti and
Mrs. McClain, who said the Saudi embassy was warned that their
Saudi ex-husbands did not have custody of their children but
that the embassy still helped the kidnappers get children out
of the country? Do you admit that this has happened?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, when--in discussing visa
regulations and requirements and the specifics of these cases,
it gets well outside of my sphere of expertise. I can only
comment on the public relations aspect of this. And I could say
that progress--the Saudis are well aware that progress in this
area would be helpful to their public relations efforts here.
Mr. Burton [presiding]. If I might, if the gentleman would
yield real quickly. Mrs. Tonetti I think had a similar
experience. Would you like to comment on that with your----
Ms. Tonetti. Well, it's just the fact that the embassy was
notified by regular and certified mail that they were not to
issue passports to my ex-husband, that he did not have legal or
physical custody, he was not permitted to leave the country
with them. But they ignored the court order and the divorce
decree and they went ahead and issued passports. So they were
accomplices in the kidnapping of three American children.
Mr. Horn. That's really outrageous. I would notice that,
Mr. Petruzzello, I don't understand your role because you don't
seem to understand that it seems to me if I were the public
relations person for the King of Saudi Arabia, I'd say, King,
why don't we make some ways of getting these children out of
the country and the King is absolute and so----
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I think you know the Saudi
Government has stated publicly on a number of occasions that
they want to see these cases find resolution where possible.
They want to see new mechanisms that will help bridge the gap
between United States and Saudi law, and they have said they
are working diligently to do so.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired. Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I want to
applaud you not only for this series of hearings but for the
trip that you took and I thought your appearance on 60 Minutes
was excellent in terms of defining what the problem is and the
anguish that all of us feel, and I would say that certainly it
is an unjust aspect of our relationship with Saudi Arabia that
U.S. citizens can be held against their will with the full
blessing of the Saudi Government and often in violation of U.S.
law. But fortunately, because of Chairman Burton's involvement,
the Saudi Government has evidently now expressed a desire to
develop bilateral protocols to enable the State Department and
the Saudi Government to resolve child abduction cases without
going through the legal system. And while I welcome any
discussions that could lead to less acrimony, I certainly have
doubts about the commitment of Saudi officials, given the
testimony that I've read from the witnesses that we have today,
and I find it extremely troubling that Saudi embassy officials
have knowingly allowed American children to leave the United
States in direct violation of a court order that they've been
told about.
So I can't help but question the commitment and desire of
Saudi officials to make the necessary concessions that would
allow for bilateral agreements to be workable. I know we'll
also hear more about that with the next panel.
But now, addressing a question to you, Mr. Petruzzello,
Qorvis Communications played a significant role in the visit of
the Roush girls to London last month. In fact, I understand a
Qorvis employee was actually present during at least one of the
interviews. Did the Qorvis employee meet up with the traveling
party in Europe or in Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Petruzzello. The Qorvis employee met with the sisters
in London.
Mrs. Morella. In London. Was there only one Qorvis
employee?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, there was only one.
Mrs. Morella. Were there any other lobbyists or Americans
who are helping to advise the Saudis regarding this trip?
Mr. Petruzzello. No.
Mrs. Morella. No. There were none. Have the two Roush
daughters ever been subject to coercion or duress?
Mr. Petruzzello. Not that I'm aware of. But I wouldn't--I
have never spoken directly to the sisters.
Mrs. Morella. So you're just not certain about it. You're
not certain about it. And were you comfortable----
Mr. Petruzzello. Congresswoman, let me say that the Saudi
Government has been very clear in saying that they have never
coerced the sisters to say or do anything they didn't want to
do.
Mrs. Morella. OK. I mean, I guess there's a question of
credibility or certainty. But this is what you have heard and
that is what you're saying?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mrs. Morella. All right. Were you comfortable in playing a
part in these interviews? Are you comfortable in this whole
situation? You know, as a father, and, you know, I mean, an
American.
Mr. Petruzzello. The answer to your question is that the
objective of the Saudi Government was to give the al Gheshayan
sisters an opportunity to meet privately outside of Saudi
Arabia with the U.S. Government officials and the media to
discuss their intentions on how and where they want to live
their lives. And you know, and the Saudi Government felt that
was a positive step.
Mrs. Morella. How did you feel about it?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, the--you know, I think any
progress on these cases is good for the families and good for
U.S.-Saudi relations.
Mrs. Morella. How do you know that there was no coercion or
duress when a Qorvis person was not there?
Mr. Petruzzello. When a Qorvis person was not there?
Mrs. Morella. Was not there.
Mr. Petruzzello. The only thing I can add to that is that
there were no Saudi Government officials with the sisters
during that time in London.
Mrs. Morella. We've got all these interruptions occurring
right now. I'm going to yield to you, Mr. Chairman, to pick up
on that.
Mr. Burton. If you would yield to me just briefly.
Mrs. Morella. Yes, I would like to.
Mr. Burton. You know, we had two different young ladies
that testified before our committee, I believe there were two,
that said that they were questioned in the presence of their
father about whether or not they wanted to come to the United
States. One of the young ladies, and I'll be glad to show you
the tape if you want to see it, said that she did not want to
come to the States. She wanted to stay in Saudi Arabia, and
then when she got out she said that her father threatened to
kill her if she didn't say what he wanted her to. Would you say
that's coercion if he threatened to kill her if she didn't say
what he wanted; would you say that's coercion?
Mr. Petruzzello. I would agree with that, yes.
Mr. Burton. Now, those women that went to Saudi Arabia,
their husbands were with them. We believe there was an
entourage of other Saudi men with them. We don't know if their
children were with them or not. They may have had the children
back in Saudi Arabia, which would have been another inducement
for them to say what was supposed to be said. So how do you
know that there wasn't any coercion? They had their abayas off
when they talked to the American embassy people. But when asked
if they would sign a statement saying that the statements that
they made could be released to the public, she said, well, we
can't--we can't sign those. We would have to ask our husbands
first. Then they put their abayas back on. They went and sat in
the corner of the room. The husbands came in and looked at the
documents and said, well, we'll have to give this some thought.
Do you think maybe there might have been some coercion there?
Do you think there's any possibility of it?
Mr. Petruzzello. Uhm----
Mr. Burton. In view of the fact that this one girl when she
got out said that my father threatened to kill me if I didn't
say what I was told to say, do you think maybe there might have
been a little coercion there?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, you know the government has,
you know, has said that, you know, has been diligent in trying
to get the al Gheshayan sisters to come to the United States
because they have been told by the committee, by the media,
that any interview or meeting with the sisters in Saudi Arabia
would be suspect.
Mr. Burton. That's right. So they didn't come to the United
States. They took them to England when I went with my
delegation to Saudi Arabia at the very same time, and so they
took them to England and they did not see their mother. They
did not come to the United States. They were not unattended by
other Saudi men. And we're not sure they even had their
children with them. So we really don't know, do we, whether or
not they were coerced? I mean, how would you know?
Mr. Petruzzello. Well, Mr. Chairman, the only thing that I
can add is that it was our understanding that they have one
child. The sisters have one child who was with them at the
time.
Mr. Burton. Were you there with them?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I was not, sir.
Mr. Burton. So who on your staff was there?
Mr. Petruzzello. Her name is Sharene Sojeir.
Mr. Burton. And what was her purpose?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, when the sisters went to
London they felt nervous about meeting with American media and
they wanted to have a woman be there just to be there while
they did the interview. Sharene is about their age, is an Arab
American, speaks a little Arabic. For obvious reasons the Saudi
Government didn't want a government official there. And so we
were asked by the embassy to have Sharene go, and she was there
for the interview with Fox and that was it.
Mr. Burton. Yeah. I don't think--my personal opinion is I
don't think there's any way to know whether or not they were
speaking freely. I think that the coercion factor is a very
real factor. I've talked to so many women who were trembling,
crying, scared to death that their husbands might even find out
that they're even talking to U.S. Congressmen or talking to
somebody in the media. You know, to say there's no coercion or
to indicate that I think is just uncertain to say the least.
There's no way to know. The only way to know whether or not
those ladies were coerced is to let them come to the United
States, with the child, encumbered, and let them talk to their
mother and the media here. If they want to go back to Saudi
Arabia, I don't think the United States would ever hold them.
So would you convey to the Saudi Government that the best way
to make sure is to let them come to California? Let them come
to the United States and talk to their mother and the media
here and if they decide they want to go back, that's fine.
Without their husbands. Without an entourage of men and without
threats.
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, the government has said that
they've been working diligently to try to have the girls come
to the United States.
Mr. Burton. OK.
Mr. Petruzzello. I think the trip to London wouldn't
preclude that opportunity in the future, and I will certainly
relay that message.
Mr. Burton. Yeah. Well, I think they're probably going to
get it anyhow. And with that, we'll stand in recess till the
fall of the gavel. We have two votes on the floor. We will be
right back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Ose. All right. We're going to proceed. We're going to
proceed pending the arrival of the other three witnesses.
Mr. Petruzzello. I am sorry. I apologize for that.
It happens.
Mr. Ose. I want to examine the issue of the London visit.
Mrs. Morella or Mr. Horn asked a question as to whether or not
Qorvis had somebody in attendance at that interview in London
with the Gheshayan daughters, and I believe your testimony was
that there was a Qorvis employee in attendance?
Mr. Petruzzello. There was a Qorvis employee in attendance
for one of the meetings.
Mr. Ose. Which one?
Mr. Petruzzello. The interview with Fox.
Mr. Ose. Were both girls in that interview?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Ose. OK. Who else was in that interview? I mean, who
were the other people in the room when Alia and Aisha Gheshayan
were interviewed?
Mr. Petruzzello. The producer from Fox, an interpreter, and
I'm--to be honest with you, I'm not certain whether the
husbands were in the meeting at that time or not.
Mr. Ose. Were there any representatives of the Saudi
Government?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, Congressman, no.
Mr. Ose. But you don't know if the husbands were in the
room or not?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I don't.
Mr. Ose. Who was the interpreter?
Mr. Petruzzello. The interpreter was hired by Fox. I don't
know the name, where the person came from.
Mr. Ose. What was the name of the Qorvis employee who was
in the room at the time of the interview?
Mr. Petruzzello. Her name is Shereen Sojhier.
Mr. Ose. Could you spell that for me, please.
Mr. Petruzzello. S-h-e-r-e-e-n, and the last name is S-o-j-
h-i-e-r.
Mr. Ose. And is she an American citizen or otherwise?
Mr. Petruzzello. American citizen.
Mr. Ose. Do you have her office base? Where is she
stationed?
Mr. Petruzzello. In our Washington office.
Mr. Ose. So she's here in D.C.
So she left D.C., flew to London?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Ose. I want to go back to my earlier question. It
appears to me as if--I'm sure it's coincidental. It appears to
me that the Gheshayan daughters left Saudi Arabia in time to be
in London concurrent with Chairman Burton's arrival in Saudi
Arabia.
What day did the employee of Qorvis leave Washington, DC,
to go to London for the purpose of the interview?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I can't recall the exact
date, but she left, I believe, the Saturday before the meeting,
which I believe occurred on Sunday.
Mr. Ose. My recollection, Jim, that was around the 23rd of
August, 22nd of August.
All right. So somebody from the D.C. Office--somebody in
the D.C. Office left D.C., headed for London a couple days
prior to the interview?
Mr. Petruzzello. That's correct. To the best I can recall
the exact times and dates, it was a day or two before the
meeting.
Mr. Ose. If I recall your earlier testimony, it was that
you had either been advised or discussed Chairman Burton's
CODEL to Saudi Arabia prospectively with your client before the
fact?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Ose. So the Saudis knew that Chairman Burton and the
CODEL were headed their way?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Ose. And if I recall your testimony, they knew the
purpose of the visit was to discuss these cases of American
children and women in Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Ose. And concurrent with the chairman's trip, two of
the women that we were specifically interested in, those being
the Gheshayan daughters, were allowed for the first time in
years to depart Saudi Arabia and go to London for the purpose
of an interview.
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm not sure I understand the question.
Mr. Ose. What was the purpose for which the Gheshayan
daughters went to London?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, Congressman--as I previously
testified, you know, it was inspired by al-Jabir's appearance a
couple weeks prior to where he appeared on the O'Reilly show
and made a commitment to work to have the Gheshayan sisters
interviewed and meet with U.S. Government officials outside of
Saudi Arabia.
Now, I understand from the Saudi Government that they had
been working for quite some time to invite the sisters--to
invite the sisters, to encourage the sisters to come to the
United States, which they have refused to do, and that they
were to have the sisters meet with the media in our embassy in
London.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Petruzzello, I touched on this subject
earlier. You are assisted today by some people from your
office. We have not asked them to testify, but we would like to
put on the record your direct employees and any consultants who
are here assisting you today.
Mr. Petruzzello. Certainly. Judy Smith is one of my
partners. She's the only other Qorvis employee here. This is my
attorney, and there are two gentlemen in the back who are----
Mr. Ose. What is your attorney's name?
Ms. Kiernan. Leslie Kiernan from Zuckerman, Spaeder.
Mr. Ose. Thank you.
Mr. Petruzzello. And then the two gentleman in the--towards
the rear of the room who serve as government relations
consultants at the embassy.
Mr. Ose. Kiernan is spelled K-i-e-r-n-a-n?
Ms. Kiernan. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Ose. And your coemployee?
Ms. Smith. Smith, S-m-i-t-h, Judy, J-u-d-y.
Mr. Ose. Thank you. Now, the two in the back, Mr.
Petruzzello, since we haven't subpoenaed them and we haven't
invited them to testify, could you give me their names, their
places of employ, and if you could spell their names, that
would be helpful.
Mr. Petruzzello. Jack Deschaeur, D-e-s-c-h-a-e-u-r, and
Jane--who is with the law firm of Patton Boggs. And Jamie
Gallagher, G-a-l-l-a-g-h-e-r, who is with the Gallagher Group.
Mr. Ose. Thank you.
Ms. Kiernan. Congressman, there is also somebody here with
me from my office.
Mr. Ose. OK. Let's put his name on the record.
Mr. Angulo. Congressman, my name is Carlos Angulo, A-n-g-u-
l-o Zuckerman, Spaeder.
Mr. Ose. From Qorvis?
Mr. Angulo. No, with the law firm of Zuckerman, Spaeder.
Mr. Ose. With Ms. Kiernan's law firm.
Mr. Angulo. Correct.
Mr. Ose. Thank you.
Mr. Petruzzello, have you ever met the father of the Roush
sisters?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I have not.
Mr. Ose. Have you ever talked to the Roush sisters?
Mr. Petruzzello. No.
Mr. Ose. Do you know if the Crown Prince, the Foreign
Minister of Saudi Arabia ever asked the Roush sisters to meet
with their mother?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I don't know that.
Mr. Ose. Do you know what is was that the Roush daughters
were asked to do when they went to London?
Mr. Petruzzello. They were asked to meet with
representatives of the American media and with our U.S.
embassy.
Mr. Ose. So the purpose was twofold, American media and the
American embassy?
Mr. Petruzzello. That's correct.
Mr. Ose. And clearly they met with the American media.
Did they meet with the American embassy?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes. I understand that they did.
Mr. Ose. With whom did they meet at the American embassy?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know the name of the government
official that they met with.
Mr. Ose. I see my colleagues have returned. I would like to
recognize the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petruzzello, your fee is $200,000 a month?
Mr. Petruzzello. That's correct.
Mr. Duncan. And that is $2,400,000 a year?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Duncan. That is a whopping fee. I suppose you know that
every law firm, every public relations agency in this city
would drool to get an account like that.
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Congressman, as I understand it,
that's not unusual or, you know----
Mr. Duncan. You're not saying that--you surely don't
believe that they would be happy to get that kind of an
account?
Mr. Petruzzello. I----
Mr. Duncan. Could you tell me any firm that wouldn't be
happy to get that size of an account?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I couldn't.
Mr. Duncan. Yet I see here from the staff that you
received, or your firm received, $3.8 million from Saudi Arabia
before registering as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agent'S
Registration Act; is that correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't have the foreign agent documents.
I haven't looked at those documents lately, but that doesn't
sound like it would be out of--you know, it doesn't sound like
that would be incorrect.
Mr. Duncan. Well, do you know whether or not your firm
represented Saudi Arabia for----
Mr. Ose. Would the gentleman yield?
That was a double negative. Could you answer it without the
double negative?
Mr. Petruzzello. Oh, sure.
Mr. Ose. You think the 3.8 number is correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. I haven't looked at the documents lately
or in the timeframe that the Congressman mentioned, but that--
you know, it doesn't sound out of line to me.
Mr. Ose. So it does sound like it is in line?
Mr. Petruzzello. It does sound like it is in line.
Mr. Ose. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, do you know----
Mr. Petruzzello. I should make clear that--I'm sorry.
Mr. Duncan. I noticed that in 2001 they were also
represented by the--the Saudi Government was also represented
by Akin Gump, Casting Associates, Dutton & Dutton, Shandwick
Public Affairs.
Do you have any rough guess as to what is the total amount
the Saudi Government is spending on lobbying fees, public
relations fees, consulting fees, legal fees here?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know exactly what the total----
Mr. Duncan. I didn't ask exactly. I said, do you have a
rough guess.
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't have a rough idea. I think some of
the firms that you mentioned are firms that worked for the
Saudi embassy some time ago, that are no longer working for
them; and for firms like Akin Gump, I believe they provide
legal services on trade matters, and I have no knowledge of
what that relates to. And I'm not certain that involves any
lobbying at all.
Mr. Duncan. In addition to all that Chairman Burton
mentioned yesterday, that the Saudi Government was spending
millions in advertising fees now and for advertising on
national television and so forth, do you have any idea how much
they are spending, rough guess, on that?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, and to--Congressman, to raise your
earlier point when you quoted $3.8 until, that wouldn't be fees
to Qorvis. You know, a significant amount of that would be
money that was to pay for advertising, and for advertising, I
believe what they're spending is--it was somewhere in the range
of $4 or $5 million, which is, you know, by advertising
standards, a very small amount.
Mr. Duncan. Let me ask you--of any of the parents here, if
you heard of some young woman or some young man in this
country, a U.S. citizen, who was about to--or was thinking
about marrying somebody from Saudi Arabia now, what would you
say to them?
Ms. Tonetti. Can I say what I really want to say?
Mr. Duncan. Yeah, sure.
Ms. Tonetti. Run like hell.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I hope that--I hope that if nothing else,
I hope the State Department takes action based on these
hearings, but if nothing else, I hope that these hearings call
attention and, hopefully, alert some young people that this is
something very, very dangerous, often even tragic, to get into.
Mr. Rives. Congressman, you asked about whether to marry a
Saudi and so forth. Let me just say that the Saudi folks are
terrific, and I had great admiration for the individuals that
live there. It's the government, that keeps people in or keeps
people out, I think, is the real problem.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. I'd like to thank all our witnesses for
appearing before the committee and to just set this up by
telling you, Mr. Petruzzello, that my subcommittee and this
full committee has had 40 hearings on terrorism, and
periodically, the government that you work for shows up in that
scenario. Fifteen of 19 of the suicide terrorists were Saudi
citizens, and that is embedded in my thought. I have 70
families who lost loved ones from what 15 Saudi citizens did
with four others.
The Wahhabi form of Islam showed up continually in my
hearings as militant fundamentalists and sympathetic to
terrorism. The teachings of Islam in Saudi Arabia showed up
continually as being hateful, vengeful and creating an
environment in which terrorism would flourish. You're working
for a government that is holding American citizens against
their will. You're also representing a government whose
phenomenal wealth has gone principally to 30,000 Royal Family
members, while at the same time the per capita income of the
average Saudi citizen has gone from 24,000 to 7,000.
I don't really have good feelings about the government you
work for, but I will tell you it has intensified tremendously
at the hearings that our chairman has conducted regarding
family members who are being held against their will.
I want to ask each of the witnesses who are on your left or
right this simple question.
Are your children, Ms. Tonetti, being held against their
will?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes, my American children are being held
against their will.
Ms. McClain. My daughter is a hostage in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Rives.
Mr. Rives. My children are 3----
Mr. Shays. Near the mic, please.
Mr. Rives. My children are 3 or 4. They don't know what
their will is yet.
Ms. Dabbagh. My daughter is being held in Saudi Arabia
against her will; and I would also like to go on record as
saying in a particular response to the huge number of Saudi
retainers here, I have been insulted, I have been warned, I
have been threatened, and I have been intimidated over the
years by Saudi employees and Saudi Government officials, and
not knowing they were going to have such a large number of
people here today, I want to go on record as saying I am very
fearful that they will continue reprisals.
Mr. Shays. I understand why you would feel that way.
Mr. Petruzzello, do you believe that their children are
being held against their will?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I'm not a representative or a
spokesperson for the government.
Mr. Shays. I didn't ask you any other question than the
question I just asked you. I asked you, do you believe their
children are being held against their will?
Mr. Petruzzello. I do not know the details of any of these
cases.
Mr. Shays. That is not what I asked you. You are under oath
to answer a question, and you can answer yes or no, and you
have your choice of describing the yes or no, but I asked you,
do you believe that Ms. Tonetti's children are being held
against their will?
Mr. Petruzzello. But Congressman, I don't know anything
about Ms. Tonetti's children.
Mr. Shays. So what is your answer?
Mr. Petruzzello. That I do not know.
Mr. Shays. Do you think that she's lying?
Mr. Petruzzello. I have no reason to believe that she's
lying.
Ms. Tonetti. I have a question? May I ask.
Mr. Shays. You can ask me the question, yes.
Ms. Tonetti. Did you publish this?
Mr. Shays. And let me ask you, what is the document that
you're holding?
Ms. Tonetti. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that was being
passed out here for these hearings.
Mr. Shays. Are you at all involved in that?
Ms. Tonetti. You're responsible for this.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Tonetti, I don't want to lose control. I
know that you could ask better questions than I could ask.
So is all the material that you have in here--is all the
material in this something that you're--you have been involved
in and have presented?
Mr. Petruzzello. We were involved in helping the embassy
prepare those materials, yes.
Mr. Shays. Is there any document here that would suggest
that these children are not being held against their will?
Mr. Petruzzello. I can't recall everything that is in
there. I think the position of the Saudi Government is that
while these are tragic cases, they are highly complex and that
it's really a government-to-government matter that needs a lot
of work to resolve.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Petruzzello, let me just tell you, I'm going
to have a second round, a third round, a fourth round, and so
I'm not going to let up on understanding this issue.
I believe Ms. Tonetti with all my heart and soul, and I
understand that you're representing the Government of Saudi
Arabia in terms of their public relations. The question I asked
you is, do you believe that Ms. Tonetti's children are being
held against their will?
Mr. Petruzzello. I believe that there are significant
differences between U.S. law and Saudi law and that----
Mr. Shays. I'm not asking about the law now. No.
I understand that the Saudi Government can incarcerate
people. I understand that American citizens have no rights in
Saudi Arabia. I understand that women can't drive. I understand
that American diplomats can't even exercise their own rights as
diplomats. I understand that American diplomats are isolated
and can't travel to certain parts of Saudi Arabia. I understand
that no Americans, if they aren't of Islamic faith, can go into
certain areas. I understand that.
What I also understand is that in this country, Saudi
Arabian citizens can have the same rights and privileges that
anyone else can. So I understand they have a double standard. I
know they treat us one way, and we treat them with total
freedoms. I understand all that.
But we also have a very serious case where a citizen was in
the United States under the protection of her mother, or father
in some instances, and that they found themselves in Saudi
Arabia. What is there to figure about that?
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm sorry. What is the question?
Mr. Shays. What is there to figure about it? They were
taken against their will. They were minors. They were under the
custody of the very women to your right.
Mr. Petruzzello. I would, you know----
Mr. Shays. So you don't understand Saudi law, but you
understand American law.
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, the Saudi Government has gone on
record----
Mr. Shays. Do you understand American law?
Mr. Petruzzello. No. I'm not a lawyer.
Mr. Shays. Well, I'm not a lawyer either, but do you
understand if someone has jurisdiction and responsibility for a
child, that they can't be taken against their will to another
country? Do you understand that? Just answer that question.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes. I understand that. And I might add
that the Saudi Government has gone on record to say that child
abduction is wrong.
Mr. Shays. Right, but once they are in Saudi Arabia, it is
all right to keep them there?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, what the government has said is
that, you know, you have conflicts between court orders and
laws in Saudi Arabia and court orders here.
Mr. Shays. I understand you have conflicts and all these
other things. I understand that in Saudi Arabia Americans have
no rights. That's true, isn't it? They have basically no
rights.
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, I don't know what the rights are
of foreign visitors in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Shays. Well, the bottom line is that you were asked to
appear before this committee, and it would strike me that you
know a lot more than you're letting on, but you are under oath.
And I asked you a question, do you believe that their children
are being held against their will?
Mr. Petruzzello. If you're looking for my personal opinion,
I think there are--I think that the way Saudi law deals with
these cases makes it, you know, possible--you know, for parents
there to prevent their children from coming to the United
States; and it also makes it very difficult for the Saudi
Government to do anything about it.
Mr. Shays. Why don't you explain that last part?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, what the Saudi Government has
said is that in a case where, say, that a court has--a Saudi
court is given custody----
Mr. Shays. You can move the mic a little closer.
Mr. Petruzzello. Where the court has given custody of a
child, it is difficult for the Saudi Government to intervene
and overrule that court order. But again, Congressman, you
know, we start getting into the details of cases and the
legalities that is just out of my sphere.
Mr. Shays. Yeah. The only thing that shouldn't be out of
your sphere is if these are children with a court order in the
United States--and they resided here and the parent took them
to another country--if they were basically kidnapped. And that
doesn't strike me as taking much intelligence to understand.
And so now the issue is, how do we get back kidnapped
children? And what you've done is you've put together a package
that helps express opinions about these cases, and yet you say
you don't have opinions about these cases. And so, you know,
you are under oath, and I'm just struck with the
contradictions.
You may be--and I think you are, and I know people who say
you are--a very fine man, and you work for a very fine company;
but sadly, you are working, in my judgment, for a very corrupt
government, a government where they still haven't resolved or
given us an answer of why 15 of their citizens killed nearly
3,000 people in New York City on September 11th, didn't own up
to their own people that they were Saudi citizens. That's the
government you work for. You work for a government that is
teaching its people to hate the United States and to not be too
aghast at what happened.
And so I view you as working for, frankly, a very corrupt
government that has a lot of oil, and we depend on a lot of
oil; but I hope that we're willing to just allow them to take
their oil somewhere else, and if we have to--every other day,
have to get oil, have to stand in line or wait in line, you
know, so be it.
Mr. Chairman, I have more questions, but I want to make
sure others----
Mr. Burton. Let me--if I might, I'd like to ask a couple
questions.
Mr. Burton. You're a public relations man, and you have a
public relations firm, and you work for the Saudi Government
and you get their $200,000 a month, $1.4 million a year.
Obviously if you said something that didn't--they didn't agree
with today, it would jeopardize your contract, wouldn't it?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I----
Mr. Burton. If you said, you know, I think Ms. Tonetti or
Ms. McClain has a valid argument because their children were
kidnapped after court orders were issued here in the United
States. If you said them being kidnapped and taken to Saudi
Arabia against their will with the complicit help of the Saudi
Government, if you said that you thought that was wrong,
wouldn't that jeopardize your contract?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I doubt that.
Mr. Ose. Well, then why don't you--you have a son. What
would you say if your wife was a Saudi and she took your child
to Saudi Arabia and you could never see your child again, and
you had a court order saying the child was in your custody and
she took him over there? What would you think about that? Would
you like that?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, of course not.
Mr. Burton. OK. Well, would you say that the Saudi
Government giving a passport to this woman to take your child
out of the country when you had a court order to keep the child
in your control, wouldn't you say that they violated and the
government was complicit in helping get that child out of the
country when they gave a passport when the court told them not
to?
Wouldn't you say they were complicit if it was your child?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I would say kidnapping is
wrong, and I would say that in order to resolve these cases,
that much more work needs to be done, government to government,
to resolve the differences that----
Mr. Burton. What differences? The court in the United
States said your child was in your custody and told the Saudi
embassy not to allow that child to leave the country, not to
give them a passport; and yet the Saudi Government, after being
instructed not to do it, they gave that child a passport, and
your wife took the child out of the country.
Now, how is that something that you don't understand?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I think there you raise a
good point. Again, I'm not an expert in Saudi law, but as I
understand it, if someone goes to the Saudi embassy and
requests a passport, as their law is currently constructed,
they are compelled to give that passport.
Mr. Burton. Even if a court of the United States had
granted custody to the American parent, said, don't do it, that
they would go ahead and do it anyhow, because they don't
recognize U.S. law?
Mr. Petruzzello. Again, you're questioning me outside of my
sphere, but that's what I understand.
Mr. Burton. So you would just let your child go, then?
Mr. Petruzzello. Of course not.
Mr. Burton. What would you do?
Mr. Petruzzello. Anything I could to get my child back.
Mr. Burton. Would you sell your house and get $200,000 and
have somebody steal the child in the middle of the night to get
them back when they're U.S. citizens? Would you do that?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I would do anything for my
son.
Mr. Burton. There. You would do anything for your son. What
do you think about these people around you?
That government has been helpful in kidnapping those
children, even though court orders have been issued saying, you
can't do that, you shouldn't do that. And they thumb their
noses at the American Government and the American court system,
take those kids, give them passports when they know they
shouldn't, and the mothers never see them again.
Think about your boy. You would never see him again. You
would never talk to him again unless the father or the mother
over there or the government said, OK, we'll let him talk to
him.
Ms. Tonetti, did you talk to your child yesterday? Did you
talk to your children?
Ms. Tonetti. For a little bit, yes.
Mr. Burton. How did they sound?
Ms. Tonetti. Beautiful.
Mr. Burton. Beautiful. Did they recognize you and
everything?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes.
Mr. Burton. First time you talked to them since we were
over in Saudi Arabia. Right?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Yeah. And you hadn't talked to them before that
for 2 years, except for Congressman Kerns down there at the end
arranging it for you, right?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. Yeah. I know you're getting $200,000 a month.
And I understand your business, I do, because lobbyists come to
see us all the time, and I don't know if you have any influence
over those guys over there, but these women haven't--she hasn't
seen her children for 2 years, and the court gave her custody.
This lady next to her, Ms. McClain hasn't seen her child,
how long, Ms. McClain?
Ms. McClain. I saw her this summer.
Mr. Burton. How long has it been since she's been gone?
Ms. McClain. Five years.
Mr. Burton. Five years.
Mr. Burton. How long has your son been gone?
Mr. Rives. A year and a half.
Mr. Burton. A year and a half.
Ms. Roush. Seventeen years.
Mr. Burton. This is the government that you're
representing, and I know you're getting $1.4 million a year,
and I'm sorry you're the whipping boy today. I apologize for
you having to do that, but we're trying to make a point. I'm
not after you, because lobbyists are all over this town, and
some of them represent some pretty cruddy people, you know, so
we're not after you.
But the Saudi Government did not show up. All they've done
is lie on television. They've had their mouthpieces, former
Ambassadors from the United States to Saudi Arabia, who are now
getting tons of money to represent them. You know, it just
makes us sick, and the only thing we can do is beat up on the
Saudi Government and put pressure until they bring about some
change.
And I'd just like to say to my colleague, Mr. Shays, down
there--Chris, the Saudis in the 1970's, we got about 50 to 60
percent of our oil from them. Now we get 15 percent. We're not
dependent upon those guys anymore, like we were. Their balance
of payments situation was very good in the 1970's. Now they
have a balance of payments deficit, and they've got problems in
their country.
If they don't start working with the United States and
helping these particular issues, they're going to have big
problems, and I promise you that as long as we're in this
Congress--and this is not a Republican or Democrat issue. I
mean, we've got Mr. Sanders, who is an Independent. We've got
Democrats, Mr. Delahunt, who is down at the committee right
now. He was with us, from Massachusetts, not the most
conservative State in the Union.
We've got my colleagues who are moderates and conservatives
here, and we all agree, there is no difference of opinion. We
all agree that the Saudis have to be taken to task, and I
promise you, there are going to be legislative measures. I've
already talked to the Secretary of State about measures that
should be taken, and we're going to keep beating the drum until
there is a change.
Now, you need to convey to the Saudis, as their
representative, that we're not going to change. We're going to
beat the hell out of them until they do something about these
kids and bring these kids home; I promise you that. And you and
all your PR--and I know you work for them and I know you've got
to put these commercials on TV like we talked about a while
ago. And I know you've got to make out these green folders with
all the positives, if there are any, that the Saudis have.
You've got to make them look good. I know that.
But it ain't going to stop us until we get some
satisfaction about these kids, and if you don't tell them,
maybe the television cameras will tell them. It's going to go
on, and the drumbeat is going to get louder and louder and
louder until they have to change.
I saw the foreign minister the other day on television. It
was kind of interesting. When I saw him in Saudi Arabia, he had
all his robes on and everything and his princely garb; and when
he was on American TV, he was wearing a business suit. It's
kind of interesting.
You know, I don't see him in business suits very much. So
tell him it was a positive image he created, but it ain't going
to change anything. That ain't going to change anything.
Ms. Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, I
must thank you, above all, for your justifiably dogged
determination on this incredible issue. I know I speak for
every Member on my side when I assure the witnesses here that
the chairman has total and complete, 100 percent bipartisan
support for what he is doing to make sure that American
citizens have access to their own children.
I've come out of another hearing and will have to leave
before the State Department witnesses come forward. I want to
stress that the chairman's words, just now, I think should be
understood to mean that he and we are not only in pursuit but
are looking for a real remedy, that the series of witnesses we
have had have made the case so indelibly that it becomes
necessary, in a very difficult situation, to try to thread our
way to a remedy. That is difficult. I understand.
When relationships between and among nations involve the
notion of reciprocity, what happens if one side takes a
position, how that can produce from the other side retaliation.
I understand all of those notions.
On the other hand, the only polite way to describe our
relationship with Saudi Arabia is, of course, schizophrenic.
Perhaps the best way to describe it is hypocritical.
These people believe in nothing we believe in, and yet what
we have seen is their law trump our law. I'm not sure where the
reciprocity is here. If, in fact, we were dealing with ordinary
reciprocity where, one side has to remember that what it does
can, in fact, affect how the other side behaves, or how other
countries behave, that would be one thing; but the notion that
a country with whom we supposedly have friendly relations can
have law--understand, this is law--that trumps our law on the
most fundamental rights such as access to your own child to
whom you gave birth, or our own laws of kidnapping or our own
laws about child abuse or abuse--spousal abuse, that those can
be trumped by a so-called ally, while our State Department
says, you've got to understand this is how diplomacy works, I
mean, that is simply outrageous, shocking, won't be accepted,
isn't accepted by anyone in this committee or anyone in this
Congress.
In many ways I'm speaking not to--you'll forgive me, sir--
the mouthpiece of Saudi Arabia, but our own State Department,
because it's their job, it seems to me, to find a way to a
solution here. This is our government bending to outrageous
laws--completely inconsistent with international law, I might
add, but certainly with our laws. And among--the complicity of
our own government angers me more than the paid representative
of Saudi Arabia.
The notion--some of the notions that have come forward in
these hearings, such as a mother making her way to our embassy,
the only safe ground anyone is assured of in a foreign country,
and being told she has to get out, this isn't any hotel, the
notion that could happen in a foreign country; and certainly at
least if somebody finds her way to American soil--that is where
she was--there should be no way that somebody can be put off of
American soil for pursuing her rights to have access to her own
child, and yet our State representatives, our State Department
in the embassy, put this woman out.
Now, I'm not going to be here to question the State
Department, but unless the State Department finds some way on
its own to thread the eye of this needle, essentially what
you're asking for is congressional intervention. The chairman
is also on the International Affairs Committee. This issue now
has come to the attention of the American people through the
American media. Thus far, that has had little or no effect on
Saudi Arabia.
Yes, we have seen tiny steps. They still haven't gotten
family reunification to occur. So I just--I've come in for a
few minutes out of another hearing that I have to attend just
to make sure that both the State Department and the Saudi
representatives understand what I'm sure the parents already
understand, that this is an issue that animates this entire
Congress. It strikes us at the core of what we all put first,
our own families. We won't accept this treatment from any ally;
we won't accept it from any enemy.
And speaking for myself, I regard a country that would
treat these parents as these mothers have been treated not as
an ally at all, not as a friend at all, but I put them in the
category with other opponents of all we believe.
You've got to understand that for us, this issue knows no
party. It has become an issue of huge concern in the Congress,
and the State Department had better find a way to do something
about it or the Congress of the United States is surely going
to find a way to do something about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ose. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Petruzzello, I've been looking through this
publication. This is your publication on behalf of the Saudi
embassy?
Mr. Petruzzello. It's the embassy's materials.
Mr. Ose. This is actually put out by the embassy?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Ose. So presumably it represents the Saudi position?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Ose. OK. I notice in here there are two letters, one
dated September 9th, another dated September 17th. Did you take
part in crafting these letters.
The first letter is to Chairman Burton regarding his visit
to Saudi Arabia. It's three pages long. The second letter
proposes the formation of a task force or ad hoc committee
between our two governments to examine reaching the possibility
of a bilateral protocol on the issue of child abduction.
Did you take part in the creation of these two letters?
Mr. Petruzzello. Is the one letter from Prince Saud to
Colin Powell?
Mr. Ose. Correct.
The first letter, the September 9th letter, is from
Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan bin Abd al-Aziz Al to Chairman
Burton; and the second, the September 17th letter, is from Saud
al-Faysal to Secretary Powell, yes.
Did you take part in crafting either of those letters?
Perhaps the clerk can take these down.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes. I----
Mr. Ose. Could the clerk get me another copy of those
letters, please.
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Congressman, we didn't have anything
to do with the letter from Colin Powell--from Prince Saud to
Colin Powell, and the embassy drafted the letter from Prince
Bandar to Dan Burton. I believe using some talking points that
we provided for content of the letter, but it was drafted by
the embassy.
Mr. Ose. OK. The letter of September 9th on the third page
concedes the fact that there are five cases of child abduction
outstanding. I mean, you can go through all of the tortuous
logic you want, but at the end of the day at the top of page 3,
``This leaves about five cases outstanding of child
abduction.''
So the Saudi Government recognizes there's at least five
cases of child abduction. It's right here in black and white.
Mr. Petruzzello. Absolutely.
Mr. Ose. What are they doing about it?
Mr. Petruzzello. Are you asking me on the five cases,
individually?
Mr. Ose. Yes.
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know what they're doing about that
specifically, but I do know that they are working to try and
find resolutions on the cases. I couldn't go through with you
case by case.
Mr. Ose. Well, they yield--they concede the fact,
stipulate, if you will. I don't know if that is the right term.
Maybe some smart attorney here can answer that. They stipulate
there's five cases of child abduction right there.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Ose. Maybe Ms. Kiernan can tell me whether that's a
stipulation or not. But there are five cases outstanding signed
by the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in a letter to
Chairman Burton, dated September 9th.
Mr. Petruzzello. That's correct.
Mr. Ose. So what are they doing about it? What are you--do
you have any knowledge of any effort of anybody associated with
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, either official or otherwise, to
at least resolve the five cases they're apparently stipulating
exist?
Mr. Petruzzello. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has said that
they are working on finding resolutions to all the cases that
involve Saudis.
Mr. Ose. Well, what about these five cases where they say
they concede the fact, they stipulate that this is a child
abduction matter?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know specifically what those cases
are that Prince Bandar was referring to. What they've said is,
they have people and resources applied to try and find
resolutions to these cases.
Mr. Ose. They're not doing anything, are they?
Mr. Petruzzello. Pardon me?
Mr. Ose. They're not doing anything, are they?
Mr. Petruzzello. I believe they are working to try and find
resolutions.
Mr. Ose. Who is responsible for these five cases at the
Saudi Arabian embassy? Who is the person, whom you may or may
not have met with before this hearing? Who is the person at the
embassy working for the Saudi Arabian Government that is
responsible for these five cases?
Mr. Petruzzello. Prince Bandar would be responsible.
Mr. Ose. Same guy that signed the letter?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Ose. I mean, is that pretty normal, I mean, all these
things matriculate up to the Ambassador himself?
Mr. Petruzzello. Well, Prince Bandar has responsibility;
and Prince Saud, the Foreign Minister, has responsibility in
Saudi Arabia. And what I believe Prince Saud has said is that
he has organized resources within his government to try and
seek resolutions; the specifics of that I do not know.
Mr. Ose. Well, if they're child abduction cases, why don't
they just go instruct the people that these children are going
home? I mean, that would resolve the matter.
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, again, you get into the
legalities of each of these cases that I can't comment on,
because I don't know them.
Mr. Ose. Well, certainly they wouldn't write that there's
five cases of child abduction without having checked the
legality of them.
Mr. Petruzzello. And what I believe they have said is that
they are working to find resolutions on those cases.
Mr. Ose. But they've stipulated that there are five cases
of child abduction?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, they have.
Mr. Ose. So apparently somebody has broken either American,
Saudi or Sharia law.
Mr. Petruzzello. That, I don't know.
Mr. Ose. Well, it's stipulated to it right here, there are
five cases of child abduction.
Are you saying Saudi law supports child abduction?
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm saying I don't know Saudi law.
Mr. Ose. I regret that my time is up. We'll just keep going
around and around here.
Mrs. Maloney for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. I just want to go on record in support of the
extraordinary leadership that Chairman Burton has shown on this
tremendously difficult issue. I can't think of anything, as a
mother of two children, more jolting than to have your children
taken from you, and being unable to get a visa to see them.
And as an American woman, I'm particularly concerned about
the opportunities of freedom that American citizens born in
this country and then illegally, I would say, abducted to Saudi
Arabia, not having the opportunities for education or for the
right even to marry whom you like. By Saudi law, you can only
marry a Saudi man if you're a woman. And many other rights are
taken from you.
I am here. We are in a Financial Services Committee meeting
at this time, but I wanted to come and show my support to the
committee staff, and to Chairman Burton, on their efforts to
get these children reunited with their families, to restore
their American citizenship and to allow the freedoms to these
people that they're entitled to as American citizens.
I know that the Saudi Government is an ally of our country.
We have worked together on many joint causes of concern, and my
message to you, Mr. Petruzzello, is to take to the Saudi
Government the tremendous concern that we, as American citizens
and Members of Congress, have on this issue.
According to our laws--our laws, it's kidnapping. It is a
kidnapping, literally: taking away the children that are
American citizens, dividing the rights of families to see their
children, and in many cases, not allowing these children to
come back to America. I think that this is outrageous, and I
think that we need to change the laws. We need the cooperation
of the Saudi Government.
To deny visas to Americans who want to come and see their
children is just plain, flat wrong, and these families need to
be reunited. I'm appealing to Chairman Burton to come forward
with new rules, regulations on visas and passports and every
other way to really protect the rights of Americans to protect
their children from abduction and the rights of Americans to
regain their children once they have been abducted.
We have sat through many, many tear-jerking hearings where
parents, both fathers and mothers, have come and told about
children, siblings that don't see their siblings, children that
were stolen, that they no longer have the right to see. It's
outrageous, and it's wrong, and I feel that there must be a
will and a way to correct it.
But it would be helpful if the Saudi Government would be
sensitive to the rights of individuals, the rights of American
citizens and really work with our government to correct this,
not only on an individual basis but in a sweeping law or an
agreement of regulations what this doesn't happen in the future
so that the families are reunited. And I yield my time to the
chairman, and I congratulate your extraordinary leadership on
it. I mean that sincerely. And, Mr. Burton, I wanted to, with
your permission, set up a meeting in a bipartisan way with the
Women's Caucus, because family issues are very important to
women on both sides of the aisle; and I would like to join you,
with the support of the Women's Caucus, in championing this
issue for the reunification of families and really protecting
the rights of American citizens.
Mr. Burton. Well, Mrs. Maloney, let me just say that we
will have legislation dealing with passports, entrance stamps
and exit stamps which should help the Immigration and
Naturalization people help get a handle on this. We will have
legislation dealing with visas for Saudis, maybe the Saudi
Royal Family or people in the Saudi Government who may want to
come to the United States; and if they're complicit or involved
in any of these things, we may have legislation that would deny
them visas until these things are resolved, so they can't come
and visit the United States and go to some of these very
expensive stores where they buy their jewelry and things, so
they can't buy those things.
I believe the State Department is also looking at some of
these things that we might be able to do without even having a
bill passed. But we're going to do that, and I really
appreciate your commitment to get the Women's Caucus on board,
because there's nothing stronger as a caucus than a Women's
Caucus.
Congressman Kerns.
Mr. Kerns. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, too, want
to commend you in your efforts, you and your staff, for
bringing this important issue before the Congress, and really
before the world. And I have to thank all of the people that
have helped participate in this hearing today, particularly Ms.
Tonetti. Although I don't serve on this committee, she is a
constituent of mine from Terre Haute.
I went to Indiana State, as well, she went to Indiana
State, so the roots run deep; and I can tell you that it breaks
my heart when I hear these stories, one by one, and when I hear
and see the Saudi Government not assisting.
I accompanied Chairman Burton to Saudi Arabia and met with
the Foreign Minister, asked him directly, was there not some
responsibility if, in fact, there is a U.S. court ruling,
granting custody, and then also an additional court ruling not
to take the children from the United States?
The Foreign Minister's response was quite unacceptable to
me, to Members on the trip, and I'm sure to this Congress, when
he said that ``We do not recognize U.S. law.''
Now, the question that I would have, don't you think that
while in the United States, those from Saudi Arabia and other
countries have a responsibility to obey the laws of this
country while in the United States?
Mr. Petruzzello. The Saudis who visit this country, do they
have an obligation to obey U.S. law?
Mr. Kerns. That's right.
Mr. Petruzzello. I would say, you know, that Saudi Arabia
would certainly agree with that and would probably add that of
all visitors to the United States, that the Saudis have one of
the fewest incidents of law-breaking of, you know, the
countries that visit the United States.
Mr. Kerns. Well, there's certainly evidence they've not
followed U.S. law. What about those that assisted in--or
helping arrange these children to be taken from this country,
in fact, kidnapped from this country? Aren't those individuals
breaking U.S. law? And do you think those individuals, those
Saudis, should be permitted to stay in the United States?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I'm not an attorney, and I
don't understand or know what are the legal implications of
people who are involved in this, and I really couldn't comment
on it.
Mr. Kerns. You don't understand that if someone breaks a
law in this country, they should suffer consequences for
breaking that law?
Mr. Petruzzello. Of course.
Mr. Kerns. That's what I was asking.
Mr. Petruzzello. But then, if I understood your question,
if you're talking about foreign diplomats, you know, I don't
understand what--how that works.
Mr. Burton. If the gentleman would yield, foreign diplomats
are--cannot be prosecuted; you know, they're on--unless the
government in question agrees. But what we can do,
Representative Kerns, is, we can get our State Department to
make them persona non grata and send them home.
In other words, if they're working here in the visa section
or the passport section of the Saudi embassy, and they've been
supportive of giving passports to children when the courts have
contacted them, as in the cases with Ms. McClain and Ms.
Tonetti, then those people can be sent home, and anybody else
that does that could be sent out of the country as non--persona
non grata in this country.
Mr. Kerns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that's a good
point.
Also I would offer that because of this issue and because
of the refusal of the Saudis to cooperate in what we think is a
reasonable manner and timeframe, we are now looking at many,
many issues involving our relationship with Saudi Arabia--
perhaps the first time we're examining our relationship with
Saudi Arabia. And these hearings and this issue have been, in
part, the catalyst; and it's not going away. We're going to be
looking at students that come to this country, the length of
time they're here, who are not making progress, why they're
being allowed to come into this country when they're not, in
fact, pursuing an education in a reasonable manner. Those
students that remain here for 20 years and do not have a
degree, we're not going to permit this to continue; we're not
going to tolerate it.
And we have a phrase, ``opening a can of worms.'' It has
opened a can of worms. And we're going to pursue this, and I
know Chairman Burton is not going to let go of this, and I
would--and you obviously run your own business, but if I were
advising my client, I would remove this issue from a host of
issues that we're now looking at because of what this issue has
raised. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Clay, I understand you don't have any
questions right now; is that correct?
Mr. Clay. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief
statement.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Clay, you're recognized.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Let me first thank you for conducting what I consider to be
an extraordinary hearing; I am just amazed at the fact of the
scene that's unfolding at this time. I am curious to see how we
resolve this issue, how do we resolve reuniting these children
with their families. And I don't know, maybe the witness can
help us with that.
How do you see us ending this? Where do we go? I mean, how
do we reunite families, or do we?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I think what the Government
of Saudi Arabia has proposed is a bilateral protocol that would
help bridge the differences in United States and Saudi law and
would help--enable both governments to work better together to
find resolutions to these issues faster. And that is the
sincere desire of the Saudi Government.
Mr. Clay. What does that mean? Does that mean that
eventually there will be joint custody, visitation privileges?
Just exactly where are we going with this?
Mr. Petruzzello. Well, I think that would be a question to
best refer to our State Department and to the government
itself; but that what they are--what the government is saying
is that closer cooperation is needed and new mechanisms are
needed to address these issues.
Mr. Clay. What about these families sitting here in this
room, the families that have been impacted, the sisters and the
brothers who have lost sisters and brothers, the mothers and
the fathers who have lost, or the fathers who have lost contact
with these children? How do we handle that emotional strain?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, I don't think anyone could
not feel great sympathy for the families that are involved in
these issues, and it's not lost on the Saudi Government how
important this is, both to the families and to Saudi-U.S.
relations.
Mr. Clay. All right. Thank you for that.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Clay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. If it's not lost on the Saudi Government--and I
know you're their PR guy and you've got to make them look good,
but I've got to tell you, I looked them right in the eye when I
was over there. It's lost on them. It's lost on them. They
don't know what--they don't care. They will give you lip
service and they will pay you $200,000 bucks a month to make
them look good, but they don't care. They don't care about
these women and their kids. They don't care.
The men rule. The men rule. If you're a woman and your
husband says, you don't go to the bathroom, you don't go to the
bathroom. If the husband says, you don't go out the front door,
you don't go out the front door. They say to the kids, you do
this. If you don't, they tie you up and beat the hell out of
you like we were hearing about earlier.
I mean, come on. To make it look like they have a humane
face regarding the people whose kids have been kidnapped and
taken away from them is just a dad-gum lie. It's just a lie.
They don't care. And if they do care, they'd do something about
it. And for them to say, you know, this is religious law and
we're the religious--we're the leaders of this country, and we
can't violate that and we can't do this and that, they can do
it.
When we were over there, Amjad, I talked to them and we
raised Cain about that, finally they gave her a passport and an
exit visa, but you know what they did? They waited until her
father married her off to a guy who was 42 years old that she
had never met. She didn't even know the guy. I'm sitting there
with her and her new husband. She just met him, 42 years old;
he's got a wife and several other kids, and he's a friend of
the father. And he's got to sign off to let her go; and the
Saudis say, well, he's got to sign off to let her go. Come on.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I know we need to get to the next
panel, so I won't go into great depth.
But, Mr. Petruzzello, just so I'm clear, as Ms. Tonetti
pointed out, I had an opportunity to look at some of the
information in this document, the document here. I want to be
clear. We've already been asked about the letters.
Did you have anything to do with either of the articles?
You're familiar with what's in the packet, correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. Pardon me. I'm familiar with what's in the
packet, but I can't see it from here.
Mr. Shays. Well, these are the two articles. Did you have
anything to do with preparing these two articles?
Mr. Petruzzello. The Washington Post article, that is the
one from the Associated Press?
Mr. Shays. Why don't you get out the packet that your
office prepared.
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't have it.
Mr. Shays. Isn't this packet something you gave out?
Mr. Petruzzello. This was distributed by the embassy?
Mr. Shays. Right. Is this something that you helped
prepare?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Shays. Let's give him the whole packet. I don't want to
be disingenuous, but you helped prepare this packet?
Mr. Petruzzello. No. I just want to be accurate in terms of
your questions.
Mr. Shays. I know you do. So I'm saying this is a packet
that you helped prepare, but it was distributed by the embassy;
is that correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. Pardon me?
Mr. Shays. This is a packet that you helped prepare, but
it's distributed by the embassy.
Mr. Petruzzello. That's correct.
Mr. Shays. The two letters you've already responded to, how
you got involved in those.
Mr. Petruzzello. Right.
Mr. Shays. The two articles, did you help prepare those
articles?
Mr. Petruzzello. The article by Donna Abu-Nasr. She's with
the Associated Press, and no, I did not help with that article.
Mr. Shays. The Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Petruzzello. The Wall Street Journal, this is his
letter to the Wall Street----
Mr. Shays. ``we Are Not Holding Americans Captive,'' did
you help prepare that?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes. And as I previously testified, we
provided some talking points to the embassy, but this was
developed by the embassy and by Prince Bandar.
Mr. Shays. And then ``The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Is Fully
Committed to Resolving Parent-Child Abduction Cases,'' did you
help prepare that?
And when I say you, I mean you or anyone in your----
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes. Yes. We helped the Saudi embassy
prepare this.
Mr. Shays. So when I'm asking questions about opinions and
knowledge of the families, in order to prepare this, you would
have had to have done some research about these cases. Is that
not correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. Well, we would have taken information that
we were given from the embassy in helping them prepare this
letter.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask the question again. In order to help
make suggestions and make a contribution of what should go in
here, you would have had to have familiarized yourself somewhat
with these cases; is that not correct.
Mr. Petruzzello. On the individual cases we have some basic
familiarity, but we do not know the details of them, no.
Mr. Shays. But you had enough information in order to make
a contribution and make suggestions for this document; is that
not correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, depending on what exactly you're
referring to. You know, we have an understanding of what's in
here.
Mr. Shays. Let me just make reference to--it's not numbered
but it's the fourth page. It relates to Al-Arifi and Mrs.
Tonetti, correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Shays. And I'm going to read it. It says: A meeting was
arranged with Representative Brian Kerns of Indiana and Joanna
Stephenson's children. The children are of the ages 12, 11, and
7, and were abducted by Saudi ex-husband in August 2000.
Representative Kerns met with the children and arranged a
telephone call between the children and their mother. This case
is in the process of being resolved.
We're talking correctly about Ms. Tonetti's case; correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. This case has to deal with Ms. Tonetti?
Mr. Shays. Yes.
Mr. Petruzzello. OK.
Mr. Shays. Correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. I believe so, yes. I didn't----
Mr. Shays. I want you to react to what's in this document
and tell me where there's accuracy and where there isn't.
Ms. Tonetti. Well it's extremely accurate where is says
that they were abducted, which is a crime in this country, I
believe, and I am sure it is a crime----
Mr. Shays. Do me a favor. Just let me ask some questions.
Ms. Tonetti. OK.
Mr. Shays. In regards to this, is this the first time that
you've seen the Saudi Government admit that they were abducted?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes, it is.
Mr. Shays. OK. So would you call at least this part of it
progress?
Ms. Tonetti. As far as they're being honest, yes.
Mr. Shays. About finally acknowledging that your children
were abducted?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes.
Mr. Shays. OK. Now--and would you then speak to the second
part? I mean, you know, I appreciate what Mr. Kerns, what
Representative Kerns has done. ``this case is in the process of
being resolved.'' Explain to me how you interpret that.
Ms. Tonetti. ``resolved'' I would interpret as bringing
three American children home. I have no clue as to how it is
being resolved. This is the first time I've ever seen that.
Mr. Shays. OK. So have you felt that this case is being
resolved?
Ms. Tonetti. No, I have not.
Mr. Shays. OK. Under what basis, Mr. Petruzzello, would you
say this is being a resolved case. How is it being resolved?
Mr. Petruzzello. That's the position of the Saudi Embassy.
Mr. Shays. OK. But explain to me their position.
Mr. Petruzzello. What they have said is that they are
working on finding resolutions to these cases. I don't know
about the particulars of this case, so I can't comment on it.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Tonetti, tell me, in the last--tell me how--
what contacts have you now had with the Saudi Government or
with your former husband or with--not with your children,
because they're not resolving it, they're still too young for
that. I mean, they're held captive, and they were abducted and
held captive. So the question I'm asking you is, tell me, to
your--explain ``resolved'' as it relates to your side of the
story. How is it being resolved?
Ms. Tonetti. As far as I know, I don't know how it's being
resolved. I think the----
Mr. Shays. Has the Saudi Government been in contact with
you?
Ms. Tonetti. I did meet with some officials yesterday.
Mr. Shays. First time?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes.
Mr. Shays. First time.
Ms. Tonetti. Yes.
Mr. Shays. And did they talk about how they were going to
bring your children home again?
Ms. Tonetti. No.
Mr. Shays. They didn't talk about how they were going to
bring your abducted children home.
Ms. Tonetti. No.
Mr. Shays. OK. The gist of it was--can you share that with
us, if you care to?
Ms. Tonetti. The gist of it was trying to get some
semblance of contact between me and my children on a hopefully
regular basis.
Mr. Shays. So they weren't talking about returning your
abducted children. They were talking about somehow having you
have contact.
Let me ask you, your children were abducted in August 2000,
so we're basically talking now 2 years. Again, describe--and I
know you have answered it--how often have you seen your
children?
Ms. Tonetti. Never.
Mr. Shays. How often have you spoken to them?
Ms. Tonetti. Twice.
Mr. Shays. OK. And that's been when?
Ms. Tonetti. August 30th of this year, thanks to
Congressman Kerns, and yesterday.
Mr. Shays. OK. Now, I just for a second want to have you
put yourself in the position of Pat Roush, OK? Your children
are now--are age 12, 11, and 7. Is that the age--that's the
ages they are now; is that correct?
Ms. Tonetti. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. So they were basically 10, 9 and 5.
Ms. Tonetti. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. And I'm not trying to bring pain to you
here, my friend, but I want you to put yourself in Pat Roush's
position. Her children were--for the record, Mr. Wilson, would
you tell me the ages of her three children when they were
kidnapped?
Mr. Wilson. Two children, very young. Infant children.
Infant children. Now 23.
Mr. Shays. Well I have the ages somewhere else. Excuse me.
Alia was 3 and Aisha was 7. That's the ages. Now, if they had
been--and they have been separated now from their parents for
17 years.
Do you think it's possible that if your children had been
separated from you for 17 years, in other words, when they
were--they were 10, they would be 27--when they were 9, they
would be 17 years older; when they were 5, they would be 17
years older. Do you think it's possible that they might say
after 17 years of being incarcerated and not able to meet with
you--that they might say that they, heaven forbid, may not love
you or they may not want to see you again? Do you think that's
possible, as horrific as that thought is.
Ms. Tonetti. I think after 17 years of Saudi brainwashing,
they would say anything that the Saudis wanted.
Mr. Shays. So I'm going to ask your opinion about this, not
Mrs. Roush's opinion. Do you think that 17 years later, do you
think it is a coincidence that the one case that they sought to
highlight and suggest that there was no incarceration, would
be--of all these 11 families--that it would be the family that
had been not in contact--the mother had not been in any
meaningful contact in 17 years? And ``meaningful contact,'' I
don't mean calling on the phone or coming to see one in the
room. Meaningful contact is where you're able to put your arms
around your child, be able to walk around the street, being
able to see your child, maybe perform in some school program,
maybe to be able to tuck your child in at night.
Do you think after 17 years of not having that, that it was
a coincidence that the one family they chose to highlight, to
demonstrate that no one was being held against their will would
be this family?
Ms. Tonetti. I think it's very coincidental and highly
suspect.
Mr. Shays. OK. And do you also--and I would ask you Ms.
McClain, and I would ask you, Mr. Rives, the same question.
Ms. McClain. Yes. I agree with her that 17 years of
brainwashing would do severe emotional damage to these girls. I
saw my daughter this summer. She was not the same child that
left me 5 years ago. She doesn't smile. She doesn't laugh. She
only talks when her father lets her talk. I think she needs
psychological help, and it's only been 5 years.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Rives. And refresh me again, Mr. Rives, in
terms of your case. Your child is----
Mr. Rives. Sami and Lilly, they're 3 and 4 and they were
taken a year and a half ago.
Mr. Shays. So, I mean, let me just ask you this
parenthetically. Do you think that they would treat you
differently a year from now or 5 years from now or 10 years
from now than they would today? Do you think that with each
passing year you may lose contact with your children, that they
may not have the same warmth to you that they might if you saw
them today?
Mr. Rives. My children only speak Arabic and they're only
being taught Arabic. They only know me from a voice on a
telephone. And if they have to go through those many years
without seeing me or even talking to me in a language they can
understand, they're going to say, Daddy, where were you?
Mr. Shays. So, I mean, it's almost--not almost, it's
totally meaningless, would not all three of you say, to have a
press conference in London after 17 years, somehow describing
that?
Mr. Rives. No, it's ridiculous.
Mr. Shays. Would you say it's ridiculous, Ms. McClain?
Ms. McClain. Yes, I would. And it's very dishonest and
disingenuous on the part of the Saudi Arabian Government.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Tonetti.
Ms. Tonetti. I agree. It's very disingenuous.
Mr. Shays. Now, Mr. Petruzzello, don't you think that with
every passing year--and tell me your children's name--not their
name; excuse me, I do not want to bring your children's name--I
apologize for even suggesting that. My apology to you. You do
have children, correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. I have one son, yes.
Mr. Shays. Yes. And how old is he?
Mr. Petruzzello. He's 6.
Mr. Shays. Don't you think it's conceivable if you had no
meaningful contact with your son for 10 years that he might not
feel as close to you as he feels now?
Mr. Petruzzello. Absolutely.
Mr. Shays. OK. So as a PR person, now, do you think there's
much validity for your client in having a family have this
event 17 years after being abducted from their mother? Do you
think that has much public relations benefit?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, it does not.
Mr. Shays. OK. Would you have advised them against doing
that?
Mr. Petruzzello. Against doing what?
Mr. Shays. Having this charade of bringing a family to try
to demonstrate that no one is being held against their will?
Mr. Petruzzello. My recommendation to them, I think, which
is consistent with their goal, is to have the girls come to the
United States. And the Saudi Government said they would like to
have the family reunited.
Mr. Shays. OK. There have been very strong words today by a
lot of us, and we might choose to express it more
diplomatically in one sense. But the one thing I think that all
of us are trying to convince your client, and so we are
speaking to you--through you to your client--is that we as
Members of Congress get involved with cases all over the world
bringing children that have been abducted. I can cite cases in
other countries. And we've even had the police in Romania go
and bring back a child. They only found one.
They didn't find the second, because they didn't go into
the house. And we said, you know, that's kind of dumb because
the other one was in the house. They went in the house and
couldn't find it. We said, well, that's kind of dumb because it
may not be in the house, but they may be somewhere else.
They kept at it and they eventually reunited this mother
with her two children. And we also knew that this mother could
go in Romania and travel and speak to the press. We don't see
that same--that same ability to Saudi Arabia. So I want to say
to you, and through you, to your--the government you're
representing--that it is a totally meaningless thing to have
Mrs. Roush's children be put on display in London, not in the
United States, not with their parent, to say what these
children have said after 17 years.
And while there seem to be 11 or 12 cases in dispute, which
the Saudi Government may say is less than others, there are
some huge differences. And that whether Mr. Burton or I or
anyone else is reelected, we know that there will be others
here who will pursue this with all the intensity that you can
possibly imagine.
And then I am just going to conclude by saying politicians
get elected doing things to get attention. I mean, all of those
are accusations. But there is--and I've lost my page on it--
there is in the document you distributed a claim--and could you
read me the--Mr. Wilson, can you read me on the document the
claim about the purpose of this is only being for public
relations? Do you know where it is? Maybe you could find it.
You find it for me, sir. You help do this. Read that line where
it says that this is solely for public relations.
Mr. Petruzzello. Which document do you think it's in?
Mr. Shays. Well, one of the documents in the green folder.
And I'm willing to just have you wait while you find it. We'll
see who can find it sooner.
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman----
Mr. Shays. We'll keep waiting.
Mr. Petruzzello. Not trying to be cute here, but the line
does not spring to mind. I am not clear whether it's in one of
the letters or one of the materials.
Mr. Shays. OK. Well, we have it in the article.
Mr. Petruzzello. It's in the article.
Mr. Shays. Let's find it in a few other places. No, I know
it's there, so I have total comfort level. The abduction of any
children is the human tragedy that should not be politicized is
one comment. In the----
Mr. Petruzzello. You're looking at Prince Bandar's letter
to the Wall Street Journal?
Mr. Shays. The Wall Street article. Turning this issue into
a political football for publicity's sake clouds the realities
and complicates the path toward resolution.
Protocol to save children--where is it here? It's not a
government-to-government problem. It's a family problem which
is short of absurd. You know, the fact is that if Mr. Burton
hadn't publicized this, had others not made this an issue, had
the parents not spoken out, they would have surrendered, and
the fact is that Ms. Tonetti would not see this statement that
her three children were abducted. That would never have been
stated. And we wouldn't see this case is in the process of
being resolved.
I'd also like you to just pass onto your client that the
only way you resolve this case is returning the abducted
children. That's the only way you resolve it, because they were
abducted.
And so, you know, I would just say to the chairman, keep
pushing; to the staff, thank you for your good work.
To the very precious parents, the way you reach us is to
just have us think of our own children. And our hearts bleed
for you. And we don't intend to bring you any more pain by the
questions we ask, or add to your tears, but you have a right to
expect that your government will speak up for you. You have a
right to know that NBC employees will work on your behalf for
justice. You have all those rights of expectation.
And to Mrs. Roush, I would say to you, you have waited the
longest and your wait has to be even more painful. But I do
know you'll never give up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
Let me go through some questions here that we want to have
answered for the record rather than me expounding anymore. I
think you have an idea how I feel about all this. The case of
Amjad Radwan is a high-profile case and it involves a 19-year-
old girl who has consistently maintained that she wants to
leave Saudi Arabia and return to the United States just before
the congressional delegation left for Saudi Arabia, her father
put her in the hospital to have her stomach stapled so she
could lose some weight. Then he married her to a 42-year-old
Saudi Air Force pilot who already had a wife and five children.
Do you think her getting married--she was all packed and
ready to come, and about 3, 4 days before we got there--is that
right--she was taken and left in the middle of the night. The
day we left here to go over there, she was--left in the middle
of the night. She couldn't drive a car, so somebody picked her
up and drove her someplace. And she was then with her new
husband whom she really had just met. Do you think all that was
a coincidence?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, I don't know anything about
that. I would--I could probably say with some confidence that
the government is not involved in that.
Mr. Burton. Can you say with confidence that the government
was not involved in that?
Mr. Petruzzello. In having her married.
Mr. Burton. No, no. Wait a minute. Her father was contacted
by the Saudi Government, you know, saying that they wanted to
work this out, they said. And then she was married to a 42-
year-old man with five children. And then we met with her, and
she was extremely nervous and looking back and forth, saying
she wanted to come to the United States, but not now. And you
don't think the government had anything to do with that. You
think this was just something that was between the father and
this guy?
Mr. Petruzzello. The government has said that was a family
matter that----
Mr. Burton. And why should I believe the government,
because they have had no involvement in giving passports to
these women's kids when the court ordered them not to and gave
the information to the Saudi embassy here. So we should believe
them?
Mr. Petruzzello. I think what the government has said is
that they have been working on enabling Amjad Radwan to come to
the United States.
Mr. Burton. Well, when did you just first hear about the
marriage of her to this guy?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know exactly when I heard about
it. It was very recently. I think it was in something--either a
report on your trip, I think it was actually. I think----
Mr. Burton. So you didn't hear about it until after we were
back.
Mr. Petruzzello. I think I actually heard about it through
one of your media appearances.
Mr. Burton. You have previously told the committee staff
that members of the Saudi Royal Family were personally involved
in this case. Did any Saudi Government official or member of
the Royal Family have conversation with Amjad Radwan's family
that you know of?
Mr. Petruzzello. I understand that these representatives of
the Saudi Government have had contact with her family.
Mr. Burton. Do you know when those conversations began?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I don't.
Mr. Burton. Can you tell us anything about those
conversations between the government and Amjad?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I cannot.
Mr. Burton. Do you know who the conversations were with?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I don't.
Mr. Burton. You're getting $200,000 a month and you don't
know any of those things on this issue. Man, I ought to get
your job. Man, I could just sit at home and watch TV and get
$200,000 a month. Because you expressed great optimism to the
committee that this case would be settled in a way that would
be favorably received by the committee. Then on August 23rd you
had a different message, and you said that the case was now
proving more difficult. Why was there a change?
You said it was going to be settled in a way that would be
favorable to the committee. That's what you told my staff.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Burton. And then on August 23rd you had a different
message, and you said it's proving more difficult. Now, why was
there a change?
Mr. Petruzzello. Because the feedback that the Saudi
Government was getting was that she was telling our embassy and
the government that while she wanted to leave Saudi Arabia,
without anyone's permission, she didn't want to do so now. And
I think that perplexed everyone involved.
Mr. Burton. You don't think she was under any pressure from
anybody or anything?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, my position is----
Mr. Burton. I looked at her eyes. I couldn't see anything
but her eyes because she had an abaya on, d she was trembling
like this, she'd say I want to go to America; then she'd look
at this guy who she just met and then she'd say, but I don't
want to go right now.
This week lobbyists were passing out a memo that said Amjad
Radwan has been--the case has been resolved. Has he been
passing these out? Have you been passing those out? The green
packet says that case has been resolved. And yet just before
the congressional delegation went to Saudi Arabia, Amjad had
her stomach stapled and was married to a man 22 years older
than her who had a wife and five children. Is that what you
mean by resolving the case, or just her getting a passport?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, the position of the
government is that she has a passport and the ability to leave.
The government doesn't know what else they can do at this
point.
Mr. Burton. Do you know when she was married?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I do not.
Mr. Burton. Was the operation that she went through and the
marriage part of the resolution of this case?
Mr. Petruzzello. I have no idea.
Mr. Burton. You don't have any idea? Do you think that
Foreign Minister Saud had the facts right when he said that
Amjad claimed that she had been sexually molested by her own
full brother? By her full brother--by her brother.
Mr. Petruzzello. Can you repeat that? That Prince Saud
said----
Mr. Burton. Do you think that Foreign Minister Saud had the
facts right when he said that Amjad claimed that she had been
sexually molested by her brother?
Mr. Petruzzello. I wouldn't know.
Mr. Burton. You don't know about that either.
According to Amjad's brother, when he and his sister lived
with their father and stepmother they were treated, in his
words, like dogs. They were both beaten and forced to eat on
the floor. Both were physically and sexually abused, according
to Amjad's brother and mother. Do you think it matters if an
American citizen is held against her will in Saudi Arabia and
is treated like a dog? And this came from the brother.
Mr. Petruzzello. Do I think----
Mr. Burton. Do you think it matters if they're treated like
that over there?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know how to comment on that.
Mr. Burton. Well, do you think that you would want anybody
to be treated like that?
Mr. Petruzzello. Oh, of course not. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Do you know enough about this case to be
comfortable with the representation that the Amjad case has
been resolved? Do you think you know enough about that case to
say it's been resolved?
Mr. Petruzzello. No. I could reiterate, Mr. Chairman what--
--
Mr. Burton. Well, you put in that green folder that it's
been resolved. Now you heard some of these things. Do you think
you have enough information to say that it's been successfully
resolved?
Mr. Petruzzello. Well, the information from the embassy,
reiterates their position, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. That it's been resolved.
Mr. Petruzzello. That she has the ability to leave the
country when she chooses to do so and that the government is at
a loss of where to go from there.
Mr. Burton. She can leave the country when she chooses to
do so, like the two young ladies that were in England had the
right to free speech, with their husbands and the other people
in the entourage sitting outside. And they have been brought up
in a very repressive society where women are beaten or
threatened or worse if they don't do what their husbands said.
And so you think that she is speaking--and she could leave of
her own free will if she wants to now after growing up in that
kind of environment.
Let me ask you about the million-dollar bribe. The Saudi
Foreign Minister told the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia that
I and the committee's chief counsel met with Amjad and her new
husband and they told Prince Saud that they'd been offered $1
million by me to come to the United States. When did you first
hear of this accusation?
Mr. Petruzzello. I first heard about that, it was after you
had returned to the United States.
Mr. Burton. Do you think I offered them $1 million?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, I think that was absurd.
Mr. Burton. Yeah. The U.S. Ambassador was also told that
Amjad and her husband said that they would stay in Saudi Arabia
if the Saudi Government gave them more than $1 million. In a
high profile case like this, do you really think it's likely
that a scared 19-year-old and a Saudi Air Force pilot would
attempt to extort money from the Saudi family?
Mr. Petruzzello. I never heard anything about that.
Mr. Burton. Yeah. Well, I've got to tell you I think that's
a little far-fetched when you know how they treat people over
there who break the law, you know. Pretty severe. Try to extort
money from the Royal Family over there. My goodness. Somebody
ought to write a novel about this. Apparently the husband
signed a statement alleging--describing the alleged bribe. Have
you seen that statement?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I have not.
Mr. Burton. You have not seen that? OK. Can I get a copy of
what? Can you get us a copy of the statement?
Mr. Petruzzello. Can I personally? I don't think so. I
could----
Mr. Burton. Well, you work for them, for crying out loud.
Will you ask them?
Mr. Petruzzello. I will relay your request to the embassy.
Mr. Burton. Well, will you ask them; say, hey, can you give
me a copy? Just ask them.
Mr. Petruzzello. OK.
Mr. Burton. We have to go for a vote and we have--Chris,
were you going to go over to vote? Representative Shays.
Mr. Shays. Just one last point, just very quickly.
Mr. Burton. OK.
Mr. Shays. Just as I was going through, just on the front
page of--the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is fully committed to
resolving parental and child abduction cases.
The second paragraph: There's been a great deal of
confusion, misconceptions, surrounding the issue of child
custody and abduction. Some have charged that Saudi Arabia is
holding Americans against their will. This is absolutely not
true.
I think even the statements of the Saudi Government through
this has suggested that the abductions are against their will.
But then they say, and then they go on to say--but there
are some who are more eager to make headlines than make
progress on this issue.
And I would just say to you, I think without the
administration, without your chairmanship--excuse me a second,
excuse me, Mr. Chairman--without this committee making a
forceful attempt to bring this to public attention, I don't
think we'd see the progress we've seen. And so I guess that's
the response that the Saudi Government wants to make, but I
think it's mindless. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
I ask unanimous consent that Chief Counsel Wilson can
conclude the questioning while I run over to the floor to vote.
I will be right back and, without objection, so ordered. So
he's going to ask questions of the witnesses. I'll be back just
as soon as I can finish this vote.
Mr. Wilson. It's always good when you start to question
people and everyone leaves the room, so I will be very very
brief.
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Wilson, would you mind if we took a
brief break?
Mr. Wilson. That would be fine. If we could keep it very
brief, say, to a couple of minutes, and we will try and finish
this panel quickly.
Mr. Burton. Excuse me. I think we will stand in recess
until the fall of the gavel. I don't want to do anything that
might be questioned by the rules of the House. We will be back
in a minute.
[Recess.]
Mr. Ose [presiding]. We're going to reconvene here. All
right, here's what we're going to do, ladies and gentlemen.
We're going to have--we have a vote on right now. We have about
5 minutes left. Then we have two privileged resolutions on the
floor, so Members are going to be going back and forth as the
debate goes on.
We are going to proceed with questions. Counsel to the
staff--to the committee, per the chairman's directive, is going
to ask some questions, and to the extent Members come in and
have additional questions those will get asked also.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Just finishing off the line of questions on
Amjad Radwan, are you able, Mr. Petruzzello to provide any
assurances to the committee that Amjad Radwan was not coerced
or that she has not been subject to incredible pressure?
Mr. Petruzzello. I can't give you any personal assurances,
no.
Mr. Wilson. Do you think that she was afforded the types of
basic rights that would allow her to make an informed decision
about her future?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, I don't know, Mr. Wilson,
anything about her family or her family situation to comment on
that.
Mr. Wilson. Just to return to one issue. We're trying to
complete a record as much as possible, so I'll go through this
very quickly. But you told us earlier that you didn't watch the
hearing yesterday, and you told us that you had not been
briefed about the hearing. But you have been able to hear today
from Ms. Tonetti and Ms. McClain, Mr. Rives, and Ms. Dabbagh,
and you have certainly learned a lot about the Roush case and
the case of Amjad Radwan.
Is it fair to say that you've learned in the last couple of
days that kidnapped U.S. citizens in Saudi Arabia are under a
great deal of pressure or duress? Is that a fair
characterization?
Mr. Petruzzello. I would say, listening to the testimony,
that would be the impression one would gets.
Mr. Wilson. So do you have confidence that when a Saudi--
when a woman who is in Saudi Arabia makes a statement that she
is representing faithfully what she really thinks?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Wilson, you're asking me a
hypothetical. You know, I don't know how to comment on that.
Mr. Wilson. Well, the only reason I asked you this is
because you're prepared to put your name and the name of your
company on the publications that are handed out and the letters
that go into the newspapers and the representations to us, so
it is important for us to know whether you believe that what's
being communicated is accurate.
And so I think it is important for us to understand what
you do believe. And so, you know, I ask you again, do you have
confidence that when a woman in Saudi Arabia makes a statement,
that it is an accurate depiction of what she believes?
Mr. Petruzzello. I've had an opportunity to meet a number
of women in Saudi Arabia and have seen a number of women, you
know, come here to the United States. And of the women that
I've met from Saudi Arabia, I've had no reason to think that
what they have said is not how they feel.
Mr. Wilson. Now, let's move quickly to the kidnap cases
where you have women, sometimes men, who are kidnapped. Do you
put them in the same category as the people you were just
describing?
Mr. Petruzzello. You're talking about individuals that I've
never met and situations that I do not understand.
Mr. Wilson. But, from the testimony that you have heard
today, did you learn anything from that testimony that you
consider germane to your job?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes. Absolutely, that these are very
personal and tense and complex issues, without a doubt.
Mr. Wilson. OK. Now we've heard here from Dria Davis and
Maha Al-Rehaili and Ramie Basrawi who have been here today, and
they have all said much the same thing: that when one of the
kidnap victim is speaking, you can't believe what he or she is
saying. Why do you have such confidence in what Amjad Radwan or
the daughters of Patricia Roush have said in the last month?
Mr. Petruzzello. I am not following you. Why do I----
Mr. Wilson. Why do you have confidence? I mean, you have
passed out talking points and various things that have said
that the cases are resolved and basically there's not a problem
in these cases. Why do you have such confidence that what
you're saying is accurate?
Mr. Petruzzello. The materials--I mean, the case of Amjad
Radwan I don't think we have--the embassy has put out anything
that speaks to what she has said, so I'm not quite sure what in
these documents you're referring to.
Mr. Wilson. But you believe that the Radwan case and the
Roush case are resolved; is that correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. The Saudi Government has stated that, you
know, as far as--in terms of the Al-Gheshayan case, is that
they will continue to try and encourage the sisters to come to
the United States and they would prefer to see the family
reunited.
Mr. Wilson. But what I'm asking you is whether you believe
that they've been resolved or not. Do you think there are any
action items on the to-do list?
Mr. Petruzzello. I mean, if you're going to ask my personal
opinion----
Mr. Wilson. Yes, I am.
Mr. Petruzzello. Just personal opinion, Mr. Wilson, I would
prefer to see the Al-Gheshayan sisters reunited with their--
that family reunited, without a doubt.
Mr. Wilson. And do you personally think that should have
been done before what happened in London? And I ask you this,
not to be mysterious, but with each successive step that's
take, or visit or foreign trip or time that they're put under
pressure, it's difficult for them. They're human beings. It
makes it very difficult. Would you have preferred to have seen
them meet with their mother instead of what happened in London?
Mr. Petruzzello. The Saudi Government would have preferred
for the girls to come to the United States, and the Saudi
Government has said that they would have preferred for the
girls to have contact with their mother.
Mr. Wilson. Is it your position that--do you believe that
the Saudi Government was powerless to effect some meeting with
their mother?
Mr. Petruzzello. That's what they have said. They said that
they----
Mr. Wilson. But do you believe that?
Mr. Petruzzello. They said that they have tried, and I have
no reason not to believe that.
Mr. Wilson. Dria Davis when she testified--are you familiar
with the testimony of Dria Davis before this committee?
Mr. Petruzzello. Her testimony yesterday?
Mr. Wilson. She didn't testify yesterday. She testified in
June.
Mr. Petruzzello. In June. No, I am not familiar with that
testimony.
Mr. Wilson. OK. She testified and she said on television
shows that she believes now, and she believed at the time, that
if she had spoken her mind when she was in Saudi Arabia, that
her father would have killed her. She's here now in the United
States. Would you send her back?
Mr. Petruzzello. Excuse me? Would I send her back?
Mr. Wilson. Would you send her back?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, me personally, no I wouldn't
send her back.
Mr. Wilson. OK. Do you think that she should have been
included on the list provided to this committee of kidnap
victims?
Mr. Petruzzello. What list?
Mr. Wilson. We were provided with a list by Prince Saud. I
should ask you first, have you ever seen a list that was
generated by Prince Saud, provided to the committee delegation
when we were in Saudi Arabia, of alleged victims of kidnappings
by U.S. citizens?
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm sorry. You're saying this is a list of
citizens, Saudi citizens?
Mr. Wilson. Of alleged kidnappings by U.S. citizens of
people from Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Petruzzello. Oh, so the inverse of what we have here.
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Mr. Petruzzello. Oh, no. I have not seen such a list.
Mr. Ose. Just a couple last questions--your opinion again.
Before we leave that point, the document that the Saudi Embassy
put out that I believe you testified you helped construct,
which is this deal----
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Ose [continuing]. In fact does contain some allegations
about Saudi citizens being abducted. Now, is it the position of
the Saudi Arabian Government that American citizens have
abducted Saudi citizens and brought them to the United States?
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm sorry. Can you show me what you're
referring to? This is a document that's titled Summaries of
Cases Related to Saudi Citizens of American mothers?
Mr. Ose. OK. This is an item that's appended to the letter
from Saud Al-Faisal to Secretary Powell listing four cases:
Yasmin Khalid al-Shahoub, Sami Jalal Mograb and Yasmin Jalal
Mograb, Abdulaziz Nasir al-Jamedi and Khalid Saud al-Shabrani.
Have you ever seen that list?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, as I previously testified, my
firm didn't have anything to do with the letter from Prince
Saud to Colin Powell, and I've never seen this--this attachment
before.
Mr. Ose. So it's been slipped in this package without your
knowledge? The letter was slipped into the package without your
knowledge.
Mr. Petruzzello. This is the embassy's package.
Mr. Ose. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Just--I'll ask you a few questions about what
happened in London with the daughters of Patricia Roush. But
first, there were allegations that while the two women were
being interviewed, there was a member of your firm making
gestures or signals to the two women. Do you know anything
about that?
Mr. Petruzzello. I saw a media report that suggested that
or--but I don't know where that came from. And, you know,
according to Shareen, that did not happen.
Mr. Wilson. So afterwards, you did ask your employee
whether that was accurate or inaccurate and she said it was
inaccurate.
Mr. Petruzzello. That's correct.
Mr. Wilson. So it did not happen.
Mr. Petruzzello. That's correct.
Mr. Wilson. OK. Did you--and we can check on this and we'll
check on this--presumably there were other people there. Did
you check with other individuals who were involved in this
media event to find out----
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I did not.
Mr. Wilson. You were aware--and I know you're aware because
we talked over the course of many hours about the fact that the
committee was going to make a request of whichever the highest-
ranking Saudi official we would be able to meet with in Saudi
Arabia. We asked to meet with Crown Prince Abdullah and we
ultimately met with the Foreign Minister, Prince Saud. And you
were aware that our principal request was that the kidnapping
victims be allowed to meet with their U.S. parent in the United
States, correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. That's correct.
Mr. Wilson. When did the Saudi Government decide to reject
this approach?
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm sorry. What approach?
Mr. Wilson. Well, our request and it was communicated very
clearly and many times to you, was that the delegation was
going to go to Saudi Arabia and ask the highest-ranking person
we would meet with that the kidnap victims be able to meet with
their U.S. parent.
Mr. Petruzzello. In America.
Mr. Wilson. And obviously with the Roush daughters, as we
arrived they departed. With the Radwan case, there was--that is
a different fact pattern. But with the Roush case, something
very different than our request happened, which means that our
request was rejected. We didn't even get to go and make the
official request. When was it rejected?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, Mr. Wilson, it was my
understanding that the Saudi Embassy was operating under the
understanding that you wanted to have--that the delegation
wanted to have meetings with the Saudi Government officials,
but that a meeting with families was not on the agenda.
Mr. Wilson. Well, this is precisely what I'm saying. We
very clearly said we didn't want to go and meet with, for
example, the Roush daughters in Saudi Arabia. We wanted to make
an official request. We wanted to tell--to ask--and the
chairman wanted to ask the highest-ranking person that we met
with for the kidnap victims, the defined list of people whose
cases we were addressing, that those--the children, or in the
case of the Roush daughters, the adults, would meet with their
parent. That was our request. That was the whole point of going
on this trip.
And yet as we arrived, unbeknownst to us, the daughters
were not going to meet with their mother, they were going to
London to do something else. Which means that somebody decided
that the chairman and the delegation members would not even get
to make their request.
And so I'm just asking, when was the decision made to do
something other than hear our request?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, I am not aware--you know, I am
not aware that--when this official request was made to Prince
Saud or--and I'm certainly not aware that he has rejected any
such request. In the case of the Al-Gheshayan sisters----
Mr. Wilson. Well, if I may just cut you off, because the
request wasn't made because it was irrelevant by the time we
got there. As was clearly explained to you, that the delegation
wanted to do something that to us--and we talked about this
over the course of hours--that seemed very reasonable. And the
reasonable thing that we thought was that the Members of
Congress would go and, in good faith, ask whoever the most
senior person we could meet with, for the kidnapped children to
be able to meet with their parent in a noncoercive, nonduress
situation. And we asked specifically that be the United States.
And so that was what we were going to ask. And we
telegraphed, we told you that in advance so there would be no
mystery, or it would be very clear, and that the Saudi official
could be able to address our requests. But as we got there, it
was clear that our request had been rejected because the Roush
daughters weren't being sent to meet with their mother. They
were being sent somewhere else.
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Wilson, it is my observation that
Saudi Arabia has been trying to honor that request, if that
request was made, or has been trying to work to have the Al-
Gheshayan sisters come to the United States. And they have said
publicly that they have been working for some time to encourage
and to make that happen.
Mr. Wilson. But they chose to do something else. They chose
to send them to--I mean, you're not telling us today that the
two women volunteered to go to London for a media session, are
you?
Mr. Petruzzello. What they've said, what the Saudi
Government has said, is that the sisters have refused to come
to the United States and only agreed to go so far as London to
meet with government officials there.
Mr. Wilson. Fair enough. The Saudi Government also said
that they went on a vacation to London.
Mr. Petruzzello. Did they say that?
Mr. Wilson. Now, is that accurate?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, I----
Mr. Wilson. Would you have called that a vacation? I mean,
did they say we want to go to London on a vacation?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't think I would have described it as
a vacation. They were there for 10 days or so but----
Mr. Burton [presiding]. Can I ask you a question?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Do you know who paid for that trip?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I do not.
Mr. Wilson. Well, there have been newspaper articles where
Saudi Government officials have said that they paid for the
trip. Have you received any of--I mean, I don't know if you get
clippings in your office, but there have been a number of
articles about the trip that the delegation took and many of
the things that happened. Have you read any articles about the
delegation trip or anything that we're talking about today?
Mr. Petruzzello. We get clippings of American media each
day. You know, I scan them. I'm not sure which articles you're
actually referring to.
Mr. Wilson. Well, there is one where a Saudi Government
official wrote an article and said that the Saudi Government
paid for the trip.
Mr. Petruzzello. Which official and in which publication?
Mr. Wilson. We will provide that after. Actually, I should
ask this now before--I always forget. Will you agree to answer
questions in writing after the hearing?
Mr. Petruzzello. I will certainly respond to any requests.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burton. Let me ask him a question here. You get
$200,000 a month?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. And you knew you were coming to this hearing.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Because we subpoenaed you. How long ago did I
subpoena you?
Mr. Petruzzello. I received the subpoena on Monday. I was
notified that I was coming on Friday.
Mr. Burton. Friday. A week ago.
Mr. Petruzzello. Well, not quite a week ago. I mean, this
most recent Friday, yes.
The Chairman. Yeah. But you knew about our trip.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, I did.
Mr. Burton. And you knew about the media coverage 60
minutes and all that stuff didn't you.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, I did.
Mr. Burton. And you work for the Saudi Government.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, I do.
Mr. Burton. And you get $200,000 a month. And you don't
know any of these answers. Why are they paying you? You know
you're under oath. You have no idea who paid for that trip for
those girls to go to London?
Mr. Petruzzello. Personal knowledge of it, no. I was not
told who paid for it.
Mr. Burton. But you knew you were coming to this hearing
and you knew we were going to ask you a bunch of questions.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Burton. And you didn't even read the newspaper clips
that talked about this. I mean, did you see the 60 Minutes
piece?
Mr. Petruzzello. I did.
Mr. Burton. But you didn't read the newspaper clips that
talked about who was paying for that trip.
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't remember the article that Mr.
Wilson refers to specifically.
Mr. Burton. Well, it said that the Saudi Government said
that they paid for that trip. And I would think that if you
were going to come and testify, you would be prepared and know
that. And the thing is, if they paid for that trip, then they
knew they were going; and they knew that they were going when
we were coming, so they made sure that we didn't have a chance
to ask for what we wanted because they weren't there.
How many more questions do you have of this guy? OK. Just a
few more questions and then we will go to the next panel. Did
you have a question?
Mr. Ose. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm going to get this
right. Mr. Petruzzello.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Ose. All right. Yesterday Ms. Tonetti got to talk to
her kids on the phone. And I'm just trying to connect the dots
here. The last time she got to talk to them on the phone was in
August, when Chairman Burton and Congressman Kerns were in
Saudi Arabia. And that was the first time she talked to them in
2 years, according to her earlier testimony.
And now I'm not all that--I mean, I'm not a rocket
scientist, I'm just a Congressman. But it sure seems to me like
every time we have a hearing, somebody in our country gets to
talk to their kids. Now, I kind of enjoy this. If we bring you
down here weekly, does that mean that some American citizen is
going to get to talk to their kids? Because we'll do that if
that's necessary. In your opinion, as a PR expert, I'm
connecting the dots, what would you advise us?
Mr. Petruzzello. Congressman, you know, from a public
relations perspective--which is largely my role, which is why I
don't understand a lot of legalities and the ins and outs of
what happens in the Saudi Government--but from the public
relations perspective, it would be very good for Saudi Arabia
and for U.S.-Saudi relations for more progress to be made on
these--on this issue in this case.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, if I might be so bold. We ought to--
the members of this committee, we ought to refuse to vote for
adjournment, and have a hearing every week and then maybe some
of our people, in fact, get an opportunity to either see or
talk to their children.
Mr. Burton. Well, we can hold hearings even if we've
adjourned. I'm chairman until--you know, for the foreseeable
future--so we can, you know, we can do it in December,
Christmas Eve. What are you doing Christmas Eve?
Mr. Ose. I can be here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Do you have some more questions you want to
finish up with? Just a few more questions.
Mr. Wilson. OK. Did you or any other Qorvis person speak
with anybody at the State Department before we, the
congressional delegation, went to Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Petruzzello. No.
Mr. Wilson. OK. Are you aware of any lobbyists talking to
anybody at the State Department before the congressional
delegation went to Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Petruzzello. Lobbyists representing Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Wilson. Well I'm saying--well, yes. Start with
lobbyists representing Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Petruzzello. Lobbyists representing--talking to the
State Department.
Mr. Wilson. Before the congressional delegation went to
Saudi Arabia about this issue or the congressional delegation--
--
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm not sure. I'm not sure about that.
There may have been some conversations but I don't know with
whom or what they were about.
Mr. Burton. Well, was your firm involved in any
conversations?
Mr. Petruzzello. With the State Department, no.
Mr. Burton. With anybody in an official capacity in our
government.
Mr. Petruzzello. No. Other than your good selves.
Mr. Burton. Nobody in your firm.
Mr. Petruzzello. No. No. Our firm, you know, again, our
firm----
Mr. Burton. It's PR, yeah, I understand. Do you work with
any of the other firms that do lobbying for the Saudis?
Mr. Petruzzello. We coordinate with them, yes.
Mr. Burton. Do you know of any of those firms, any firm,
anybody who's paid by the Saudi Government, who talked to our
government officials prior to our visit.
Mr. Petruzzello. Uhm----
Mr. Burton. You're under oath.
Mr. Petruzzello. I know. I'm trying to give you, see if I
recall any conversations. Again, as I said, I said I believe
there were some conversations but I don't know with whom in the
State Department.
Mr. Burton. So there was somebody who was lobbying for the
Saudi Government, being paid by them, who did talk to the State
Department before we went over there?
Mr. Petruzzello. It is very possible, yes.
Mr. Burton. You don't have any idea what they said?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I do not.
Mr. Burton. Well, the next panel is the State Department.
We'll ask them. We'll ask them.
Mr. Wilson. Same question for the Department of Defense.
Before the delegation left, the Department of Defense denied
visas for people, or denied permission for people to go on an
airplane. Are you aware of any conversations, either yourself
or members of your firm, with anybody from the Defense
Department about the delegation's trip to Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't believe any conversation occurred
with the Defense Department, no.
Mr. Wilson. Are you aware of any other lobbyists other than
people in your firm--outside of your firm, talking with the
Defense Department?
Mr. Petruzzello. Not that I'm aware of, no.
Mr. Wilson. Just one last quick train of questions and it's
about whether--your views on whether the Saudi Government
follows its own laws. Have you personally seen any examples of
where members of the Saudi Royal Family do not follow the laws
of Islam?
Mr. Petruzzello. That's quite a question.
Mr. Burton. Have you ever seen them drink any booze?
Mr. Petruzzello. Have I seen members of the Royal Family
drink?
Mr. Burton. Yeah. You know, the Koran and the Saudi law, I
think, prohibits the use of alcohol. Do you think they drink
any of that stuff?
Mr. Petruzzello. I have not seen any members the Royal
Family drink alcohol, no.
Mr. Burton. Do you think they do?
Mr. Petruzzello. That's not an appropriate question to ask.
Mr. Burton. Oh, it isn't? Well I'm the chairman, and I
think it's appropriate, because I think they do. And the reason
I'm bringing that up is because, you know, they obey the laws
of the Koran that they think they should do publicly, but
privately, they don't follow the laws. And I've talked to
people in an official capacity who know that for a fact. And I
think it is a little hypocritical to make them look
sanctimonious and self-righteous and always following the law
and treating us properly and treating American citizens
properly when they don't.
Mr. Wilson. I want to move directly to Mr. Rives, who is
sitting right next to you. We have tried very hard to
understand Mr. Rives' case, and from what we understand, Saudi
law does not permit the Rives children to be maintained in
Saudi Arabia. Have you looked into the Rives case at all? Are
you even remotely familiar with Mr. Rives' case?
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm not familiar with it, no.
Mr. Wilson. Well, I won't take the time now to tell you
everything about it. But--well it's a long story, but it
appears that there is no basis for the Rives children to be
kept in Saudi Arabia.
Now, I raise this, because when we met, you and I and other
lobbyists and our staff and the chairman and others were
engaged. We were told repeatedly that the Saudi Government's
hands were tied. They were powerless to do anything because
their law prevented them.
Mr. Rives appears to be a very clear case that stands in
complete contradiction to everything we were told, and it's
troubling to us when we spend hours and hours and hours meeting
about these issues that--the legal term might be a willful form
of ignorance or a willful blindness to the facts of some of
these cases.
Do you know whether the Saudi Government has taken any
steps to try and get Mr. Rives' two infant children back to
him?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Wilson, I don't know specifically on
the Rives case. What I do know is that what the Saudi
Government would like is to continue to have a constructive
dialog with your committee and with the State Department to try
and share information so that the----
Mr. Wilson. They said----
Mr. Burton. One second. Yesterday Ms. Tonetti was asked by
Senator Bayh to come over, and the Saudi embassy sent some of
their officials over to meet with her. Ms. Tonetti asked us to
go over there and be with her, myself and Congressman Kerns,
and you said just a moment ago the Saudi Government wants to
work with our government and our committee to solve these
problems. Well, I'm the chairman of this committee, and when I
went over there yesterday, the Saudi Government refused to meet
with Ms. Tonetti if I was in the meeting. That doesn't sound to
me like they want to be too cooperative.
Mr. Wilson. When we were in--when the delegation--the
congressional delegation was in Jidda, Prince Saud very clearly
explained that Saudi--the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did not
recognize U.S. laws that pertain to any family matter, marriage
or children. Do you personally believe that the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia should recognize the laws of the United States
that apply to children or marriages?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Wilson, I have little knowledge of
international law, and I don't know which countries respect
U.S. law or don't respect, whether that is singular to Saudi
Arabia or whether that applies to other countries as well or
whether the United States respects Saudi law, I have no idea.
Mr. Wilson. OK.
Mr. Burton. We'll submit some more questions to you in
writing. You know, we went into Afghanistan, and Jay Leno's
wife--I don't know if you've ever watched the Tonight Show, but
his wife was the leading advocate for human rights for the
women in Afghanistan, and the way the women in Afghanistan were
treated was very, very similar to what I saw in Saudi Arabia,
and we went in and liberated Afghanistan, and now the women
over there can go to school, they can do all the things that
they want to. And they don't have to wear those abayas, and
they have some human rights. I personally--and I don't speak
for our government, but I personally think that what happened
in Afghanistan to liberate those women ought to happen in Saudi
Arabia and those other countries. Women are treated like dirt.
It looks like a bunch of ghosts going around the mall with
these abayas on. They're treated terrible, and the kids are
treated terrible if they're American kids. And, you know, I can
understand why a mother or a father would be just absolutely
terrified if their kids had to grow up in that society. And
these are American citizens, American citizens who have been
taken against their parents' will to Saudi Arabia to live in a
13th or 14th century society. That's something that we
shouldn't tolerate.
With that, Mr. Shays, have you cast your vote on the floor?
Mr. Ose? Let me have Mr. Ose take over the Chair, and I think
we're about through with this panel. We can go ahead and start
with the second panel if you want to.
Do you have two questions?
Ms. Despres. Mr. Petruzzello, I'm Sarah Despres with the
Democratic staff, and I promise this will be brief. I just want
to ask a couple questions about the Saudi Ambassador's Letter
to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal on September 12th. You
testified earlier that you helped draft that. Is that correct?
Mr. Petruzzello. What I testified was that we provided some
talking points but that the letter was drafted by the embassy.
Ms. Despres. There are a couple of--I just have two
questions about the letter. In the first paragraph, the
Ambassador writes, ``Some have charged that Saudi Arabia is
holding Americans against their will. This is absolutely not
true.'' And what I'd like to know from you is had you heard the
testimony before this letter appeared in the Wall Street
Journal that you have heard today, would you have advised the
Saudi Government to write that in the letter, that line?
Mr. Petruzzello. No. I think the Saudi Government has said
that there are cases of child abduction that exist within Saudi
Arabia, and that those--and that work needs to be done to
resolve those cases.
Ms. Despres. But this letter says, ``Some have charged that
Saudi Arabia is holding Americans against their will. This is
absolutely not true.''
Is it your understanding from the testimony today that this
statement is inaccurate?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, I'm not absolutely certain about
this, but I believe what--you know, from the Saudi perspective,
there's, you know, a difference of opinion on who are Saudi
citizens and who are American citizens, but, you know, I would
say, you know, this is the position of the Saudi Government and
I can't comment any further on it.
Ms. Despres. So the testimony that you heard today would
not change your position on whether or not this statement is
true?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know if it would change the
position of the Saudi Government.
Ms. Despres. Right. I asked about your position.
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't set policy or have anything to do
with Saudi policy.
Ms. Despres. OK. I'm going to move on.
The other part of the letter I had questions about, this is
a paragraph that begins, ``Last week our Foreign Minister met
with the U.S. congressional delegation led by Representative
Dan Burton. While this meeting might not in itself set the
final resolution to all outstanding child abduction cases, it
should be viewed as the beginning of the end to this human
tragedy. Both parties agree to come up with practical and
workable solutions to these tragic cases. These solutions must
guarantee parental rights while safeguarding the right of the
children who are the real victims in these cases.''
My question is, when the Saudi Ambassador refers to the
rights of the children, is he referring to the rights
guaranteed by U.S. law or Saudi law?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know the answer to that.
Ms. Despres. OK. I have no more questions.
Mr. Ose [presiding]. Mr. Shays, anything else?
Mr. Shays. No.
Mr. Ose. I want to thank this panel for appearing today.
It's been a long panel. I appreciate your participation. We're
going to take a 2-minute recess. I'd like the second panel to
go ahead and come on out. I think y'all know who you are.
[Recess.]
Mr. Ose. All right. I want to welcome the second panel
here. As you know, we swear our witnesses in at every hearing
under Government Reform. So would the three of you please rise?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Ose. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in
the affirmative. I want to welcome Governor Raymond Mabus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary Ryan Crocker, and Deputy Assistant
Secretary Dianne Andruch to the committee.
Now, we have possession of your written testimony, and I
know I've read it. I'm sure the others have also. We're going
to recognize each of you in order for a 5-minute statement.
Mr. Mabus.
STATEMENTS OF RAYMOND MABUS, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI
ARABIA; RYAN CROCKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE,
BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS; AND DIANNE ANDRUCH, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS
Mr. Mabus. Congressman, and members of the committee, thank
you for your invitation to testify here today. I commend you
for your efforts and your persistence on an important and
heartbreaking issue of American children who have been
kidnapped to Saudi Arabia. You've shined the public light on a
situation which has long existed in virtual anonymity.
It was my privilege to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 1994 to 1996, and I believe the
relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is
exceptionally important. It seemed to me as Ambassador and it
still seems to me now with these cases that we're hearing about
have nothing to do with Saudi laws or customs or Islam. These
cases have everything to do with American laws, judicial
decisions and protecting American citizens and to having the
State Department aggressively try to resolve them.
On the cases that I worked on while I was Ambassador, Saudi
men voluntarily came to the United States on a visa this
country granted them, voluntarily got married under American
law, voluntarily had children in America, voluntarily put
themselves under the jurisdiction of an American court in
obtaining a divorce. They then intentionally violated the
American court order and kidnapped the children and refused to
return them.
Unfortunately, it is an all too common occurrence in
America for a noncustodial parent to take a child in violation
of a court decision. The Federal Government, State governments,
courts and law enforcement agencies take these cases seriously
and usually treat the offending parent as a felon. One thing is
very important in these cases involving Saudi Arabia. These
children are American citizens. When Americans have problems
overseas, they naturally turn to embassies and the State
Department. I heard from one mother I was trying to help, and
I've learned later as a result of these hearings that too often
the State Department has turned a cold, uninterested shoulder
to the parents trying to recover their children.
Prior to my time in Saudi Arabia, the Department evidently
cabled the embassy in Riyadh to be officially neutral in these
cases. I understand from these hearings that during this
earlier time an American mother and her children tried to take
refuge in the embassy, only to be turned away by a foreign
service officer who said that the embassy was not a hotel. But
most times officers in an embassy are just following the
dictates from Washington. The people in the field
understandably don't want to risk their jobs and careers on
something people in Washington don't support.
Too often these cases have been dismissed as custody
disputes. They are not. The custody issue has been settled by
an American judge. While I was Ambassador, I worked on some of
these cases in detail. I tried to help everyone in this
situation who contacted me. In one case we were successful in
getting an American mother, Angelica Longworth, and her four
children returned to America from Saudi Arabia, and they were
taken into the U.S. consulate in Jidda at our invitation.
Others, I was not successful. I dealt with high levels of
the Saudi Government on this issue, and they were receptive and
usually tried to be helpful. In the case of Pat Roush's
daughters responding to a request from me, the Saudi Foreign
Ministry sent the embassy a diplomatic note agreeing to a
compromise to solve her case. The father, however, refused to
cooperate, and nothing happened.
The one thing the Saudi Government would not do while I was
there is to make the fathers return the children. The
relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is
important. At no time did I get the slightest inkling that
raising this issue had any adverse impact on our relationship.
There are issues all the time that need to be solved and are
solved without straining the ties between countries.
I did try one strategy to resolve Pat Roush's case. I
instructed members of personnel that no one with the last name
of her ex-husband who had kidnapped the children would be
granted a visa to the United States. I was under the impression
from my preparation of being Ambassador that visas were not a
matter of right but a privilege that could be used to advance
the interests of the United States. I was also under the
impression that an ambassador had the authority to deny visas
if the interest of importance of the United States was
involved.
Within a relatively short time, the ex-husband became
increasingly desperate, calling the embassy to complain that,
``his family was furious with him.'' Before any resolution,
though, I resigned as Ambassador, as I long planned to do, and
returned to the United States. My successor asked the State
Department if this policy had their blessing and was told no.
He was instructed to end it, and he did. Pat Roush's children,
as we know, have not been returned.
Why the State Department told my successor this is a
mystery. This is a good, legitimate tactic that had a strong
chance of working. What is not a mystery is that the American
government, following the lead of this committee, should treat
these cases a lot more seriously and give them higher priority
and be more creative on how to solve them. These children
should be returned to the United States. This certainly should
not harm our relationship with Saudi Arabia. It would be
justice for the children and for both parents and would help
salve years of heartache.
Thank you.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Governor.
Mr. Crocker for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crocker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not read
through the written statement which you already have. First,
let me say that yesterday's testimony was as gripping and
wrenching and tragic as what we heard in this committee room on
the 12th of June. No one can listen to these stories without
being deeply, deeply moved and possessed with the clear view
that they've got--work has to be done to get them resolved.
This administration is engaged seriously on these cases, as
the chairman's statement noted. The President has raised it.
The Secretary of State has done so a number of times.
Ambassador Jordan in Saudi Arabia has been engaged, most
recently just 2 days ago, with the Foreign Minister.
As a result of the focus of this committee and the focus of
the administration, there has been some progress. The
Government of Saudi Arabia has agreed that these are human
tragedies, and they agree that the parent-child bond needs to
be maintained. We are in discussion with the Saudis now on the
means by which we can assure established and regular contact
between parents and children without going through the often
wrenching experiences of trying to do this on an ad hoc basis.
At the same time, it is our view that resolution of these
cases doesn't come through child-parent contact, however
important and valuable that is. Resolution will come when
children and parents are reunited. We have made that view clear
to the Saudi authorities, and that is the end to which we will
work.
I would certainly express my agreement with Governor Mabus.
The Saudi-U.S. relationship is a long-established, important
and complex one for both our countries. We have dealt with
difficult issues in the past. We are dealing with this
difficult issue as we move ahead now, and I would share the
Governor's assessment that the relationship can be the
framework by which we can resolve these cases. That is what
diplomacy is all about, in essence. It is not about doing the
easier, polite things. It is about getting the hard and
difficult work done in a way that advances our own interests,
and that's what we are committed to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crocker follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Crocker.
Ms. Andruch for 5 minutes.
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir. First, I'd like to take the
opportunity again also to thank you, the committee, and
especially the chairman for his trip and that of the delegation
to Saudi Arabia and the continued focus I think that these kind
of meetings keep on this very important subject.
The Department of State is firmly committed to the
principle that parental child abduction or retention is wrong.
International abductions have a very traumatic effect and
impact on the children who are deprived of access, not only to
one parent, but very often they are cutoff completely from
their own nationality, the country of their nationality. These
separations are also devastating to those parents left behind
who often go for years without meeting or contact with or
information about their child.
One of the greatest challenges in Saudi Arabia, as I think
many of the committee now knows, is that if custody disputes
cannot be resolved within the families, which is their first
choice, that those must be resolved in Islamic courts. There is
a firm belief in religious and other elements of Saudi society
that Muslim children must in fact be raised in an Islamic
environment, preferably in Saudi Arabia.
It is within this very difficult context that the
Department of State seeks to resolve abductions to the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia. We work very closely with the parents left
behind to explain the various approaches available.
We believe that through our consular visits to abducted
children, often with the assistance of Saudi authorities, we
are laying the groundwork for this parent-child contact. We by
no means believe for a minute that this in fact replaces the
necessity of having the families reunited.
We welcome the Government of Saudi Arabia's offer to work
with us to establish clear procedures now for Americans seeking
to visit their children, even absent sponsorship from the
taking parent.
We believe that this positive movement is progress that
will allow us to move forward on all other aspects of abduction
and custody cases and restore these parents and children to
each other. We do not consider that these are successful cases,
but they are small steps.
We have a variety of other mechanisms to assist left-behind
parents. We have expanded our coordination with the FBI, the
Department of Justice and Interpol in these abduction cases. If
the taking parent is in Saudi Arabia, however, we right now
have no legal mechanism, such as an extradition treaty, with
which to work with on the parent's involuntary return to the
United States. We can in fact deny a U.S. visa to an abducting
parent, certain family members of that taking parent and others
who aid and abduct--I'm sorry--who aid an abducting parent if
the abducted child is a U.S. citizen and is being held overseas
in violation of a U.S. court order. Visa refusals and
revocations under this authority can often have a positive
impact on our efforts to secure the return of a child.
It can also complicate other instances. Nevertheless, we
are more aggressively entering names of all those individuals
in our consular look-up system. You have asked us what else the
U.S. Government can do to put pressure on the Saudi Government
to secure the release of these citizens. We would say first and
foremost, don't give up. Your attention to these cases and the
recent visit to Saudi Arabia have been extremely helpful. You
ensured that the Government of Saudi Arabia more fully
understands the importance the Congress and the American people
attach to the resolution of these cases, and you encourage the
Government of Saudi Arabia to work with us toward an
arrangement that would help resolve these cases in a more rapid
and fair manner. We will continue to be actively engaged in
attempting to resolve each and every one of these cases. We
will not be done with our work until the last child is returned
to the United States.
Thank you.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Ms. Andruch. We're going to have a vote
on the floor here shortly about another privileged resolution.
Between Chairman Burton, Mr. Shays and myself, I hope to keep
this hearing going. One of us--I think Mr. Burton is on the
floor right now. So he'll vote, come back, and we'll just keep
going.
Mr. Crocker or Ms. Andruch, which of you handles child
custody cases for the State Department?
Ms. Andruch. I think that would be my office, sir.
Mr. Ose. All right. In response to some questions we asked
back on June 12th, I have received--or excuse me, the committee
has received from Mr. Paul Kelley a communication dated July 1,
2002, in part which responds to a question I asked about the
number of cases that might exist in Saudi Arabia for children
in these circumstances.
I just want to go through each of these cases one by one
and ask you for an update on them, since it is now October 2nd
or 3rd.
Do you have this list in front of you?
Ms. Andruch. I do have the list, sir, but I'm not really
able to update you on individual cases in this particular
forum, but I would be happy to meet with you or provide a
written answer, a written update on each of these cases.
Mr. Ose. I am aware of the admonition in the response I
received the preference that these things not be discussed in
public. The fact of the matter is not discussing them in public
has not solved the problem. So, I mean, I'm just barely smart
enough to figure that out, but since not discussing them in
public doesn't seem to solve them, I'm prepared to talk about
them in public.
Ms. Andruch. OK.
Mr. Ose. So we're going to go through them, and if you
don't know the answer, you can just say I don't know. All
right?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. Now, we have Namet Badune who last visited her
mother in Texas in March 2002. Do you have any current or more
current information on that particular instance?
Ms. Andruch. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Ose. All right. I have a family name, al-Sarani, based
in Riyadh. Do we have any information on that particular
instance?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir.
Mr. Ose. Family name, Sultan, American name Rickett. Do we
have any information on that case, again in Riyadh?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir.
Mr. Ose. Child's name of Samuel Bodo, B-o-d-o, who will
turn 18 in March of next year, do we have any current
information on that case?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir.
Mr. Ose. OK. The Rives case we've had discussed here.
Alshun Getty case we've discussed in the past.
Catonni we've discussed.
OK. Simone Nasser al-Ajmi, A-j-m-i, and apparently a
sibling Salmere Fahad. Here it says the last update we have,
recent attempts to reach the American parent were unsuccessful,
her phone having been disconnected. And that was--the last
actual contact date was September 2000.
I don't have a date in terms of what recent attempt means,
but do you have any current information on that case?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir.
Mr. Ose. How about the al-Arifi case? There were three
children involved: Rosemary Helen al-Arifi, Sarah Frances al-
Arifi and Abdulaziz al-Arifi?
Ms. Andruch. Yes. Well, I am very familiar with that case,
and I heard the testimony of Ms. Tonetti--much of it yesterday.
I know that we are in frequent contact through the lawyer in
Saudi Arabia, and there was a question in fact as to whether--
part of the problems now for her unfortunately stem from the
charge that has been brought against her, this crimes against
Islam, and there was a question as to whether in fact she could
renounce her Saudi citizenship. And that would certainly be an
option, and it would allow her then to travel without the
threat of being tried under those charges, I believe, and she
was going to be--I understood at least would be talking to a
lawyer about that.
Mr. Ose. Is she still charged with crimes against Islam?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir, she is.
Mr. Ose. We have a Mark Bashir, who turned 18 on March 7,
2002, and as I understand Saudi law, or Sharia law, whichever,
if the male turns 18 then the control of the adult male in the
house, the father, is no longer the determining factor. Is that
correct?
Ms. Andruch. That is my understanding as well for males.
Mr. Ose. Basrawi, Ramie Jihad, and Suzanne Jihad Basrawi,
which I think was the subject of yesterday's hearing. Rami
turned 18 on August 17, 2001, but it is my understanding one of
those children still resides in Saudi Arabia and travels back
and forth.
Ms. Andruch. Well----
Mr. Ose. She does not travel? She is stuck there. That
would be Suzanne.
Ms. Andruch. She is stuck, yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. Do we know how old she is?
Ms. Andruch. I thought she's about 15, isn't she? 15, yeah.
Mr. Ose. And you have no current information on her case?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir.
Mr. Ose. All right. My time is expired. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just am--I'm not
sure, frankly, in my own mind what information I want to ask
publicly about these cases if I have a conviction that there is
a change in heart on the part of the State Department. And I
need to understand what was the policy of the State Department,
and what is it today as it relates to the cases in Saudi
Arabia? And I'll start with you, Mr. Mabus.
Mr. Mabus. Congressman Shays, anybody that approached me,
there were I believe four cases while I was there that the
mother or a family member approached me. My policy was to try
to help them and try to put whatever pressure I could bring to
bear on the Saudi Government to return the children. I kept the
State Department informed, as Ambassadors do, on what I was up
to, but I never asked if it was OK. And I issued the order to
not grant visas to any family members on my own, because I
thought that was within my prerogative to do as Ambassador and
that it would work.
My understanding is that as soon as I left, my successor
came in, found the policy in effect and asked the State
Department if that was OK, was told it was not OK and to end
it, and he did.
Mr. Shays. And that was when?
Mr. Mabus. I left in May 1996, and my successor arrived in
August 1996.
Mr. Shays. Now, Mr. Crocker, the policy of the
administration today is to go back to Mr. Mabus' policy? Or
what? What is our policy, and what was it before--in between
1996 and now?
Mr. Crocker. Sir, our policy has always been to find ways
to establish communication between separated parents and
children and to try to--to effect the reunification----
Mr. Shays. That is the policy. What was the practice?
Mr. Crocker. The reunification of families. I'll be quite
frank with you. The practices is the issue. The practice of--
and a lot of effort by a lot of people went into these, of
working with the courts, the legal system, contacts with family
members in Saudi Arabia, and so forth, while all important and
all things we will continue quite demonstrably, and this
committee has illuminated it, did not produce results.
Our position is just as I've stated it. This has high-level
attention from this administration, and that will be sustained
high-level attention.
Mr. Shays. I want to apologize, Ambassador. Your service to
our country in Saudi Arabia was distinguished, and I just
wasn't thinking by calling you mister. I should have called you
Ambassador. I apologize for that.
Ms. Andruch--am I saying that name correctly?
Ms. Andruch. Andruch. That's right.
Mr. Shays. Would you have anything to elaborate on what Mr.
Crocker said?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir. I'd like to say that I'm not sure
what was done between his time in Saudi Arabia and more
recently, but in 1998, thanks to some legislation, we were able
to expand the ineligibility that we have for people who are not
only abductors themselves but also to immediate family members
of abductors. Now, what we need to be able to do that is the
names and to the extent possible the date and place of birth of
these immediate family members, and that will ensure that their
names will be put into a system and that visa will be refused
when they actually apply. That was--we were not able to do that
for that particular category before that.
In 1991, we were able to do it for the abducting parent
himself.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Crocker--and your title is? I'm
sorry.
Mr. Crocker. I am Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. So your proper title is Mr.
Secretary? What is your proper title?
Mr. Crocker. Mr. Crocker is just fine.
Mr. Shays. Did you have a chance to look at some of the
documents that were in this?
Mr. Crocker. I've really only seen the first page of it.
Mr. Shays. How would you respond to this paragraph? There
has been a great deal of confusion and misconception
surrounding the issue of child custody and abduction. Some have
charged that Saudi Arabia is holding Americans against their
will. This is absolutely not true, but there are some--let's
just take that part.
It is clearly your testimony that some children in Saudi
Arabia were abducted. Is that true?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, sir, that's true.
Mr. Shays. And is it also the position of the State
Department that they are being held in Saudi Arabia against
their will?
Mr. Crocker. It is very clear from testimony that the
committee heard yesterday that is the case.
Mr. Shays. And it's very clear that it is the government's
highest policy to help return these children to their families?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, it is, sir.
Mr. Shays. Is there anything that this committee can do to
give it more elevation, or do you think it's pretty high
elevation already?
Mr. Crocker. Judging by the hearing I attended in June and
what I saw yesterday and earlier today, I'd say it's pretty
high.
Mr. Shays. My comment to the sitting Chair is that I want
to give not a lot of time, but I want to give the
administration an opportunity to pursue the efforts that our
Ambassador pursued when he was there with distinction and to
allow the dialog to happen hopefully in some cases in private
if that ultimately results in the return of these children. And
so I'm not particularly interested in pursuing every issue as
it relates to family members in a public setting, unless staff
wants to persuade me differently. And I yield back.
Mr. Ose. The gentleman yields back, and I'm prepared to
have a discussion on that. My particular concern here is that
the Foreign Affairs Manual, the citations I see in the
testimony we received are that the pattern and practice of the
State Department are such as to once they ascertain there is no
physical--immediate physical danger to the American citizen who
has sought refuge, that person is then basically asked to leave
the embassy.
Mr. Shays. So let's talk about that.
Mr. Ose. I'm prepared to talk about that as a matter of
policy and practice.
Now, I do think that Governor Mabus during his time in
Saudi Arabia actually spoke a language that was clear and
unequivocal and was making significant progress. And your
suggestion about how to implement that is certainly noted from
my end. I will tell you some of these individual cases, if
we're talking about--what is the word, ``welfare''? Welfare and
whereabouts checks, there have been a number of years passed
since the name where any such welfare or whereabouts check has
been effectuated, and that gives me great pause in that regard,
whether it is one by one or all as a bunch, because if we can
ascertain that in fact these American citizens' welfare is
solid, you know, what exactly are we trying to accomplish?
Mr. Shays. May I respond?
Mr. Ose. Certainly.
Mr. Shays. I'd like to know the policy and if the policy
isn't being followed in practice, I want to be assured that the
practice is changing. I just have the sense that we have the
attention of the State Department and the Saudi Government. The
parents certainly have our attention, and I just would be
curious to see the outcome of the chairman's visit, the outcome
of these hearings in dialog with the families. And so I would
take some guidance from the families themselves, because
ultimately it's their cases we're trying to resolve. So I know
I'm going to go vote, and I'll have an opportunity to talk to
some of the families before I come back.
Mr. Ose. All right. I think the chairman is due back here
shortly. We've got 6 minutes and 25 seconds left in this vote.
Mr. Shays is faster than I am, so I'm going to chase him out of
the room here in a minute, but we're going to recess for a few
moments, and we will be back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burton [presiding]. We will call the committee back to
order, and I apologize for my absence. I do appreciate you
being here.
Ambassador Mabus, when you called Washington, I understand
you called Washington and asked them if you should consider the
practice that you had--Fowler called Washington and asked them
if the practice should be continued to deny visas to the
extended family of people who were involved in the kidnappings
and holding of these children. Are you familiar with why they
changed that policy?
Mr. Mabus. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. The policy you had?
Mr. Mabus. No, sir, I'm not. Ambassador Fowler told me that
he--when he arrived, he found my policy in place, that he then
asked the State Department in Washington if he had permission
to continue it and was told that he did not and that therefore
he ended it. I don't know what the reason was.
Mr. Burton. Did you ever have any opposition to that policy
while you were Ambassador?
Mr. Mabus. No, sir, but as I've said a little bit earlier,
I informed the State Department, kept them informed at every
step of the way of what I was doing, but to my memory I never
asked if I could do it. I thought that it was within the
prerogative of my job as Ambassador.
Mr. Burton. It seems unusual that Wyche Fowler would--
Ambassador Fowler would ask that kind of a question. It seems
that he would have just kept on with the policy, unless he had
some problem with it.
I've talked to a lot of Ambassadors. I've never heard of
anybody when there was an ongoing policy of asking if it could
be continued, have you?
Mr. Mabus. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. This is probably a question that you can't
answer, any of you, but I'd like to ask this question now. Do
you know if Mr. Fowler is now a representative of the Saudi
Government?
Mr. Mabus. I don't know, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Do any of you know that? Don't know if he is.
Mr. Crocker, would you agree that in the Tonetti case, that
the Saudi embassy appears to have issued passports to Joanna
Tonetti's children, despite the fact that it had been warned
that her ex-husband did not have custody of the children and
was not allowed to take them out of the country?
Mr. Crocker. I certainly heard her testimony in which she
laid all of that out.
Mr. Burton. Well, would you agree that in the McClain case,
that the Saudi Government apparently issued a passport to
Heidi, despite the fact that it had been warned that the father
did not have custody of Heidi and was not allowed to take her
out of the country?
Mr. Crocker. There again, I heard the testimony.
Mr. Burton. Does the State Department consider the Saudi
Government to have been complicit in the Tonetti and the
McClain kidnappings?
Mr. Crocker. I can't take a position on that, Mr. Chairman.
As I said, I've heard the testimony.
Mr. Burton. You're with the State Department, aren't you?
Mr. Crocker. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. If a U.S. court gives custody of a child to an
American mother and the court notifies the Saudi embassy that
there is a court order giving the mother custody of the
children and admonishes the Saudi embassy not to give passports
to those children because they're not to be taken out of the
country and then the Saudi embassy does exactly the opposite
and grants the passports, would you say they're complicit in
the kidnapping of those children?
Mr. Crocker. Mr. Chairman, this is into an area of consular
law and practice, and I'd like to ask my colleague to address
it.
Mr. Burton. OK. Ms. Andruch.
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir. At the risk of being a skunk at the
garden party here, what I would like to say is that in the
United States, for example, if the tables were reversed and we
knew about a court order from another country, Saudi Arabia,
any other country and an American citizen came to us asking for
a passport, by law we may refuse to issue that passport, but we
don't always--we don't necessarily refuse. And certain--and in
certain circumstances, the safety of the child at the time,
other mitigating circumstances, we would want to have that
right to issue the passport.
Now----
Mr. Burton. Well, let me just say, who do you folks work
for?
Ms. Andruch. We work for the Secretary, for the government
and for the people.
Mr. Burton. And for who, the people of the United States?
Ms. Andruch. And for the people of the United States, yes,
sir.
Mr. Burton. That's right.
Ms. Andruch. But would you, sir--excuse me----
Mr. Burton. I understand what you're saying, but here we
have a case where a government was informed of a court order in
the United States and they granted a passport to these children
and let the father kidnap them. The mother doesn't see them or
hear from them anymore, and you're saying that our State
Department doesn't take issue with that?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir. That is not exactly what I'm saying.
Mr. Burton. You're saying that if the tables were reversed
and there was a child in Germany that was under court order to
stay there and if a passport was issued--was asked for that we
might grant the passport for that child to come back to the
United States in violation of that court order, is that what
you're saying?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. OK. The difference is in Saudi Arabia their
oppression is unbelievable. In Germany, if an adult, child or a
child becomes of age or if a woman is of age and they want to
leave the country, they can do it. In Saudi Arabia, they can't
do it unless the husband grants that authority. And the women
are persecuted and the children are persecuted if they try to
rebel in any way against that kind of a system. So it seems to
me that our State Department ought to take a different view of
countries that have a repressive policy against women and
children than we do against a government like Germany or France
or any other country where they can leave of their own volition
when they're of age.
In addition to that, the Saudis don't recognize any
religion except their own. In France, in Germany, in other
countries where we have these kinds of problems, they can
worship as they choose, and they don't have to wear abayas and
they don't have to be persecuted. So it seems to me that there
ought to be a standard against which we hold every government,
and the Saudi Government should not meet that standard because
of their repressive policies. That is the difference.
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir. Everything you say is true, and I
don't disagree with any of it.
Mr. Burton. Then why hasn't our government been more
aggressive in getting these kids back, when in the 1980's--was
it in the 1980's or the 1990's that they went to the embassy
with these children?
In 1990, that was the Stowers family, Ms. Stowers and her
children, they went to the embassy in 1990, and they were told
it wasn't a hotel and they said that our embassy observed Saudi
law. These are American employees that work for the government
of the United States and the American people, and here's
American citizens coming in, and the Marine officers take them
to the front gate. The mother is arrested. The 12-year-old
daughter is married off, and we're supposed to represent
American citizens, and on our passports it says right in the
front that we're supposed to do everything we can to help them.
Why hasn't our State Department been more aggressive in
helping these cases?
Mr. Crocker. May I respond to that?
Mr. Burton. Yeah.
Mr. Crocker. Well, as you mentioned earlier, Ambassador
Jordan has made it very clear that no American who needs the
help of the embassy is going to be turned away.
Mr. Burton. And I admire Ambassador Jordan for saying that.
But what else has the State Department been doing? Let me
give you some ideas. I want to give a copy of this, OK?
I gave a copy of this, incidentally, to the Secretary of
State, who I think he is trying to help. I have admiration for
Colin Powell, Secretary Powell. He helped get this beautiful
young lady, I don't see her here now, out of Kuala Lumpur; and
he said, we might lose some diplomats out of this, but he did
it anyhow. You tell him, I appreciate it.
Here are some things that could be done to fix the system.
There should be an entrance stamp on our passports, an entrance
stamp. If a father comes into the United States and in
violation of a court order decides to take a child to Saudi
Arabia, kidnap them, he comes into the country, he gets an
entrance stamp on his passport. He goes to the Saudi embassy
and gets two passports from them to take the children back to
Saudi Arabia. When he goes to emigrate back with the children,
his passport will have an entrance stamp on it, but the
children's won't, and immigration officer will say, hey, where
is the entrance stamp on this passport and that will raise a
red flag on the children's passport, so that they will know
immediately that these children did not come in with the
father, and they'll want to find out if they are legally
entitled to leave with the father.
That is one way to skin the cat.
There ought to be penalties for people who violate court
orders. These fathers, some of them, were here in the United
States, they were in court. They got custody of the children
for 2 or 3 weeks and they knew that they were under a court
order to not take them out of the country and yet they did it
anyhow. Some of them, there are warrants out for the arrest of
some of those. There ought to be penalties for kidnappers.
Currently, the U.S. Government denies visas to the United
States for kidnappers and those who directly assist them. That
is not enough to put pressure on individuals to return
kidnapped children.
We are drafting legislation which would allow the State
Department to deny visas to the extended families of
kidnappers, as well as government officials from governments
which assist in the kidnappings. I understand that was the
policy in the past, and it was changed; is that right? Wasn't
there a policy in the past that denied visas where we did not
deny visas?
Governor Mabus, you had that policy?
Mr. Mabus. Yes, sir, anybody with the same last name did
not get a visa.
Mr. Burton. It would seem to me that would be a reasonable
thing to reinstate.
We also had a policy in the past which the Saudis objected
to--and other countries, I suppose, did as well, but
particularly the Saudis--that women were informed about the
policies of the country to which they were emigrating or going
to. I think every woman who marries a foreign national ought to
understand the cultures and the rules of that country.
Now, in particular, let's talk about Saudi Arabia. If women
know they are going to have to wear an abaya everywhere they
go, if they know they are going to have to have their husband's
permission to go to the bathroom or anywhere else, that they
can't come back to the United States without their husbands
signing an agreement to allow them to go, if they know that
their children are not going to be able to come to the United
States ever again without their husband's approval, I think a
lot of those women would have some second thoughts.
I don't know why that State Department took that kind of
information out of their Internet and are not giving it to
women, but I would strongly urge that kind of information be
reinstated for every country, including Saudi Arabia, and
especially these countries that have these kinds of oppressive
policies. Afghanistan, the way it was before, Iran, Iraq, Saudi
Arabia, those countries ought to be--the people ought to be at
least made aware; then they can make an informed decision about
whether or not they want to risk going over there.
A resolution regarding refuge in U.S. embassies: Now we're
talking about introducing a resolution in the Congress that
would say that nobody who is an American citizen would ever be
denied refuge in an embassy or consulate anywhere in the world.
That shouldn't be necessary. It should be State Department
policy that any American citizen--woman, child, man--that comes
into that embassy is guaranteed the protection of that embassy.
That is U.S. territory. It is U.S. territory, and they should
not be forced out onto the street to suffer the penalties of
that government if they are in U.S. territory, the embassy. And
that should be a policy not only in Saudi Arabia, but anyplace
in the world; and we should try to help them get back to the
United States if there is any way possible to do that. Even if
we have to risk having some of our embassy officials become
persona non grata and come back to the United States, that is
something that we should risk.
We are there to protect American citizens and if they come
into that embassy--women, children, men, whatever--they ought
to be guaranteed the protection of this government.
And finally, I think that the Ambassador, like Ambassador
Mabus, and the embassy staff, should be granted the authority
to deny visas on security grounds. Specifically, they should be
allowed to place the burden on the visa applicant to make sure
that they are traveling to the United States for the purpose
they claim and not because they are a security risk of any
kind, which includes taking children who are under court order
to stay with the other parent and whisking them back to the
country--to Saudi Arabia. There ought to be more authority for
the United States to deny visas to these foreign nationals if
they suspect that they are coming over here for some purpose
like that, OK?
And do you have any other suggestions on what we could do
to protect American citizens from this kind of a thing?
Ms. Andruch. Sir, I just wanted to say, I was familiar with
your suggestions. I think--I mean, they are all good ones. Some
of them, we're already doing. Some of them, we clearly need to
do more on.
The thing on the visas, and I think you were out for a
vote, but we do now already have--we are putting names in for
at least immediate family members of known abductors. If there
is legislation that allows us to go to the more extended family
members, that is easy enough to do. We will do that.
Mr. Burton. We ought to do that too.
Ms. Andruch. I think also the thing on getting more
information out, we have something that I think will be an easy
mechanism to use. We have an information sheet for each country
now. We can put more information in there on what American
women and others can expect, the living conditions in that
country.
We have something now for Saudi Arabia; it is admittedly
not strong enough, and we will do that now.
Mr. Burton. Well, I hope you will make it as strong as
possible. I know that you are a diplomat and that you want to
make sure that you don't offend a country any more than you
have to. But we are here, first of all--you, me, all of us--to
protect Americans, to protect Americans' rights. And it seems
to me that every single woman and child that is going to Saudi
Arabia, or a country with these oppressive policies, ought to
know what they are getting into.
Put yourself in their place. You are an attractive lady.
How would you like not knowing that if you go to Saudi Arabia
you must wear a black abaya, and if you have your ankle showing
on the street, somebody slaps you with a stick. You wouldn't
like that.
Ms. Andruch. No, I couldn't do it. And you are absolutely
right.
I do want to say, I do work for the American people. It is
a privilege. We don't always get it right, but I very much--a
lot of people actually would probably say I wasn't very
diplomatic, but I have the luxury of having the protection and
welfare of American citizens overseas being my only job. So to
the extent that I can do it better, I am open to suggestions. I
look forward to working with you and others to help us.
Mr. Burton. Well, the embassy could have been--not the
embassy, but the State Department could have been doing a much
more aggressive and better job, in my judgment, to protect
these women and children. And it seems to me that we ought to
be very aggressive with governments like the Saudi Government,
that has lied to us. You know, the FBI said--and I want to say
to my colleagues, pardon me for going longer than I should--the
Ambassador to the United States, according to the previous
administration--two people that worked for the previous
administration in the area of foreign policy and terrorism
wrote a book, and they said that the Ambassador to the United
States lied to them about the bombing of the Khobar Towers in
Saudi Arabia. He lied to them about that.
I understand he is a very charming fellow. But we should
not allow an ambassador to the United States to lie to a
President or to the President's Cabinet or to the people in the
administration that are dealing with a terrorist attack that
kills 17, 18, 19 Americans. And Bandar is still here. He lied
about that, and we know he lied about them cooperating and
trying to help these women with their children.
Now, somebody ought to go to him next time he goes down to
Texas or over to the White House and say, look, we know you
lied, and we don't want you to do it anymore, because if you
do, we are going to kick your fanny out of here and send you
back to Saudi Arabia where you can wear your robes all the time
and be a prince.
I mean it. If I sound a little too vociferous, it is
because I am so angry. I went through abuse as a child. I saw
it firsthand. I saw my dad rip my mother's clothes off of her
until she did not have anything on and knock her until we
thought she was dead; and then he would look at me and say, You
better get back upstairs or you will get some of this, and I
did. .
And I hate people, I absolutely abhor people who mistreat
women and children, and they are doing it on a regular basis
over there. And they are doing it to Americans, and the
Americans couldn't find sanctuary after this gentleman left
over there; and that is a tragedy. And for our State Department
to allow that to happen, to turn a blind eye, is a sin. I hope
to God that never happens again.
I don't know if we are going to be able to get these kids
back, that ought to be brought back to America. I hope we can.
We are going to do everything we can to do that. But you should
sure as hell should never let this happen again.
Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do we call you Ambassador
or Governor?
Mr. Mabus. Either one is way better than what I get called
a lot of times.
Mr. Ose. My house is like that too.
Mr. Ambassador, when you took the step of withholding
visas, was that part of a policy manual that the State
Department has or was that kind of an individual initiative?
Mr. Mabus. I think that would fall under individual
initiative. It did seem to me when I was preparing to be an
ambassador, I was told that visas were a privilege, not a
right, and that Ambassadors--if there was an interest to the
United States involved, that Ambassadors could deny visas; and
I thought that an interest to the United States was involved in
these cases. And I wasn't making a lot of headway with the
Saudi Government, although they would listen, but they wouldn't
force the husbands or the fathers to return the kids.
And I was trying to find a leverage point to solve this,
and Saudi families are exceptionally tight knit, close to each
other; and I thought that if we denied visas to anybody with
the same last name, that the family would put pressure on the
kidnapper.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Crocker, does the current policy of the State
Department allow an ambassador to use visas in this manner?
Mr. Crocker. There is a legislative restriction on visa
denials.
Mr. Ose. 4365?
Mr. Crocker. Whatever it is, yes.
Governor Mabus is exactly right, you can take initiative
sometimes from the field if you don't ask.
Mr. Ose. When you say a ``legislative initiative,'' is it a
legislative initiative or is it a statute? Is it current law?
Has it been passed by the Congress and signed by the President?
Ms. Andruch. I think if you are talking about visa
ineligibilities, that is part of the immigration and
nationality act and part of the act is that only consular
officers can adjudicate visas.
Mr. Ose. What do you mean? Is the Ambassador a consular
officer?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir, he or she isn't.
Mr. Burton. Don't they take their orders from the
Ambassador?
Ms. Andruch. They take their orders from the Ambassador
certainly.
Mr. Burton. If a consular officer is told--pardon me for
interrupting--if a consular officer is asked to deny a visa for
a reason that he thinks is important, what will the consular
officer do?
Ms. Andruch. If there is a basis in the law under which the
visa can be denied, then it will be denied.
Frankly, if it is just because there is a suspicion of
something, that would not be enough to deny a visa. And I
suspect what a consular officer would have done then is to come
into Washington and say this is what we have, you know. Is
there a way I can do what the Ambassador is asking me to do?
Mr. Ose. There are lists of people maintained----
Mr. Burton. Will the gentleman yield one more time?
Mr. Ose. Certainly.
Mr. Burton. Ambassador Mabus, did you ever have a situation
like this?
Mr. Mabus. No, sir, I told my consular officer that was the
policy. My memory is that I gave him written orders, so that it
would not harm him if there were any problems.
Mr. Burton. And he acceded to your wishes?
Mr. Mabus. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Are you saying, that consular officer did not
do the right thing?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir, I'm not. I'm not in a position to
know what happened. I thought, though--and I don't have all the
names of the applicants, but there is also--I know very often
families are told, well, if you apply for a visa, you are not
likely to get one. And it could have, in fact, been that in
many cases the people involved did not actually apply for a
visa, but I don't know. And I will--we can certainly--if we
have the names of the applicants, we can certainly go back and
check our records and get back to you on that.
Mr. Burton. Do you have a response?
Mr. Mabus. I know in the case of Pat Roush's ex-husband,
al-Gheshayan, that a lot of family members--not a lot, several
family members applied and were turned down. He kept calling
the embassy and saying his family was furious at him that we
couldn't do this to them, that his family was bringing pressure
to bear on him.
And the first person that got turned down was a general in
the Saudi national guard, who had cancer and was going to M.D.
Anderson for treatment, and I got called in by the Crown Prince
on that one.
I issued the visa--I did not want to kill anybody over
this--but I told him what was going on and why I was doing this
and my reasons for doing so and his response was, You're doing
the right thing. The only thing somebody like that understands
is strength.
Mr. Burton. So was it your impression that they were going
to release the children?
Mr. Mabus. It was my impression that the father was under
increasing and pretty severe pressure from his family to
release the children.
Mr. Burton. And that pressure was relieved when Wyche
Fowler became Ambassador?
Mr. Mabus. The pressure was relieved when my policy was
discontinued when Ambassador Fowler was there, yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, may I have another 5 minutes?
Mr. Burton. Sure.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Crocker, does the State Department keep a list of the
names of the individuals who are involved in these cases with
American children who have Saudi nationality?
Ms. Andruch. I think I am probably in a better position to
answer that.
The list of the family members of parents who have abducted
children, is that what you are asking?
Mr. Ose. If we have an American national married to a Saudi
national, is there a list of Saudi nationals who might be
involved in such cases? Is there a list maintained?
Ms. Andruch. We have a list of the names of abducting
parents that we're aware of, yes.
Mr. Ose. Are those people allowed to come to the United
States?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir.
Mr. Ose. We had testimony yesterday that, in fact, there
was a situation where a father and a child did come to the
United States.
Ms. Andruch. Let me say, when I say ``allowed'' I misspoke
because there is--a visa can be denied to that person.
Mr. Ose. Can be or is?
Ms. Andruch. Can be. Is, I guess--let me go back.
Mr. Ose. I know the definition of ``is.''
Ms. Andruch. And I used to.
Must be--the visa must be denied under these grounds.
Now, there are waivers; you may obtain a waiver of that
particular ineligibility. So if someone received a visa and
traveled to the United States, I would have to look into the
background to find out why that visa was issued.
Mr. Ose. What would be the grounds for waiving a denial on
someone who has arguably abducted an American child? What would
those grounds be?
Ms. Andruch. The very best reason would be if that parent
were only willing to bring back the abducted child if he could
either come with the child at the time or, say, was coming to
the United States to take part in a custody hearing, but that
it was somehow connected to the return of the child; then we
would definitely request a waiver of that ineligibility.
Mr. Ose. Are there such instances?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir, not yet.
Mr. Ose. But there are instances where those individuals
have come back to the States under a visa that has not been
denied?
Ms. Andruch. I don't know, sir. I'd have to check. I'd have
to check against names--a list of names to see if and when a
visa had been issued.
Mr. Ose. I know we have the names of the cases. I was going
through part of them.
I would appreciate in writing a response as to how the
individual, the Saudi national involved in those cases, is
treated if and when that person applies for a visa to the
United States. I'd just like to know what the State Department
would do in a situation like that.
Can you respond to us in writing to that effect?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. OK. Now, the second question I have is, back on
June 12th, we asked for the name of the Department of State
policy official who directed the U.S. Marines to escort Monica
Stowers and her children from the U.S. embassy in Riyadh. I
still don't have that. And it is now October what, 3rd? Is
there some problem?
Ms. Andruch. I am not aware of that, so again, I'm sorry. I
will take the question though. I thought all of your questions
had been answered.
Mr. Ose. It says here--this was with Mr. Kelly's July 1st
response, ``We are currently trying to contact officials who
were present during the incident to better answer your
question. We will provide a followup reply as soon as
possible.''
Now do we know who was at the embassy at the time? Do we
have records, who was employed there?
Ms. Andruch. I'm sure we must have records sir.
Ms. Roush. That was Karla Reed.
Mr. Ose. OK, I presume that we have records of where people
who might have retired from the State Department now reside. I
am going to keep coming back to this question, Ms. Andruch.
Ms. Andruch. We both thought the question had been
answered, so I do apologize and we will get you an answer.
Mr. Ose. OK. I do want to know who it was who made that
happen. Whether there were any e-mails or cables back and forth
to Washington about it.
Who made the decision? Who sort of pulled the trigger on
Ms. Stowers? I think that would be very interesting piece of
information to have.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield back at this time. I do have
more questions, but I see that my time is about up.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. Mr. Crocker, the Saudi Foreign
Minister sent a letter to Secretary Powell on September 17,
2002, attaching a list of cases where children were abducted
out of Saudi Arabia and brought to the United States against
the wishes of their parents. That is the claim. Have you seen
that list?
Mr. Crocker. I have, sir.
Mr. Shays. The Saudi Government appears to be claiming that
Saudi citizens may be held against their will here in America.
Do you believe that allegation?
Mr. Crocker. My understanding is that when that list was
passed, there was no commentary, background, or other expressed
position coming with it. We are not treating that as a formal
communication.
Mr. Shays. There were no particulars? There were no
specifics? No names?
Mr. Crocker. No, sir, and we made the same observation that
this committee did concerning Dria Davis.
Mr. Shays. Ambassador Mabus, to your knowledge, are Saudi
citizens being held against their will in America, and were any
held against their will in America while you served as
Ambassador? Are you aware of any complaints?
Mr. Mabus. Is the question are American citizens being held
in Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Burton. No. To your knowledge, are Saudi citizens being
held against their will in America?
Mr. Mabus. No, sir.
Mr. Shays. Were any held against their will in America
while you were serving as Ambassador?
Mr. Mabus. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Crocker, one of the names on the Saudi's
list of abductions by Americans is Dria Davis. The Saudis
allege that Dria was taken out of the United States on a
military plane with the assistance of the State Department. Was
she?
Mr. Crocker. We have heard her own testimony that she was
not.
Mr. Shays. In fact, did not the State Department inform the
Saudi Government that Dria was not taken out of Saudi Arabia
with the State Department's help?
Mr. Crocker. I am not aware.
Mr. Shays. The answer is that you are not aware of that
claim? OK.
Ms. Andruch. No.
Mr. Shays. In other words, you are not aware that the State
Department informed a few years ago that was not the case?
Mr. Crocker. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I don't know. I
am not saying that the State Department did not; I don't know.
Mr. Shays. Another name on the purported list of American
kidnappings is that of Jennifer Martin, yet isn't it true that
Jennifer Martin had her son kidnapped by her Saudi ex-husband?
In other words, wasn't her son kidnapped by her Saudi ex-
husband?
Ms. Andruch. I'm not familiar with that case at all.
Mr. Shays. Isn't it true that Ms. Martin has made a number
of concessions to her Saudi ex-husband in an effort to see her
son?
You are not familiar?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir, and if I could say--unfortunately,
Mr. Ose is not here right now, but he had asked me earlier for
an update on several cases; and this is one--another one, and I
do have a list of the current cases, and you may be aware that
there are families who are living in Saudi Arabia who have
specifically asked us not to intervene in their cases and Ms.
Martin may in fact be one of those. I don't know off the top of
my head, but that was certainly the situation in some of those
other cases that I addressed.
Mr. Shays. In the case, Mr. Crocker, in the Rives case,
Lilly and Sami Rives were not Saudi citizens; is that correct?
Mr. Crocker. That is my understanding, yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. Are the Rives children being held improperly in
Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Crocker. We consider this a case of abduction, and it
is very much our desire to see that they are returned.
Mr. Shays. And when I say ``Rives,'' it is ``Rives,'' so
you have understood what I've meant, I'm sorry.
Is it your understanding that the kidnapping mother in the
Rives case comes from an influential family in Saudi Arabia?
Ms. Andruch. I have heard that as well, sir. She is Syrian,
and I think there are members of her extended family who are in
fact Saudis.
Mr. Shays. Is it your understand that the Saudi Government
has taken action to protect this influential family? For
example, has it granted the Rives children Saudi travel
documents, despite the fact that they are not Saudi citizens?
Ms. Andruch. I heard that just today from Mr. Rives, the
fact that they did get Saudi passports.
Mr. Shays. But there is no way for the State Department to
confirm that?
Ms. Andruch. We can--I think we could probably go to the
Saudi Government and ask them to confirm that, yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. So you are not all that familiar with the
Michael Rives case?
In other words, if I ask you this question: Has the family
used its influence to keep Michael Rives from coming to Saudi
Arabia?
Ms. Andruch. I'm not aware of that, no. I am familiar with
the case, but I am not aware of any influence that the Saudi
Government may have put on the family, no--and the government.
Mr. Shays. Has the State Department demanded the return of
the Rives children from Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Crocker. Ambassador Jordan has raised the Rives, as
well as other cases, with the Foreign Minister, with the
request that these children be returned to the United States.
Ms. Andruch. And if I could just add, we asked--we have
raised the case, and we have used as the logical argument that
these children are not Saudi nationals. The mother is not a
Saudi national, there is no reason for them to retain these
American children in Saudi Arabia. We have also asked for the
return of the two of the American passports that the Saudi
Government now has.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask you, what is their response to that?
Ms. Andruch. As far as I am aware, as of yesterday there
has not yet been a response.
Mr. Shays. OK. I have some questions of Mr. Mabus. Do you
want to go on?
Why don't you go and then I will come back.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Crocker, when the al-Gheshayan sisters went
from Saudi Arabia to London, did the State Department know that
they were leaving Saudi Arabia heading for London?
Mr. Crocker. No, we did not.
Mr. Ose. Did they meet with a State Department official in
London?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, they did.
Mr. Ose. At what point did the State Department learn of
the al-Gheshayan sisters' presence in London?
Mr. Crocker. I believe that was Friday the 30th.
Mr. Ose. And the interview was after?
Mr. Crocker. Was Saturday.
Mr. Ose. What is the State Department doing today regarding
the al-Gheshayan sisters?
Mr. Crocker. We have made it clear to the Saudi Government
that what needs to happen with the Gheshayan sisters is for
them to travel to the United States and to see their mother in
the United States.
Mr. Ose. Absent an affirmative action to do that, what is
the State Department doing to bring leverage on the al-
Gheshayan family? In other words, are they free to get visas?
Mr. Crocker. No, sir, consistent with the legislation that
Ms. Andruch has described.
Mr. Ose. Is al-Gheshayan or any member of his immediate
family not able to get a visa today to the United States?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir. In fact, because the women are now
adults, that law does not apply; that ineligibility would not
apply.
Mr. Ose. So, in effect, the position of the United States
is because X number of years have passed, the statute of
limitations on these citizenship rights have evaporated?
Ms. Andruch. No, I wouldn't sort of put it exactly like
that.
Mr. Ose. How would you put it?
Ms. Andruch. Well, it is very--I mean it is a tragic
situation that has gone on way too long.
No one--I mean, we don't deny that, and I--and I have
listened Ms. Roush during the last testimony. I know how awful
this is for her. Unfortunately, though, because they are adults
and what we would like--and as Ambassador Crocker said, even
before we knew the delegation was going out there and we were
trying to be able to speak to the women, our instructions to
the embassy and all along the way was that we really want to be
able to talk to them, we want to urge them to go to the United
States, where we knew that they would be able to tell us
exactly what they wanted.
They have done that in London, and I hope that is not the
only opportunity we get to hear from them. But right now they
have told us that they really don't want us to intervene
anymore in their lives.
Mr. Ose. OK. Assume that Alia and Aisha are now majority
status--by the way, what is majority age in Saudi Arabia for
women?
Ms. Andruch. I'm sorry sir, I don't know in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Ose. So, for the moment, let's set them aside in the--
why would we give a visa to any member of the al-Gheshayan
family?
Ms. Andruch. Right now, I would have to say, sir, because
we have no ineligibility. There is no provision in the law for
us not to give a visa.
Now, again----
Mr. Ose. Is there discretion in the law for you to--
Ambassador Mabus apparently had the discretion. It may have
cost him his job, but he exercised it.
Ms. Andruch. What we could do, we talked earlier about some
possible legislative fixes; and that would be something that
would certainly be worth exploring, because right now that
ineligibility is until the child--and it is usually a woman--is
18.
That could be--is it 21? I'm sorry, it's 21.
Mr. Ose. OK. It does bring up an interesting point, because
we did have testimony yesterday from Debra Docekal that
somewhere in the 1997-1998 timeframe her husband brought her
children back to the United States on a vacation, that she
alerted the State Department, hoping to be able to get the
children back, and that nothing ensued. These were minor
children brought back to the United States by an individual of
Saudi nationality under circumstances that arguably supported a
kidnapping charge.
Apparently, he got a visa. This was 1997 or 1998, if I am
correct.
How could that happen?
Ms. Andruch. I don't know sir. And I heard that testimony
yesterday. That was the first I knew.
Our records indicated that our first contact with Ms.
Docekal was in 2000. There had been--we did know about the trip
angle, and I just don't know enough about the case. I would
have to sort of look into it and take that question.
Mr. Ose. OK. Consider it asked.
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. Now let me go back to another question.
Mr. Shays was going through a list, or a series of
questions, having to do with individual cases. I asked a series
of questions having to do with individual cases. And some of
those cases, according to the information we have in front of
us, there has been no welfare or whereabouts check for any
period of time--I mean, years in some cases.
What is the standard that the State Department uses for
determining welfare and whereabouts of these children?
Ms. Andruch. I guess, sir, there are a couple of things.
First, we do it at the request of the left-behind parent. If
the parent in the United States asks us to do a visit, that's
when we make our first attempts; and the reason we do that is
because there have been instances where they may have been
working on something else, and they did not want us to
interfere by putting what might be considered pressure on the
family.
If we know where the child is, then we contact the taking
parent, which I know is often a problem and we request the
ability to send a consular officer to their home to meet with
the child and sort of talk to him or her, find out how they
are.
Mr. Ose. Is that the same as saying that you have wide
discretion in doing welfare and whereabouts checks?
Ms. Andruch. We have wide discretion, sir; yes, I would say
so.
Mr. Ose. So if you have wide discretion in that, why don't
you have wide discretion in the issuance of visas?
Ms. Andruch. Because the visa is law. That has been
legislated, and there are any number of ineligibilities. And
certainly if an applicant is ineligible under any one of those
provisions, a visa must be denied.
Mr. Ose. So do you agree with the clear consensus of this
committee that some means of denying visas to these people
would be an effective tool? Or do you think it would not be an
effective tool?
Ms. Andruch. I think I agree that it would be an
effective--that it could be an effective tool.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Crocker, do you agree?
Mr. Crocker. I think it could be an effective tool. The
administration is not often in the habit of encouraging
Congress to legislate on anything like a foreign policy matter
but I will tell you frankly, from the policy side, that is the
only way that the refusal categories could be broadened.
Mr. Ose. And you are saying that ability to deny a visa is
not in the foreign affairs manual, it is in statute?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. And it applies to children under the age of 21? Or
minors under the age of 21?
Ms. Andruch. That particular provision of the law that we
were talking about that would allow us--that would actually be
where we would have to refuse a visa to an abductor or
immediate family is until the child is 21 or married.
Mr. Ose. Would there be--for whatever reason, if someone
perpetrated such an act on an American family, for whatever
reason, would we ever issue them a visa?
Just passage of time, geez, OK they are 21, OK, everything
is forgiven?
Ms. Andruch. Well, no. Not everything is forgiven. But
again we would not have the legislative ability to deny a visa
to that person any longer.
Mr. Ose. So if we put forward a legislative effort to, in
fact, allow--allow or mandate the denial of a visa to someone
of foreign nationality who engaged in this kind of behavior,
what would the position of the Department of State be on that
legislative effort?
Ms. Andruch. I think--I would have to consult with other
offices, certainly other than my own.
Mr. Ose. What would your position on that be?
Ms. Andruch. My position would be, again, that I think it
could be a very useful tool.
I think--when we talk about legislation, though, I think we
want to ensure that we have--that it isn't so rigid that we
cannot work with it when we need to. That, I think--it could be
a useful tool, but we might want to leave ourselves some
discretion. And I don't know what that discretion would be
right now, but it is something that I would like to look at
with others in discussing it before you propose legislation, if
that would be possible.
Mr. Ose. How about you, Mr. Crocker; what is your opinion?
Mr. Crocker. I would share Ms. Andruch's opinion that I
think it could be a useful tool. But she cited the hypothetical
example, at least, of an abducting parent who said as a
condition for the return of the child to the United States,
that he or she accompanied the child. So I would think it would
be important to have some flexibility in it.
But clearly, in my view, the current legislation needs to
be strengthened.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Mabus, Mr. Ambassador Mabus?
Mr. Mabus. I obviously think that you should deny visas
with probably the one exception that was--the hypothetical
exception--but you should deny visas not only to a kidnapper
but to that kidnapper's family; and that the passage of time,
the fact that you pulled off a kidnapping and kept the kids
long enough for them to be 21 or married shouldn't matter. It
shouldn't be rewarded.
Mr. Ose. No olly olly oxen-free kind of thing?
Mr. Mabus. He shouldn't be rewarded for being a law-breaker
over a longer period of time.
Mr. Ose. In your opinion, would that be difficult to
implement?
Mr. Mabus. No, sir.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Crocker would that be difficult to implement?
Mr. Crocker. No, it wouldn't. It would be quite simple and
straightforward.
Mr. Ose. Just a moment, please. I want to go back to the
al-Gheshayan interview in London.
Since we cannot visit with the daughters, we get the
opportunity to visit with the mother, I am curious, what does--
from your perspective, what is she recommending as it relates
to this situation in terms of how the Department of State
should proceed on this matter?
Ms. Andruch. I'm not sure what she is recommending, since I
haven't really spoken to her.
Ms. Roush. I just spoke to Mr. Crocker.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Crocker?
Mr. Crocker. Mrs. Roush and I spoke before the commencement
of the hearing, and she was quite clear that we should apply
pressure on the Saudi Government to bring about the return of
her daughters to the United States and for that return to be in
a family context.
I believe she mentioned, for example, wanting to serve her
daughters a dinner in her home and not to do this in some kind
of staged hotel event.
Mr. Ose. Who informed--we touched on this earlier, who
informed the State Department that the Roush sisters wanted to
meet with a consular official in London?
Mr. Crocker. The initial contact on Friday evening came
from Adel Al-Jubier. My understanding is, at that time, he said
they may want to meet with a consular official.
Mr. Ose. This gentleman is a Saudi official?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, sir. He was the one referred to earlier
today as the advisor to the Crown Prince.
Mr. Ose. OK. Who at the State Department made the decision
to go ahead with that meeting in London?
Mr. Crocker. That was a policy level decision above the
bureau level, either Consular Affairs or Near Eastern Affairs.
But I would have to go back to determine at exactly which
level.
Mr. Ose. Answer that question asked for the record, please.
Now before--so you got a call on Friday asking whether or
suggesting that perhaps the Roush sisters might like to meet
with a consular official. Did anybody at the State Department
call Mrs. Roush and inform her of the planned meeting?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir, a member of the Office of American
Citizen Services called Ms. Roush and just told her, I think--I
don't have the verbatim conversation, but just told her this
was a possibility.
Mr. Ose. What was Ms. Roush's reaction?
Ms. Roush. That's not true.
Mr. Ose [presiding]. Let me get through my question, and if
we have to swear in additional witnesses--it looks like I'm the
chairman, so we can do that.
So going back to my question, someone from the State
Department did call Ms. Roush?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. And advised her of the planned meeting?
Ms. Andruch. Of a meeting. I think at that point we did not
know where it was going to be.
Mr. Ose. And what was Ms. Roush's reaction?
Ms. Andruch. I don't know exactly, sir; I'd have to go back
and check the record.
Mr. Ose. Do you know whether or not she asked to be part of
that meeting?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir, I don't.
Mr. Ose. But you don't know whether Mrs. Roush supported or
objected to the meeting?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir, I don't.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Ambassador Mabus, would you have proceeded
with the meeting in London in the manner that the State
Department did?
Mr. Mabus. No.
Mr. Ose. Why not?
Mr. Mabus. Because we had been trying for 16 years to get
these children--or their mother has been trying for 16 years to
get these children out. The fact that a congressional
delegation was in Saudi Arabia when they suddenly showed up in
Great Britain accompanied by various Saudis and family members,
I don't think the State Department should have been a party to
that. To then say that--to then give some credence to the fact
that they don't want to come back to the United States, they
don't want to leave Saudi Arabia, they don't want to be with
their mother, I don't think that part of our government should
underpin that.
An American law has been violated here, and the only way
that American law is going to be upheld is for those children
to be back in America, not being interviewed somewhere else
about their supposed wishes now. And after 17 years, I wouldn't
doubt that these children do believe now that they don't want
to return.
Mr. Ose. From your experience as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
and elsewhere, were the Roush sisters able to speak freely in
this meeting?
Mr. Mabus. Well, in the first place, I wasn't Ambassador
anywhere else. But just from my experience as an ambassador, I
don't believe any child in this situation would be able to
speak freely. And from my experience as a parent, and a
divorced parent who has custody, legal custody, of my children,
I think that if you have some amount of time to press your
point of view on a child, and particularly if you have 17
years, that child will say whatever you have pressed upon that
child for 17 years.
Ms. Andruch. May I add something?
Mr. Ose. Certainly.
Ms. Andruch. Just from the standpoint of an American
citizen overseas requesting a visit with a consular officer, we
would not refuse that request. And that was why the meeting
went ahead. Regardless of how it may have been, or appeared to
have been, staged or what we think of what actually transpired
during the meeting, the fact that American citizens are
requesting to talk to a consular officer, that's what we do.
That's what we would always do, if we did not know at that
point what they might be asking of us.
Mr. Ose. Irrespective of the conditions of the meeting?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir, because at that time we did not know
what the conditions of the meeting were.
Mr. Ose. Who made the request for the meeting in the first
place? Who called the consular office and said, We might be
interested in having a meeting?
Ms. Andruch. I'm not sure exactly how it all transpired.
And, again, we will have to go back and get you the details.
Mr. Ose. Answer that a request for a chronology of those
events, please, for the record.
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir, OK.
Mr. Ose. There is a gentleman named Adel Al-Jubier. He is
the Foreign Policy Advisor to the Crown Prince, if I recall
correctly.
Mr. Crocker. Yes, sir, he is the one I mentioned, who
telephoned Friday evening, the 30th of August, to say that the
daughters might be interested in a meeting with a consular
officer.
Mr. Ose. OK, so we do know who called. It was the Foreign
Policy Advisor to the Crown Prince?
Mr. Crocker. Yes, sir. I'm sorry, I think we may have
misunderstood your second question. That was not the call that
said the girls definitely did want to meet with the consular
officer. That's the one we are going to have to check into.
Mr. Ose. All right. And you will append to that response
the name of the consular officer who actually took the call and
what have you?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. It seems awfully strange--or it just seems unusual
to me that the Foreign Policy Advisor to the Crown Prince--
that's pretty high up in the Saudi hierarchy--would make such a
call. I mean, did that set off any, you know, bells or alarms
or anything like that?
I mean, is that an unusual thing? Does a Foreign Policy
Advisor for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia normally make such
calls?
Mr. Crocker. I can't make a lot of inferences here, sir,
but I think it's important to note that prior to this
development, we had pressed the Saudi Government at a high
level on several occasions on the importance of the al-
Gheshayan girls being able to come back to the United States
and see their mother here. And I think it is in that context
that we may see Mr. Al-Jubier's involvement in the London
event.
Mr. Ose. And it just happened--I'm sure it was a
coincidence, but just an uncanny coincidence with Chairman
Burton's trip to Saudi?
I think I will say the obvious: It seems to me it was set
up, too.
Mr. Crocker, in your testimony, your opening statement, you
said that the Government of Saudi Arabia has no legal grounds
to compel its citizens to return their children to the United
States, even if the children are U.S. citizens.
I believe that's an accurate quote from within your opening
statement.
Now Saudi Arabia remains a monarchy. Why couldn't the Saudi
Government just kind of reach out and say, We are going to do
this? Are there statutory prohibitions?
Mr. Crocker. As I indicated earlier, sir, it is not that we
have been idle on these cases. We have sought to work with them
through existing legal structures, which is standard
international diplomatic practice.
It is quite clear, as I noted, that these events were not
getting the only results that ultimately count, which is the
children returned to the United States and their families here.
We are now, in addition to these ongoing efforts--as I
think I noted, because they are important, we are dealing with
these cases at a political level and will continue to do so.
That is not to say, though, that there is necessarily a switch
to flip or a button to push and everything is magically
resolved.
These are difficult and complicated cases at whatever level
they are dealt with.
But the point I sought to make earlier is that at the very
senior levels of this government to the very senior levels of
that government, we're making the point that this is an
important political issue, and it needs to be resolved.
Mr. Ose. What are the standards you would recommend to me
to put into legislation so as to effectuate denial of visas for
such people who might otherwise take our children, irrespective
of country? What are the--what would be the State Department's
recommendation?
Mr. Crocker. That is a matter where I think we would have
to give this careful reflection and come back to you.
Mr. Ose. Well, let me ask a couple hypotheticals. Let's say
an American national has a court order granting custody to them
and ordering the foreign national not to take the children out
of the country. The American national alerts the embassy and
the appropriate personnel at the embassy of the country, the
foreign national, of this court determination. They're a
signatory to the Hague Convention. Would that be a standard
that would be satisfactory to the State Department for denial
of visa at any time in the future to such foreign national if
they then went ahead and took the--took a kid, left the
country.
Mr. Crocker. That's already in the current legislation for
the abductor. He would be denied as matters stand now.
Mr. Ose. OK. So let's back off a little bit from that.
Let's say you hadn't alerted the embassy of the foreign
national, that you only had a court order granting you custody
and that they were a signatory to the Hague Convention in the
country of the foreign national. Would that be satisfactory to
deny such person a future visa?
Mr. Crocker. Sir, such little depth--very little depth as I
have in visa issues, I'm now beyond. I'll see if my colleague
would care to speak to that.
Mr. Ose. OK. Ms. Andruch?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir. My colleague was just telling me
something that, again, in things to explore for possible
ineligibilities. The ineligibility that we have now for
abductors is for countries that are not signatory to the Hague
Convention. So if in considering possible changes, perhaps that
could be extended to other countries. That's again something
that I think we all have to discuss and look at, but the
legislation as now written is for those non-Hague countries.
Mr. Ose. And for those non-Hague countries, a foreign
national who absconds with an American child----
Ms. Andruch. A parent.
Mr. Ose. A parent, correct. Who absconds with an American
child, current statute says that until that child is 21, State
Department has the ability to deny a visa?
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir, 21 or married.
Mr. Ose. So if a Saudi national takes an American child,
goes back to Saudi Arabia and marries them off at 12, that is
compliant with the statute? And that person can subsequently
get a visa?
Ms. Andruch. That is an interesting case, and I would have
to sort of go back and find out what would happen in that
instance.
Mr. Ose. Consider it asked for the record.
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir. And when we're talking court orders,
I'd like to also clarify that we're talking U.S. court orders.
Mr. Ose. Correct.
Ms. Andruch. OK.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Horn.
All right. I'm going to exercise a little chairman's
prerogative here. Ms. Roush, would you please rise? Raise your
right hand. Her name is Pat Roush.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Ose. Let the record show Ms. Roush answered in the
affirmative.
Now, we've been going back and forth on a number of issues
in particular relating to the case of your daughters. This
issue of granting visas to the family of your ex-husband, I
think just crystallizes whether or not we're serious about
protecting our children. Do you have any thoughts on that? I
mean, how do we get the attention of people if we can't have
some leverage?
STATEMENT OF PAT ROUSH
Ms. Roush. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to say a
few things. The 1998 law that Ms. Andruch is referring to was
actually started--put into effect by law by Senator Feinstein
at my request due to the actions of Ambassador Mabus. I went to
see Senator Feinstein in 1997, and she was impressed with the
work that Ambassador Mabus had done holding the visas up. That
was so successful. That was our big hook. And therefore she
passed a law attached to an omnibus bill. Unfortunately, the
other Members would not go for it if it included the extended
families.
I was just listening to what was being discussed concerning
the removal of the immediate families from the visa
ineligibility, and so therefore when my daughter Aisha--I was
informed that she was married the day before the June 12th
hearing, she was 19. So by marrying her off, he rewarded the
other family members by enabling them to come into the country.
And the only hook that we had when Ambassador Mabus was helping
me was the visas, as he has testified to and as I have told
everybody and their uncle for the last 7 years. The visa--the
power of the visa is extremely, extremely important. It made
them pay attention, and it empowered the other members of the
American embassy, the Consul General and other people that
worked in the visa department.
As soon as Wyche Fowler came in, Ambassador Mabus had met
with the Crown Prince concerning this issue of the relative who
wanted to come to M.D. Anderson for cancer treatment, and he
released him. And the Crown Prince, as Ambassador Mabus has
testified, was agreeing that this was very good and this was
powerful, and we were very heartened. The Ambassador called me,
and we were heartened that the girls would be released, and
unfortunately the Ambassador resigned 2 weeks later.
Khobar Towers happened a couple of weeks after that, and
then Glen Carey, who was the Acting Consul General, would not
even take my calls. I told him that the Ambassador had gotten
the--permission from the Crown Prince of a point man being
appointed, Abdul Mufano Tuwajmi. You remember that. And Glen
Carey would not even take that information down. They would not
even go back to the Crown Prince to make the final
arrangements. And when Wyche Fowler came in, of course the
whole visa lift was removed.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Crocker, I don't want to diverge from it. Is
Glen Carey still--I guess maybe, Ms. Andruch, this is better
for you. Is Glen Carey still at the--in Consular Affairs?
Ms. Andruch. I don't know, sir. I know the name, but I
don't know if he is still a current member or if he is retired
or where he is, but I can find out.
Mr. Ose. Consider that asked for the record, please.
Ms. Andruch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. All right. Ms. Roush, please continue.
Ms. Roush. Yes. I have a couple of other comments. Mr.
Petruzzello testified that Mr. Adel Jubeir got involved at the
request of Bill O'Reilly when O'Reilly had him on his
television show. He actually set the wheels in motion when he
requested to be able to interview my daughters. O'Reilly called
me and asked me if that was OK, and I said absolutely not, that
this was undermining the work of the committee that was--the
CODEL that was going and that we requested Congressman Burton
not to meet with my girls because of the innately coercive
environment in Saudi Arabia. And I asked Mr. O'Reilly, please
do not do this, and he said, oh, well, you've got 24 hours to
think about it. Let me know. And then he spoke to the
Congressman. I'm not sure what the gist of that conversation
was, but I'm sure the Congressman did not encourage him to do
that.
And then I just want to say, you know what? Last year when
I got the call from the State Department telling me that Alia
was married a year ago June, I thought that was the most
painful moment of my life, that everything that I worked for to
have my daughters returned was just gone up into smoke, but I
didn't know that the year--ongoing year would cause me so much
pain. My 17-year journey with this awful tragedy nightmare that
happened to me and my family, this last year has been the
most--one of the most painful years, starting with the marriage
of Alia. The trickery and chicanery that has been played on my
family and on me has caused me so much pain this last year. It
is amazing that my heart still beats.
Going back, if I could, it goes back to--you're talking
about staged events of my daughters. My girls were subject to a
videotaping when they were only in Saudi Arabia for 10 months.
They were taped by the Saudi Arabia Government when they were 4
and 8, and they were forced to say things against me and the
United States. That went on.
Then there's a continual trickery and charades all through
the 17-year history, and I have to say one thing, that this
document has come to light that I must address. I don't know,
Mr. Ose, if you're aware of this.
This is the document that was created in May 24, 1997 by
Mazan Shaban, who is the foreign service national at the
American embassy in Riyadh. He's been at the American Embassy
for over 20 years, and he was there at the original taping when
my girls were taped by the Saudi Government in 1986. He was in
the room with me when I met my girls in 1995. He was acting as
a translator. Ambassador Mabus was at the post then. To my
knowledge, no document was created after that meeting, but this
document was created 2 years later when Wyche Fowler was there
and when I was getting a tremendous amount of press from 20/20
and other media. And this document came to light through the
subpoena of documents from the American Embassy and the State
Department, and it contains information--it's four pages long.
It's Mazan Shaban's recollection of the meeting between
Patricia Roush and her daughters on June 13, 1995. He has such
lies, disinformation in this, that it made me sick when I read
it.
I just showed it to Ambassador Mabus. He wasn't aware of it
either. It states that my girls were laughing at me, calling me
a prostitute in Arabic, absurd statements that daughters would
certainly never make for their mother, saying that they didn't
want to come to the United States to be prostitutes like their
mother, that I was a fool, that they didn't want anything to do
with me, that I was acting like a nut case. I mean, it's
totally preposterous, and it states even--he even puts people
there that weren't even there. He says al-Wahtoibe, who is the
Assistant Deputy Governor of Riyadh was there. He wasn't there.
The point is that my family and I have been subjected to
nothing but lies and tricks for 17 years and that the
Department of State has been complicit in these tricks, and the
latest trick has been this staged Stalinistic show trial that
happened over Labor Day weekend. I can't tell you, Mr.
Chairman, and other Members, how this has hurt me so much. That
weekend of Labor Day, I didn't think I was going to make it
through the weekend. First, I got a call from Randy Carlino. I
was speaking to Jim Wilson, Counsel, and I spoke to the
Congressman there a couple days before. Then on Saturday,
August 30th, after speaking with Jim, I received a call from
Randy Carlino from the American Citizen Services. This is on a
Saturday afternoon, and I was expecting everything to go well.
The CODEL was there. We were expecting the Foreign Minister,
etc. And he says, Ms. Roush, this is Randy Carlino from
American Citizen Services. I'm calling to tell you that your
daughters are in Europe. And I said what do you mean they're in
Europe? I just spoke to Jim Wilson. They didn't say anything.
What country are they in? He said I can't tell you that. We
called to ask your permission for a member of the American
embassy in Europe to take down a statement concerning where
they want to live. I said absolutely not. Al-Jubeir had
requested this statement to be taken down from Assistant
Secretary of State Bill Burns in July. Ever since our hearing
in June, al-Jubeir had been looking for an inroad where a
statement would be taken down concerning where my daughters
wanted to live.
Al-Jubeir then and--well, let's go back to Labor Day. So
that was that, and then I called Saudi Arabia to speak to the
CODEL and say look what's happening. They're somewhere in
Europe. Do you know anything about this? And they didn't know
anything about this. And then I received a call from Bill
McGurn, from the Wall Street Journal, who had met with al-
Jubeir and other members of--Petruzzello was there--in New York
a couple of weeks before that, and they were talking about my
case. So al-Jubeir on that same Saturday night called Bill
McGurn in New York, and he says, they're in London. We got them
to London. They're on vacation. And Bill said, you know, this
wasn't a good move. This wasn't good. This wasn't a good thing.
And Jubeir was gloating about it. And he said, well, what are
you girls going to do when they're in London? And Jubeir said
they're going to visit Big Ben and go to the cinema. And then
on Saturday--or sorry, Sunday morning, the State Department
called to read me the official statement after the consular
officer had been there. And then I received a call that evening
from Donna Abernasser, who is the Associated Press Writer from
London, an Arabic-speaking woman who has written many, many
articles about the Saudis in a very favorable light, and she
was called, not by my daughters, I'm sure, to take down the
statement that the Saudis included--Petruzzello included in the
green folder, material that says my girls--one of my girls said
I won't rest until she dies. Statements like that, just to hurt
me.
And then the next--2 days after that, I received a call
from Bill O'Reilly's producer, and she said, we interviewed
your daughters in London. And I said, what do you mean you
interviewed my daughters in London? How could this happen? And
she said, well, we want you to be on a show tonight, Pat. And I
said, I'm not going to go through that. You interviewed my
daughters? She said, well, we couldn't get them on tape, but we
were able to send a producer from San Diego to talk to them,
and we want to have you on the show. I said, I'm not going to
be part of some kind of a setup. And she said oh, no, Pat,
don't worry. It looks like your daughters were under extreme
duress and coerced and that your youngest daughter, Aisha,
seemed very confused why these people are being brought before
her and why she was taken to London in this fancy hotel and
various people are parading before her and her sister. Don't
worry, Pat. We would never do that to you. And she said--I
said, well, just tell me a little bit more. I don't know
anything about my girls. What do they look like? What are they
saying? And she said, well, just between you and me, it looks
like your ex-husband was there, and it looks like his brothers
were there.
Mr. Ose. If I may interject, Mr. Crocker, Ms. Andruch, do
you know whether or not the ex-husband was in fact there in
London?
Ms. Andruch. If they were--I think that the husband's--the
ex-husband, I don't know. I know that----
Mr. Ose. We're talking about Ms. Roush's ex-husband.
Ms. Andruch. Right. I don't know. I know he was not present
when the consular officer met with him.
Mr. Ose. How about any of the brothers?
Ms. Andruch. No, sir, I'm not aware of them. I mean, I know
there were other family members there. I just don't know who
they were.
Mr. Ose. Thank you.
Ms. Roush. The point is that this whole thing in London was
contrived and staged, and then Bill O'Reilly has the nerve to
quote Osama bin Laden, to say that my--they asked my little
girl, who's 20 years old, who is actually very childlike, who
has no idea what is what in the whole world, and he berated her
for saying that Osama bin Laden was a clean and peaceful man.
And then he goes on for 7 continuous days on his television
show and berates my daughters and says that they're brainwashed
and that they're not worth saving. He gets on--well,
Congressman, you were on with him. You know what I'm saying. He
has written my daughters off. He has been the jury and the
judge and the executioner of my daughters in front of American
media, and this whole Stalinist show trial has caused me so
much pain and grief. And the only way to set that straight is
to allow my innocent daughters and my little granddaughter to
be able to come to the United States into my home in
Sacramento, California and to be able to come and know the
mother that loves them.
Mr. Burton [presiding]. Let me just say that I--we know
from witnesses that we've had before us that young women have
been told to say one thing before embassy officials under the
threat of death if they didn't comply, and then when they did
get out of Saudi Arabia and came to the United States we found
out just the opposite was true. So I don't think there's any
way that anybody can believe what was said in London by your
daughters, because nobody understands or knows the pressure
that they may have been under. I do know that when they talked
to the embassy official there, the consular officer, they had
their abayas off. And when asked to sign the document that they
had just concluded, they said they couldn't do that. They had
to have their husbands look at it. And they put their abayas
back on. And according to what I've been told, they went to the
back of the room and sat down while the husbands came in and
looked at it. So the very strong possibility of them being
under great pressure and duress is, in my opinion, very real.
And when you compare that to these others who have been
told to say things to the embassy officials in Riyadh and then
to find out when they were finally freed that they said
something entirely different when they could speak without
being scared to death, it sure stands to follow that your
daughters faced the same kind of thing. And I agree with you.
The only way for the Saudi Government to make a clean breast of
this is to let your daughters come to the United States with
your granddaughter and to talk to you, and then if they choose
to go back to Saudi Arabia, we're not going to hold them. They
will have a passport and they will be able to do as they wish.
But we don't know that's the case based upon what we saw in
London.
So I would say to the Saudis if they were here, and I
presume somebody from the Saudi Arabian Government is paying
attention, that bring them to the United States with the
granddaughter without being under duress from any male pressure
point in Saudi Arabia, and let them express what they want to
do with the rest of their lives. And if they want to go back,
then of course you'll have to let them go back. But if they
don't want to go back, then they will be in the United States.
Any further questions? Mr. Horn, do you have any questions?
Mr. Ose?
Well, I know you've been here a long time, and, you know, I
have to tell you, Ambassador Mabus, I admire you. I have never
met you, but you did the right thing under a great deal of
pressure over there, and I really wish we had more Ambassadors
like you, and the State Department here, and if you can find
any more relatives of his that are like him, let's get him back
over there or--I don't care whether you're Democrat or
Republican, it makes no difference to me. You did the right
thing.
Ms. Roush, we'll continue to fight for you. I promise you.
I promise you.
And Mr. Crocker and Ms. Andruch, I hope that you will take
the message that we, the committee, very carefully explained
today, back to the State Department, along with the
recommendations that we've made, and hopefully that they will
be adopted without legislative action. But if you need
legislative action, rest assured that we'll get it. And as you
heard--you were here today. You heard Democrats, Republicans
unanimously say, hey, we're all for these changes. So let's get
these changes made and make sure we protect Americans and their
kids no matter where.
Ms. Andruch. Thank you. I would like to just say again we
do appreciate everything you're doing. I appreciate the
opportunity to have come here again today, and I look forward
to working with you and the committee.
Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Crocker, and give my
regards to Secretary Powell. And could I get you to answer some
written questions for the record since we didn't get that? I
know you don't want to stay here all night and have me ask them
all. So I'll send them to you. Thank you very much.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Exhibits provided by Margaret McClain and Samiah Seramur
follow:]
Exhibits Provided by Margaret McClain
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Exhibits Provided by Samiah Seramur
THE SAUDI CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE: MUST SAUDI LOBBYISTS COMPLY WITH
SUBPOENAS IN THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABDUCTION CASES?
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Maloney, and Norton.
Also present: Senator Blanche Lincoln.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; James C.
Wilson, chief counsel; David A. Kass, deputy chief counsel;
Pablo Carrillo and Jason Foster, counsels; Blain Rethmeier,
communications director; Allyson Blandford, assistant to chief
counsel; Robert A. Briggs, chief clerk; Robin Butler, office
manager; Joshua E. Gillespie, deputy chief clerk; Mindi Walker,
staff assistant; Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator;
Sarah Despres, minority counsel; Ellen Rayner, minority chief
clerk; and Jean Gosa and Earley Green, minority assistant
clerks.
Mr. Burton. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
Committee on Government Reform will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witnesses'
written and opening statements be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all written questions
submitted to witnesses and answers provided by witnesses after
the conclusion of this hearing be included in the record. And
without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that a set of exhibits relating to
this hearing be included in the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits and
extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in the
record. And without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Blanche Lincoln be
permitted to participate in today's hearing.
And we are very happy to have you here.
And without objection, so ordered.
And I ask unanimous consent that questioning in the matter
under consideration proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House Rule
11 and committee rule 14 in which the chairman and ranking
minority member will allocate time to committee counsel as they
deem appropriate for extended questioning not to exceed 60
minutes divided equally between the majority and minority. And
without objection, so ordered.
Before I make my opening statement, I think it is important
that we talk a little bit about some of the problems that have
occurred in the last couple of days.
The spokesman for the Saudi embassy, Mr. Jubeir, has been
all over national television indicating that the Saudis are
very cooperative and want to work with the U.S. Government in
every area possible to make sure that we continue to have a
good relationship. And he is a very good spokesman. I watched
him on Fox this morning, and I watched him on some other
channels; and it is amazing how adept he is at skirting the
truth.
I want to cite just a few examples of where we had problems
as a government and as a committee in getting the truth from
the Saudis. The Saudis said they were not complicitous in
kidnapping American children whose mothers had parental rights
and had custody of their children. But we know for a fact that
the Saudis--even though they had been notified not to give
passports to children who were kidnapped, they did. They issued
passports to the children of Joanna Tonetti and Margaret
McClain even though they knew the American courts had ordered
the fathers not to take them out of the country, and the
embassy had been contacted in some of these cases. And so they
lied about that.
The Roush girls supposedly were on vacation in London
during the delegation's visit to Saudi Arabia. That's not so.
The Saudis provided a list of kidnappings of their citizens
by the Americans that the United States should address. That's
not so.
Dria Davis was kidnapped to the United States with the help
of the State Department. That's not so.
The congressional delegation did not request a meeting with
Crown Prince Abdullah. The Saudi Government cannot intervene in
family matters and urges them to be settled privately. We know
that's not so.
Fifteen of the 19 September 11th hijackers were from Saudi
Arabia. And I have an article I want to read about that.
The Saudis have held telethons to raise money for the
families of suicide bombers. The FBI money has traced money
from a suspected al Quaeda advance man back to the Saudi
Ambassador's wife. We have a chart on that. The suspect, Omar
Ahmad al-Bayoumi, may have assisted two of the hijackers of the
plane that hit the Pentagon, and he's now missing.
Besides oil, their main export is anti-American and anti-
Semitic propaganda. They funded the extremist madrasas in
Pakistan and Afghanistan that created the Taliban. And Prince
Nayef bin Abd al-Aziz, Minister of the Interior, said this less
than 2 weeks ago, ``I presume there's a link between Israeli
intelligence and terrorist organizations to attack Muslims
through Islam and Palestine. The media is controlled by the
Zionists, and we know that Jews have exploited the September
11th events and were able to turn the American public against
Arabs and Islam. The question is, who perpetrated the September
11th events and who were the beneficiaries.''
And then he says, ``I think the Jews themselves.'' He knows
full well that 15 of the terrorists were Saudis and yet he's
now saying that the Jews were responsible.
Prince Nayef's attitude is pervasive there. When we went on
our CODEL to Saudi Arabia, we stopped in Israel for some
meetings there. The Saudis wouldn't even allow our plane to
enter their air space after taking off from Israel. We had to
make a diplomatic stop in Jordan first. I don't see how they
can be seen as reasonable people and allies in the war on
terror when they won't even let our airplane fly from Tel Aviv
to Riyadh.
On the issue of kidnapped American citizens, the Saudis
have completely been inflexible. We recently got a letter from
the foreign minister. He said we totally reject anything. The
damages are Islamic shira law on which the total system of the
state is founded and which one-quarter of the population on
this Earth believe. The shira regulates and guarantees all
humanitarian rights without any prejudices. It is founded on
God's orders which we follow, as well as the good objectives of
Islam, mainly justice. And I would like to know where the
justice is in denying Pat Roush's daughters for 17 years.
And where is the justice for harboring kidnappers? And we
know that's been done, and we know they have been complicitous
in this.
So Mr. Jubeir, although he is very adept at making these
statements to the media and they've done a good job of it this
past week, the fact of the matter is there's a heck of a lot
that needs to be explained.
Now, we have contacted their lobbyists to get information
that they may have regarding the kidnapping of these children
and the complicitousness of the Saudi Government. The lobbyists
have said that they are protected. And the Saudi Government has
said they are protected by the Vienna Convention and that they
are an arm of the Saudi Government, and therefore they don't
have to give us any documents that they have. That is totally
wrong, according to every lawyer that we have talked to that
knows anything about the Vienna Convention; and we have some
witnesses here today that are going to talk about that.
So we asked the Saudi lobbyists, some of whom have been
here before, to come and testify here today. Their lawyers said
they didn't want to testify. And so we told them we would be
sending them subpoenas to compel them to testify. When the U.S.
Marshals went to serve the subpoenas, they weren't at their
homes, they weren't at their offices, and they were nowhere to
be found.
Now, you would say, if this was one lobbyist, that would be
understandable; but the fact of the matter is, there were three
lobbyists from three different concerns, and none of them were
anywhere to be found and so they have been hiding and I think
that says a lot about the Saudi Government and their openness
and their willingness to cooperate with the U.S. Government in
helping us solve problems like these kidnappings and the money
that's been going through to them, to families of terrorists
who have blown themselves up in Israel, and possibly al Qaeda
cells. And so we're very disappointed the lobbyists aren't
here, but we will be asking some questions that are relevant to
them anyhow.
We are meeting, as I said before, to talk today about
American children who have been abducted to Saudi Arabia. I
don't want to be here today. It's the holidays. Congress is not
in session. I don't think any of us, the Senator or the
Congresswoman would rather be someplace else, but this is very,
very important, and so we're here. But I feel we've reached a
stalemate on this issue, and I don't think we can just forget
about it.
We've seen very little progress from the Saudis on any of
these kidnapping cases. A couple of mothers have received phone
calls, and that's about it. The lobbyists for the Saudis, as I
said, have refused to comply with our subpoenas, the embassies
continue to spread this information; and that's why we are here
holding another hearing.
One of the most frustrating things to me is that you just
can't get a straight answer from the Saudis. Their spokesman
had a press conference at their embassy yesterday and the
things he said make it clear that they just don't get it. He
said that these cases are private matters and have to be dealt
with by the families. Well, that's not true. These are American
children who were kidnapped in violation of U.S. court orders.
In many of these cases, arrest warrants have been issued for
the fathers. In at least two cases that we know of, the Saudi
embassy helped the kidnappers by issuing Saudi passports to the
children; and they did it after they were informed that the
children were not allowed to leave the country.
So the Saudi Government aided and abetted the kidnappings
and they are harboring the fugitives. And that's not a private
matter. Their government must take responsibility.
I want you to listen to what Prince Bandar wrote in the
Wall Street Journal in September, ``Some have charged that
Saudi Arabia is holding Americans against their will.'' This is
absolutely not true.
I want you to know that's a lie. I've talked to women over
there who are absolutely terrified that their husbands would
even find out that they were talking to us. One woman said,
Just put us in a box with our kids and stick us in the belly of
a plane and get us out of here. So when the Saudis say, No
Americans are being held against their will, they don't get it.
They're misleading. At one hearing alone we heard from five
parents who testified that their children are being held
against their will. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Just in case anyone from the Saudi embassy might be paying
attention today, I want to refresh their memory.
Joanna Tonetti: Her three children, Rosemary, Sarah and
Abdulaziz, were kidnapped by their Saudi father in August 2000.
Michael Rives: His two children, Lilly and Sami, were
kidnapped to Saudi Arabia by their mother in July 2001.
Maureen Dabbagh: Her daughter, Nadia, was kidnapped to
Saudi Arabia by her father in 1992.
Margaret McClain: Her daughter, Heidi, was kidnapped by her
Saudi father in August 1997.
Sam Seramur: Her three children, Safiah, Maha and Faisal,
were abducted in 1994 by their Saudi father during a brief
visit to Saudi Arabia. She has since been reunited with Maha,
who was here, but her other two children are still being held
in Saudi Arabia.
Deborah Docekal: Her two children, Ramie and Suzanne, were
abducted by their Saudi father in 1988 during a brief visit to
Saudi Arabia. She has since been reunited with her son, but her
daughter is still being held against her will in Saudi Arabia.
Monica Stowers: Her daughter, Amjad, has been held in Saudi
Arabia since 1986. We met Amjad in August. The Saudis said they
gave her a passport and allowed her to leave. But if you hear
the whole story of that, how her father married her off to some
guy she didn't even know a week before we got there, I mean,
the things--the hoops they jump through to keep her from coming
to the United States are unbelievable and it was apparent to me
when I talked to her she was scared to death.
Not only that. The religious police came in and threatened
our meeting because Amjad's mother didn't have her head
properly covered during the meeting. I'm sure she was followed
there because they came right in after she got there.
Pat Roush, her two daughters, Alia and Aisha, were abducted
by their Saudi father in 1986. Instead of allowing the
daughters to meet with their mother in the United States, the
Saudis sent them to London and pulled a publicity stunt at the
very same time we were going over there. They got them out of
the country and they had an entourage of men with them. And the
way they were questioned showed very clearly that they were
subjective to the men because when the men left the room--they
were in the other room while they were questioning, when they
came back in, they put on their abayas--it's those things that
cover them from head to toe--and they sat meekly in the back of
the room while the husbands answered the questions on whether
or not any of the statements could be made public.
So they were intimidated, and they should have been allowed
to come to the United States and meet with their mother and be
questioned here, but that wasn't going to happen.
And those are just the parents who testified before our
committee, and I guarantee you after having been over there
myself with committee members, there are many more who are
afraid to come forward. Some of them were threatened so
severely when I talked to them over there that it was just
unbelievable--I mean threatened with death and dismemberment
and disfigurement. It was awful.
Mr. Al-Jubeir talked a lot about all the progress the
Saudis have made. He said they set up a commission and said
they are working hard. This is simply one fact they can't hide
and that is, according to the State Department the Saudi
Government has never returned a single kidnapped American
child. Not one. Until the Saudis return one of these children,
all of their smooth talk is just a lot of hot air.
Worse, they are actively working against the interests of
some of those who were kidnapped. What happened to Pat Roush's
daughter was just a PR stunt.
It is no wonder the Saudis haven't returned any kidnapped
children. They can't even answer the most basic questions, or
they won't. In August, we asked whether Michael Rives'
kidnapped children were Saudi citizens or American citizens.
Now it's December and still no answer. Michael Rives is still
waiting to get his kids back.
We asked where Maureen Dabbagh's kidnapped daughter is. The
Saudis won't even tell us what country she's in, much less
return her. Is that what they call progress?
The bottom line is that we just can't get a straight answer
from the Saudi Government. That's why we issued subpoenas to
their lobbyists here in Washington. It's not a step I wanted to
take, but we have been getting so much double-talk and so much
stuff in the media that is just not true, we had to try to find
some way to verify the statements that are being made.
We can't subpoena the fathers who are hiding out in Saudi
Arabia. The only avenue to try to find out if we're being told
the truth is to subpoena the lobbyists who are being paid to
represent the Saudis and these PR people told us that they are
working on the cases, but nothing ever happens.
In October, we subpoenaed Michael Petruzzello to come and
testify, even though he is a paid representative getting about
$200,000 a month from the Saudis. He told us he couldn't speak
for them. So we took the next step. We subpoenaed documents
from the three main lobbyists who represent the Saudis, which I
mentioned earlier. If the internal documents match the public
statements, then maybe some of their statements are true. But
if the internal documents don't match the public statements,
then we will know the Saudis are trying to mislead the
Congress, as we believe they have in the past, the mothers and
the fathers and the children of the kidnapped children and the
U.S. public.
We have been told so many contradictory things that we have
to have some way to assess their credibility. If we can't
conduct basic fact-finding and we can't get the documents we
need to determine the facts as they really are, then Congress
cannot conduct oversight; and it is just as simple as that.
The main reason we are here today is that our subpoenas
have not been complied with. To those who have observed our
investigations over the years, that shouldn't come as any big
surprise. I thought we heard just about every excuse in the
book, but I was wrong. The Saudis have taken the position their
lobbyist documents are covered by the Vienna Convention on
diplomatic relations.
I went into that earlier so I won't continue with that, but
I've got to tell you, our lawyers have checked on it. We have
talked to lawyers from all of the leading institutions here in
Washington and elsewhere and nobody agrees with the position
they have taken. They are simply hiding behind something that
they think will work.
Today we are going to have Professor Eileen Denza of the
University College of London here. And I want to read to you a
very short quote from her letter of November 18: ``It is my
opinion that the records which are subject to subpoenas from
the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives are not archives or documents of the Saudi
mission and so are not protected on the basis of inviolability
from disclosure.''
Now this is not a trivial case. This affects a lot more
than the committee's investigation. If the Saudis' position
stands and if the documents of anyone who receives money or
direction from an embassy are protected from law enforcement or
from our government, it's going to have very serious
consequences. For instance, the Foreign Agents Registration Act
will become a useless piece of paper. Under FARA, the Foreign
Agents Registration Act, foreign agents, lobbyists or foreign
governments have to register with the Justice Department. They
have to preserve all of their records, which are open to
inspection by the Justice Department at any time.
Those are exactly the kinds of records we subpoenaed. If
the records of the Saudi lobbyists are suddenly covered by the
Vienna Convention, what's going to happen the next time the
Justice Department wants to inspect them?
And these are very serious times we're working in. We have
terrorists around the world and got all things going on and the
threat to the American public and our way of life. And if
lobbyists can hide these things under the Vienna Convention,
then how's our government going to deal with it?
One question I wanted to ask the lobbyists that have dodged
our subpoenas is whether they still have the documents that
FARA requires them to keep. If they don't, then they've broken
the law. And if they do, we ought to be able to get them
through our subpoena. It's pretty clear that the Saudis have
fabricated this argument to protect embarrassing documents from
disclosure.
They can't cite a single precedent, not one, for their
claim. In fact, we found out last night that the Saudi
Government has allowed the Justice Department to access records
just like the ones we're seeking and they've done that in the
past. This makes a mockery of their claim.
We received a report from the Justice Department's Foreign
Agents Inspection Unit. They inspected the records of Saudi
lobbyist Frederick Dutton. The report noted that the records
were available for inspection and contained many memos from the
registrant to the Ambassador. The Saudis didn't raise the
Vienna Convention then. Why are they raising it now? And that's
something our government ought to be very concerned about.
Probably because they are hiding embarrassing documents.
What if an embassy pays someone in the United States to
conduct espionage? That would make them a paid agent for a
foreign embassy. Are they immune from prosecution? Do they not
have to comply with lawful subpoenas? That would be the effect
of the Saudi position.
So for all these reasons, we can't let this stand. We have
to insist on compliance with these subpoenas for the sake of
this investigation into child abductions and because of these
other serious issues that would arise if we let this precedent
stand. That's why I called before us today the three lobbyists
and their legal representative.
Now, they're not here. They're hiding someplace, possibly
at the Saudi embassy.
I want to finish my opening statement, and then I will let
my colleagues make a statement. I want to finish my statement
by showing a short video and I want to do this to remind
everyone why this is so important. I want everyone to see one
more time what Maha Seramur said. Now this is the young lady
that was--said one thing in Saudi Arabia, because she was
threatened, and when she came here and was free to say what she
wanted to, she said something entirely different because she
wasn't scared to death.
So, with that, let's roll the tape and let the American
public hopefully see.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Burton. I hope everyone got that, ``If I had to go back
to Saudi Arabia, I would kill myself.'' And yet when she was in
Saudi Arabia and was asked questions about whether or not she
wanted to stay or leave, she said something entirely different.
That gives you an idea of the kind of terror that these young
people and these women live under over there.
And I talked to some of these women, and I want to tell
you, it's not right for an American citizen to be treated that
way by a foreign government. They do not recognize U.S. law;
it's Saudi law, and the man rules. A woman can't leave the
house or can't go to the bathroom unless he says it's OK.
And we did something about that in Afghanistan. We raised
Cain. I watched Jay Leno's wife talk about the horrible things
that were going on in Afghanistan, where the women were treated
like dirt.
The same thing goes on in Saudi Arabia. If your ankles are
showing, guys walk by, the religious police, and they smack you
on the legs with whips. And if you do anything like show your
head or face in public, you are subject to going to jail and
you can be whipped up to 40 times with a whip while they hold
the Koran under their arm. These are things that need to be
known by the American people.
If the Saudis want to do that to their women over there, I
guess there's not much we can do about that. But when we're
talking about American citizens and their kids, that's dead
wrong.
Let's watch now a short tape of Dria Davis. Dria's mother
and grandmother paid $200,000 to help her escape from Saudi
Arabia after she was kidnapped by her father. I think they sold
their house or mortgaged their house. Can you imagine that,
having to sell your house to get your kid back?
Her testimony says it all, when it comes to living as a
young woman scared and isolated in Saudi Arabia.
Play the tape.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Burton. The young lady said it all. And they said one
thing in Saudi Arabia and when they were here in a free
country--these are American citizens; in a free country, they
told the truth. And when Mr. Jubeir, Al-Jubeir, makes those
statements like he has the last couple of days, I really get
upset, because the media, while they try to keep everything as
accurate as possible, are providing a forum for this guy, and
he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, day in and day
out.
And we need to hold them accountable; if they are an ally
of the United States, then they should work with us to return
American citizens to the United States. And if they are an ally
of the United States, they should make darned sure that they
are not allowing any of their wealth to go to terrorist
organizations that are endangering the security of this
country.
And I can tell you right now, they have not been doing
that, and I doubt seriously if they plan to do it in the
future. And that's why our State Department is so important,
that they keep the heat on them.
I want to conclude my statement; and I am sorry, to my
colleagues, for talking so long. I want to thank Senator
Lincoln for joining us today.
It's nice for you to come down from the high perch of the
U.S. Senate to join us, but we really appreciate it.
She has shown tremendous leadership over in the Senate in
trying to help families of abducted children, and I'm glad
she's here, and I congratulate her for her hard work. She has
also talked to Senator Lugar and Senator Biden, and she's
working very hard to have a hearing over there. So for you
ladies who have been suffering, you have somebody who is
beating the drum over there pretty hard, and we are very proud
of her and happy she's here.
I just wish you were a Republican.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]
Mr. Burton. With that, would you like to make a statement,
Senator Lincoln?
Senator Lincoln. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend your
leadership on the issue of child abductions and the wrongful
detention of U.S. citizens in Saudi Arabia. You mentioned that
it's normally a break time for us here in Washington and that
everybody is scattered far and wide as far as our colleagues
are concerned. But this is a very important issue and it is our
job to make sure that we continue to address this issue and
bring it to the light of the American people and the people
abroad to better understand what has happened to these American
citizens.
You, Mr. Chairman, have been a true champion of the most
vulnerable among us; and I am personally grateful for the
chairman's efforts. I think he has led very, very well the
campaign here to bring about and bring to light the facts that
are involved in these specific cases but, more importantly, in
the overall unfortunate circumstances that so many American
citizens have found themselves in.
I also appreciate your willingness to allow me to
participate in this hearing today to introduce a constituent of
mine, Margaret McClain, who I think has done a fabulous job in
working with our office and has just persevered under
unbelievable circumstances.
I am delighted to join my former colleagues in the House,
the fun body--how's that--and delighted to be back over on this
side and appreciate the working relationship that we have and I
hope that we can continue that in the new year as we look for
bringing up hearings in the Senate and bringing a greater
awareness to my Senate colleagues about these issues so we can
combine our efforts and get some results.
As I mentioned, Margaret McClain, who is with us today, is
a resident of Jonesboro, Arkansas; and Ms. McClain's Heidi Al-
Omary was abducted in Arkansas at the age of 5 by her
noncustodial Saudi-born father, Abdulbasset Al-Omary, and taken
to Saudi Arabia in 1997. I would like to point out that Mr. Al-
Omary used our system of justice, he used our court system to
gain access to his daughter. In pleading with the judge to ask
for those unsupervised visits, he used our justice system and
then immediately turned in complete disregard and thumbed his
nose at the very justice system that provided him that ability
to have those visits with his child. And I think that is
something that we must focus on, is this complete disregard of
our justice system that is there to protect our citizens of
this country.
At the time of the abduction, Ms. McClain had legal custody
of Heidi and Mr. Al-Omary was permitted unsupervised visitation
against the will of Ms. McClain, I believe. In July of this
year, Ms. McClain was permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia to
visit with her daughter, who is now 10 years old, for
approximately 3 hours.
My colleague, Congresswoman Maloney, mentioned when I
stepped up to the dais here, as a mother I could understand
these issues; and she is so right. My heart and my prayers and
my thoughts and my compassion have gone out not only to Mrs.
McClain but to all of these other parents who have suffered
this incredible separation from their children.
Prior to this visitation in July, Ms. McClain had not seen
or spoken to her daughter since Heidi was unlawfully taken from
the United States. Even though I know that Ms. McClain was
relieved to see her daughter after 5 years of separation, her
painful experience is something no law-abiding parent should
ever have to endure.
I have become actively involved in Heidi's case because I
am outraged. I am outraged that the Saudi Arabians continue to
invoke its law and its customs to detain my constituent Heidi
Al-Omary in blatant violation of U.S. law and a valid court
order. The very court system that Mr. Al-Omary used to gain
access to his child is now completely disregarded.
I recognize that the issue of international child abduction
is not limited to Saudi Arabia. We know that there are horrific
situations all across the globe. However, the status of female
abductees in the Kingdom is quite unique, since under Saudi law
and custom women have very limited autonomy and will never have
a meaningful opportunity to leave, even as adults, if we are
unable to get them as children. And the chairman has made many
references to the circumstances and the concerns, the problems
that these young women and these young girls face as women in
this country.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, as I have become more familiar with
the specific facts of Heidi's case and others, I have sadly
concluded that our own government has failed to represent the
interests of abducted children adequately. Perhaps most telling
in Heidi's case is the fact that even though Heidi, a U.S.
citizen, was kidnapped in August 1997, our government did not
formally ask that she be returned until October 2002. How
inexcusable on our part is that?
For too long it seems that the U.S. Government's role in
these cases has been to maximize visitation and contacts
between U.S. parents and their abducted children in an effort
to avoid confrontation with foreign governments. It is sad to
say that neither I nor Ms. McClain are satisfied with that
approach. It is absolutely unacceptable. I firmly believe that
our policy should be to aggressively seek to recover abducted
children who are American citizens being held against their
will, especially when they are taken to a country that displays
contempt for the basic values that we all cherish as Americans.
I, for one, am not prepared to accept any result short of
the recovery of Heidi from Saudi Arabia. Ms. McClain, I join
you in that fight; and you know that I will be there with you.
And I will join the rest of these members here as we work
toward that end. I am monitoring the progress of Heidi's case
personally, and I fully intend to hold the Saudi Government and
the Bush administration accountable to bringing this matter to
a satisfactory conclusion. I discussed Heidi's case at length
with Secretary Powell on the phone, and he has assured me that
he will be personally involved in resolving her case.
It's my understanding that the Saudi Government is
currently unwilling to pressure Saudi parents who have abducted
American children to comply with that of U.S. custody orders.
If the administration is unable to persuade the Saudi
Government to reverse its position in these cases, others are
prepared to take steps in Congress to ensure that the Saudi
Government is fully aware that its current policy is absolutely
unacceptable. To this end, Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to join
you in introducing legislation this year that gives the
Secretary of State additional authority to deny visas to the
extended family members and employers of child abductors.
In addition, I believe the Embassy Sanctuary Resolution
that we drafted is an important statement that our government
is committed to protecting the rights of American citizens
abroad. We never want to see that case happen again where
American citizens and American children are taken to a U.S.
Embassy abroad and denied sanctuary and actually removed by
military. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and
all of the others again next year on these and other
legislative proposals to help resolve parental kidnapping cases
worldwide.
In closing, I want to express my appreciation to Margaret
McClain and to Pat Roush for their willingness to come forward
and share their painful stories today. The fortitude and the
perseverance they have exhibited under the most difficult of
circumstances is truly inspiring to all of us. I believe the
hearing you have convened today will shed light on one of the
many obstacles they face in being reunited with their children.
And while I am not intimately familiar with every detail of the
subpoenas that issued today, I share your concern about the
broad scope about the privilege being asserted and how that can
impede in the future our ability in Congress to protect the
rights of citizens, American citizens now, in the future and
certainly in term of our own security in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your unbelievable tenacity in
this issue in working through this; and I would like to remind
all of us and especially the Saudis, who we would like to see
as an ally and as a friend, as a good neighbor that we could
work with in many of the compromising situations we see across
the globe today, but I must remind all of us that a friendship
and an alliance is built on mutual respect. And until we can
gain the same kind of respect for our laws and our citizens as
we provide to those Saudis that live in their own country in
respect for their law and respect for their customs, it's going
to be hard to understand any type of friendship that will take
us forward in the 21 Century. So I hope we can gain that
respect and that working relationship with the Saudi Government
to move forward and bring resolution to these heart-wrenching
situations and cases that we have seen and we have heard from
these incredible women today and in the past.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to be a part of
this; and I look forward to working with you next year as we
continue in our struggle to make sure that the American people
and the Senate and the House are doing all that we can to
assist these families.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lincoln follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Senator Lincoln.
I just would like to say that if the Saudis are paying
attention, and I have a sneaking suspicion that they are, that
this is not a partisan issue. We have Democrats and Republicans
who agree 100 percent on this. I think it is the vast majority
of both the House and the Senate. So they ought to be aware
that this is not an issue that is going to go away.
With that, my good friend, Mrs. Maloney, is here; and you
are recognized.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I would like to applaud your extraordinary leadership on
this issue and the vaccines, for personally going to Saudi
Arabia and meeting with the children, for introducing
legislation and for continuing to work on this even as we are
on break.
And to my dear, good friend and former colleague, we came
to Congress together. Blanche left to have her two children,
and I am really happy that you have come back to the Senate.
She has introduced the Burton bill in the Senate; and not only
will she be helping Heidi return to her mother, but this
broader bill will really help all American children get back to
their homes.
I think that's very, very important; and I am very proud to
be working with Mr. Burton as the lead Democratic sponsor on
H.R. 5715, which works to help these parents whose children
have been abducted and taken overseas. This bill expands the
classification of who can be denied visas from the immediate
family of child abductors to the extended family and employers
in order to put pressure on the abductor to resolve these
cases.
I would like to further note that we have heard testimony
from former Ambassador Mabus that denying visas to the families
of abductors can put pressure on the abductors; and,
unfortunately, Ambassador Mabus left the U.S. Embassy shortly
after instituting this policy. We hope to pass this bill in the
next Congress and have this as a policy that will help
families, American families.
After all this moving testimony on Heidi and the two films
that Mr. Burton shown, I want to remind everyone why we are
here today. We are here to debate whether or not these three
public relation firms representing the Saudi Government must
release the subpoenaed documents. But we must not forget that
the real reason we are here is because American children have
been torn apart from their parents and are being held against
their will in a foreign country that does not observe them any
rights American citizens enjoy in our own country.
I have said over the course of these hearings that our
witnesses have presented wrenching accounts, and I would like
to thank the two witnesses today for your willingness to share
them with us.
I would like to state that I believe the Government Reform
Committee acted well within its jurisdiction when it requested
the documents in question. Over the course of these hearings,
we have been unsatisfied, to say the least, with the level of
cooperation and amount of information provided to us by the
Saudi Government. At times, information has been withheld. In
other cases, information has been patently false. This is
unacceptable. I strongly believe that if there is one sentence
in all these documents that might help return one child to his
or her mother, then these records must be released.
Second, the Saudi Government has provided a weak
interpretation of the Vienna Convention to support their case.
The Convention has rules and procedures that govern the
privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions. However,
there is nothing in the treaty which would extend these
diplomatic privileges to outside agents of the mission. In
other words, these three lobbying firms should not be accorded
any special privilege under the Convention.
In addition, these three firms are registered under the
Foreign Agents of Registration Act, known as FARA, which
requires registrants to keep records and preserve written
communication so these records can be made available to the
Justice Department upon request. The Saudi Government claims
that if there is any discrepancy between the Vienna Convention
and FARA, the Convention should take precedence. To that I say
that FARA has been in place for over 60 years and has proved
critical over the years, and I am certain that these three
firms were aware of the requirements of FARA, and I am
disgusted by their decision to deny U.S. law and to not comply.
Finally, we are in a period when our countries require
greater cooperation and greater disclosure of information.
While I am troubled by the Saudi government's refusal to
release these documents, I am hopeful we can work together to
achieve greater cooperation, transparency and ultimately to
resolve these tragic family situations. These families, these
children have a right to know what is contained in these
documents; and I look forward to the hearing.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to place
into the record an article that is in the--this is the
Washington Post today, and I think it's directly related to
what we are working on today. It's called, Saudis Deny Dragging
Feet on Terrorism.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Maloney. If they can deny information on domestic
individual cases, then they can deny information on alleged
activities of their charities, on alleged activities of funding
suicide bombers and other information that has been
disturbingly exposed by the press in this country; and I feel
it is extremely important to the families, but it is also
important in our cooperation in our fight against terrorism.
So, again, I thank you for really putting--you didn't just
put one finger in--you know, the old game, hokey-pokey--you put
your whole body into this issue and have been working very
hard; and we appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. You have to explain to me what that game was.
You put one finger in and put one finger out. You put one foot
in and one foot out. You put the whole body in. It's a
compliment.
Ms. Norton. I'll rescue you from that lesson you were about
to receive from my good colleague.
Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for what can only be called
tenacious work and follow through on an issue where you have
been resisted at every turn. I think that your failure to be
deterred sends an important lesson to the Saudis, a lesson I
hope the Congress and the committee will follow through in the
next Congress and especially as we learn more, as we will
today, about the consequences of Saudi action.
I think we are all going to see a response from the
American people that will--that can even move the Saudis. And I
say that, Mr. Chairman, because I recognize that the time of
this hearing is entirely coincidental, but I think we have seen
what the Saudi Government will do when there is, in fact,
pressure. The firestorm that erupted about funds that
apparently made their way from the Ambassador's wife to the
realm of the hijackers and the outrage of the American people
on that brought forth the foreign policy advisor, Mr. Al-
Jubeir, to voluntarily offer up apparently all kinds of
information about funding--about what the Saudi Arabia--what
the Saudi Government has done to trace these funds and to make
sure that these charities are, in fact, not contributing to
terrorism. I haven't seen this document, but I do know that
they weren't willing to say very much about this until, in
fact, this caught the attention of the press and of the
American people.
Now there was a lot of spin in Mr. Al-Jubeir's press
conference, and he is a master of that. He uses the English
language better than most Americans. And when he slips, he
says, oh, you have to forgive me. My English is a little rusty.
This is a man who is absolutely and totally immersed in
American culture. He must understand and indeed the entire
sophisticated Saudi power structure must understand, therefore,
because of their familiarity with our country, how outrageous
these crimes are. And what we are dealing with are certainly
crimes.
We are taught that we have got to understand that when you
go into these countries where people have different cultures we
can't change peoples' cultures by ourselves. I couldn't agree
more. I think we have to follow the lead of those in those
countries who would change those cultures. But, Mr. Chairman,
they are now messing with our culture and with our children and
our laws. This is no longer a case of you're dealing with the
Saudis and how they deal with things. They have not only
implicated us in our laws; they are in direct violation of our
laws. They have shown no respect for our people as American
citizens. They have enslaved some of our children, kidnapped
some of our children and their families, forced marriage on
some of our children. The notion that we would abide this and
that our own government would be complicity in it is a complete
and total outrage.
Now your hearings have begun to begin the kind of exposure
to this problem that all the subpoenas in the world that they
refuse to honor may not do. Because that exposure, I think, is
ultimately going to get the kind of response from the American
people that the scandal about the funds of recent days got with
some results, apparently, from the Saudi Government.
I regard this issue involving our families and our children
as a real task for the Saudis and their relationship to the
United States of America. They claim to be allies. They have
indeed been allies in many ways. There is a kind of reciprocal
dependence: We need their oil; we need their bases. In all such
relationships you look for a win-win. When it comes to our
children and what is happening to these families, this is a
win-lose. The State Department has--can cite no single instance
in which a child has been returned. That's what I mean by win-
lose. We are losing 100 percent.
What are we going to do about it? The chairman has said,
let's subpoena the records, and we get the kind of legal
obfuscation that perhaps we should have expected. I expect a
number of things will happen. There may be a way to turn to the
courts and get damages and other remedies from the courts.
There must be treaty obligations involved here. This is an ally
where we must have all manner of treaties when those kinds of
violations occur. Surely there are remedies that our government
can be forced to pursue.
Mr. Chairman, there is about to commence an independent
investigation of September 11th that members of the oversight
committees in the House and Senate recently opposed, that the
President of the United States opposed. Why is there now going
to be an independent investigation of September 11th? Because
the families who were victimized by September 11th demanded it.
I regard this as an issue which can be resolved if the
families who have come forward today, the families that we have
heard from before and the other families implicated do for this
issue what the September 11th families have done to get an
independent investigation of the events and the responsibility
leading up to September 11th. So I don't think we should be
discouraged that we don't get voluntary cooperation from the
Saudi Government or from those involved.
I believe that your work, Mr. Chairman, in bringing the
families forward, the public exposure that gives this issue so
that the American people can understand what is happening, will
lead to a resolution of this issue if we continue to do the
work that you have begun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mrs. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
We will now go to our witnesses. Would you all rise,
please, and be sworn.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Burton. Be seated.
Well, we have had you, Ms. Roush and Ms. McClain, here
before. Welcome Professor Denza.
We'll start with you, Mrs. Roush; and we will go to you.
Then, Professor, we would like to hear from you about the
claims made by the lobbyists.
Ms. Roush.
STATEMENTS OF PATRICIA ROUSH, MOTHER OF ALIA AND AISHA
GHESHAYAN; MARGARET MCCLAIN, MOTHER OF HEIDI AL-OMARY; MICHAEL
PETRUZZELLO, QORVIS COMMUNICATIONS; JACK DESCHAUER, PATTON
BOGGS LLP; JAMIE GALLAGHER, THE GALLAGHER GROUP; AND PROFESSOR
EILEEN DENZA, VISITING PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
LONDON
Ms. Roush. Good morning, Chairman Burton and members of the
committee. It is once again an honor to bring my testimony
before this distinguished body in regards to this committee's
continued efforts to assist American women and children who are
in grave danger inside the walls of Saudi Arabia and are unable
to come home to the United States of America.
This hearing, which concerns the Saudi embassy claim of
privilege in instructing its lobbyists and public relation
specialists to not turn over subpoenaed documents to the
committee concerning abducted American citizens, is of the
utmost importance in helping to reveal the truth about the role
of these firms who do the bidding for the Saudi Arabian
government. For 17 years, my daughters and I have been victims
of the gamesmanship played by the Saudi Government, State
Department and Saudi handlers. It all started almost from the
very beginning of the kidnapping of my daughters in 1986.
My past experiences in dealing with the paid
representatives of the Saudi Arabian government.
Let's begin with Saudi national Salah Hejailan. His name
was sent to me by the State Department just 6 months after my
daughters were kidnapped. They advised me there was nothing
they could do to get my daughters out of Saudi Arabia, and I
had no recourse except to hire a Saudi attorney and go to
Islamic court to try to win custody of my U.S. citizen
daughters. The State Department knew very well that I would
never win in an Islamic court in Saudi Arabia as an American,
Christian woman but prodded me to hire an attorney who assured
me from the very beginning that he was very well connected to
the king's brother, Prince Salmon bin Abdul Azziz, Governor of
Riyadh. In fact, he gloated that he was a member of Salmon's
court and that his brother was the Saudi Minister of Health and
another relative was the former Saudi Ambassador to the United
States.
In other words, the State Department had recommended that I
hire a member of the Saudi Government to work to get my
daughters back when, in fact, the State Department should have
been doing everything they could to bring these young girls
home. It's like being told by your commander that you have to
go to the enemy to save you because, sorry, we're not going to
help you.
Due to pressure raised in the U.S. Congress by former U.S.
Senator Alan Dixon, the Saudis, through Hejailan, proposed a
plan to have my daughters released from Saudi jurisdiction and
returned to U.S. soil. Hejailan enjoyed a pristine relationship
with the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh and suggested that he be
endowed with the title of, ``special legal advisor,'' to the
embassy in order to work for the release of my daughters. When
the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh suggested this to the State
Department, Washington replied that this was totally out of the
question. Hejailan could never, never, never have that title.
Then the State Department double-crossed me at the eleventh
hour of the final negotiations for the release of my girls and
refused to send the then U.S. Ambassador, Walter Cutler, into a
meeting to finalize the release of my daughters and informed
the embassy to, ``remain neutral and impartial.''
Hejailan crowed, ``your government won't help you; your
State Department doesn't want you, you will see your children
if and when we decide.'' Then he proceeded to bring a camera
crew inside the villa where my daughters were being held, and
told them to make statements about how they hated me and the
United States. When the girls refused to comply, they were
taken into a back room and threatened. This was told to me by a
witness at that taping, former U.S. Consul General Richard
LaRoche, who sat by and merely observed as these two little
girls, then 4 and 7 years of age, were intimidated and scared
by Hejailan and the nine other men he brought into that villa
to make that tape. That was the first time the Saudi Government
and their retainers coerced my daughters to disavow their
mother and country with the complicity of the Department of
State.
In 1995, 9 years later, U.S. Embassy Riyadh Consul Gretchen
Welch informed me that Hejailan had at last been bestowed the
title of, ``legal advisor,'' to the U.S. Embassy, and that,
``everyone around here values his opinion.'' How could a Saudi
who works for the Prince of Riyadh be a legal advisor to the
U.S. Government? And if the State Department was going to honor
him in this way, why wouldn't they do it when it would have
made a great deal of difference in the outcome of the
negotiations for my daughters?
Over the years, Hejailan continued to use everything he
could to double-cross me and cause me an incredible amount of
pain. He penned letters of gratitude praising himself, and
faxed them to me, claiming that if I did not sign them, I would
not be able to see my children again. Time after time he placed
me in a position of a supplicant on my knees to beg for what is
mine--the bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.
Then there was a set-up regarding Walter Cutler and the
hold I asked Senator Dixon and Senator Helms to place on
Cutler's second confirmation as U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
after Hume Horan was expelled from the kingdom in 1988 in
persona non-gratis. Another betrayal and double-cross with the
assistance of Walter Cutler and the State Department. Hejailan
also worked with Wyche Fowler to perform dirty trick after
dirty trick upon me, including the fabrication and creation of
false documents, phony visits, and endless lies and ruses. At
one point he screamed at me, ``you are being punished for going
to the politicians and the press.'' He still tries to get
involved with these kidnapping cases. As recently as last
summer, after the Government Reform Committee hearing on June
12th, Hejailan contacted Monica Stowers in Riyadh and had a
deal for her. He might have even had a hand in that whole
million-dollar bribe episode and the underhanded scheme to take
Amjad Radwan into the marriage with the Saudi Air Force pilot.
Next we have Fred Dutton of the Washington law firm of
Dutton & Dutton. Mr. Dutton has represented the Saudi Embassy
for almost two decades. He has been instrumental in working
with Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, Saudi Foreign Advisor to
the Crown Prince-Adel Jubeir, Rehab Mahsoud of the Saudi
Embassy, and others in trying to discredit and marginalize me.
He met with former U.S. Senator Alan Dixon in May 1987 and told
him in no uncertain terms that if Gheshayan was deemed an unfit
father to my daughters, the girls would never, never be
returned to me, but rather given to another male relative of
the family.
Even a few months ago he told my attorney that I had caused
a great deal of pain and anguish to many people at the Saudi
Embassy in Washington. He repeatedly blocked negotiations,
including the deal to release my girls in 1996 with former U.S.
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Raymond Mabus.
Then in 1998 when I was organizing a press conference at
the National Press Club in Washington regarding violations of
human rights by the Saudi Government and had invited various
parents of victim children and a former U.S. diplomat that was
assigned to the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, I met with the Saudi
torture lobbyist group, Hill & Knowlton. I had discovered that
many of the rooms at the National Press Club had been reserved
by Hill & Knowlton for the same day that our press conference
was scheduled. I thought it was more than coincidental. Shortly
after that, I began receiving e-mails from Jim Jennings,
Director of National Practices at Hill & Knowlton. His e-mail
states:
I have seen recent e-mail traffic about your concerns over
meetings at the National Press Club next week. You are mistaken
if you believe in any way, shape, or form that our company is
involved with this matter or representing any aspect of the
Government of Saudi Arabia on any matter. I have been with this
firm for 25 years and do not remember a time when we have ever
represented the Saudis; yet you state boldly in your e-mail
that we do.
Although Mr. Jennings denied that his firm ever represented
the Saudi Government in any shape, way, or form, Hill &
Knowlton is mentioned in the book, Agents of Influence, by Pat
Choate. I would like to read to you a piece from the December
15, 1992 Houston Post:
Human Rights Abusers Pay Lobbyists Millions.
Nations that abuse human rights pay millions every year to
Washington insiders, Republicans and Democrats alike, seeking
foreign aid and special treatment from the U.S. Government,
says a report due out today. ``U.S. taxpayers are indirectly
supporting the activities of lobbyists, lawyers, and public
relations firms who were paid more than 24 million in 1991 to
1992 to represent foreign interests that are persistent abusers
of human rights,'' concludes a report by the Center for Public
Integrity.
But I have to say that in my 17 years of fighting Saudis
and their torture lobbyists, retainers, and mouthpieces, this
last experience with Qorvis Communications has been the most
shocking and blatant disregard for human life I have ever seen.
It was not even covert. They didn't even do it to me behind
closed doors, like Hejailan and Dutton, and then just walk away
smirking. No, this time, Adel Jubeir and Qorvis, Gallagher, and
Patton Boggs felt so arrogant, so smug, and so confident that
they could pull off this scheme in London with my daughters as
their little pawns to move around the planet anywhere and
anytime they wanted. They, so to speak, pulled it off in broad
daylight.
Michael Petruzzello of Qorvis testified in October that the
Saudi Government has been trying so hard to convince my
daughters to come to the United States to visit me, but they
just couldn't talk the girls into it. Nope. But the girls had a
great idea to go to London at the same time Members of the U.S.
Congress were in Saudi Arabia trying to free them. Petruzzello
also stated that he only knew about the London trip 2 days
before the girls were taken there. Does Petruzzello know that
perjury is a crime? Does he know that his dealing--he is
dealing with flesh and blood? How far would the Saudi officials
and Saudi retainers take this cruel and treacherous game to
destroy me and my daughters? What is next in line for us?
Murder? Will we be ``accidented'' or ``suicided''? Or is a
better punishment for all of us to continue to force my
daughters to remain in Saudi Arabia for the entire remainder of
their lives and never leave, having a baby each year and live
lives of total submission and servitude to the males their
father sold them to, with absolutely no freedom and no choices
at all?
The Saudi officials and American traitors who do their
bidding for them just had to come up with a plan to finally
stop me, shut me down. I am sure they all sat around some plush
office like the one Margaret, Maureen, and I were in at Hill &
Knowlton, or perhaps it was out at Bandar's palace in McLean on
the Potomac where they kicked around this little hatchet job on
me and my daughters, Congressman Burton, and the CODEL. They
felt so positive that no one could stop them that they even
chose to do the deed the very same weekend that Members of
Congress had journeyed to Saudi Arabia to ask the highest Saudi
authorities for the release of my U.S. citizen daughters and
others like them who were locked up in that treacherous prison
known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Did they know that these plans involved criminal acts
committed by Saudi nationals against U.S. citizens and should
not have been taken so lightly? Adel Jubeir had been salivating
to make this happen for months, ever since the June 12th
hearing. First he went to Burns, State Department Near Eastern
Bureau. In July Randy Carlino of American Citizens Services
called me and stated that Jubeir told Burns that my daughters
would be available to meet with U.S. Embassy consular officers
in Riyadh concerning a statement where they wanted to live, but
this statement had to be made public. I asked Carlino what
Burns told Jubeir. ``He said it would appear to be staged.''
And then I asked Carlino if Burns had told Jubeir that these
were two American citizens and that the U.S. State Department
wanted returned as soon as possible. Carlino stated that Burns
had not mentioned that to Jubeir.
Then while the CODEL was making plans for the trip to Saudi
Arabia and the Saudis and their guys downtown were planning all
these television appearances for Jubeir to try to make them
look good, Jubeir popped up on television personality Bill
O'Reilly's O'Reilly Factor on August 9th. I had been a guest on
The Factor earlier in the year and O'Reilly asked Jubeir if my
daughters were being held against their will in Saudi Arabia.
Jubeir answered, of course not. And then O'Reilly offered--and
then Jubeir offered O'Reilly a chance to interview my
daughters. Jubeir knew he had hooked his fish.
O'Reilly's producer, Kristine Kotta, called me. I told her
that was absolutely not to be done. It was just what Jubeir had
wanted and needed to destroy my girls. O'Reilly called me the
next day and I told him to stay out of it. I offered to meet
Jubeir on national television on O'Reilly's show, and O'Reilly
informed me that Jubeir declined to get on television with me
and referred to me as an enemy of the kingdom.
I never heard from O'Reilly again and I assumed the matter
was put to rest. I was wrong. Labor Day weekend, while the
CODEL was in Saudi Arabia to ask the Saudi authorities for my
daughters to return to me in the United States, O'Reilly, Fox
Television, the Department of State, and the Associated Press
Arab woman reporter who had written many, many favorable
articles about the Saudi regime plus Adel Jubeir, his brother
Nail Jubeir who works for the Saudi Embassy, and Qorvis
Communications, were all very busy, directing, producing, and
participating in the sadistic Stalinistic show trial of my
innocent daughters that was taking place in London at the
Langham Hilton Hotel, forcing them once again at gunpoint to
disavow their mother and the United States.
Alia and Aisha had not been allowed to leave Saudi Arabia
since they were kidnapped in 1986. When I saw my daughters in
Riyadh in 1995, Alia told me that they never left the kingdom,
they were never taken to Europe on vacation like their friends
were; their father was wanted by Interpol and did not travel.
And he kept his promise to me that Alia and Aisha would never
be allowed to leave Saudi Arabia. But that was until Adel
Jubeir and Qorvis and the others got involved with this scheme.
On August 31, 2002, I had spoken to Chief Counsel Jim
Wilson and Chairman Burton in Arabia. A few minutes after that
phone call, the State Department called me to inform me that my
daughters were somewhere in Europe. Carlino wouldn't tell me
what country they were in. Since neither Mr. Wilson nor
Congressman Burton had mentioned anything about the girls in
Europe, I was perplexed. He asked my permission for a U.S.
Embassy consular officer to take down a statement from my
daughters. I said no, as I had done in July. No other
information was given to me. Carlino never mentioned the Saudi
Government involvement in this matter.
The next day, a reporter friend had called me and read the
official statement to me that was released by the State
Department regarding my daughters--what my daughters told them
at the Langham Hotel. Unbeknownst to me at that time, Ms. Diane
Andruch, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Consular
Affairs, had given the order for Acting U.S. Consul General
Margaret Higgins, at the U.S. Embassy in London, to make the
visit to the girls' hotel suite. And who had contacted the
State Department to make this request? Adel Jubeir, supposedly
on August 30th. We still don't know who gave Diane Andruch the
order for the London Embassy meeting with the girls. Was it the
Secretary of State himself?
When the State Department was asked, via written questions
by the Committee for Government Reform, why Alia and Aisha did
not make the request themselves, the response was that neither
Alia nor Aisha spoke English. But this was simply not true.
When I visited my daughters in 1995, with the assistance of
U.S. Secretary--U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Raymond Mabus,
my daughter Alia spoke English very well and has 100 percent
comprehension of English. So if she really wanted to make her
wishes known to the American Embassy in London, she could have
called them herself. Instead, her husband called Nile Jubeir,
Adel's brother, who then called the U.S. Embassy in London
after Adel Jubeir had personally made the arrangements with
Washington for the London meeting.
Then Qorvis sent one of their employees from the Washington
office, Shareen Soghier, who called herself, ``a Saudi media
specialist.'' She sat in on the interview with Fox Television,
giving my daughters head signals as to how to answer questions.
This ``minder'' was there to be sure that the girls didn't say
anything that the Saudi Government or their paid retainers
didn't want them to say.
The Associated Press reporter, Dona Naser, told my
daughters--told me that my daughter Alia exclaimed: I don't
want to go to the United States or see my mother. And then
Aisha chirped: We want her to leave us alone and will not rest
until she is dead. This is the same daughter who 1 year ago
bravely defied her father and told me on the telephone: Hello,
Mom. I love you, Mom. I love you. I love you.
Abu Naser also stated Alia had dark circles under her eyes
and the girls jumped when there were two separate knocks on the
door of the hotel suite, one room service and then maintenance.
O'Reilly's producer told me that Aisha seemed confused
about why they were taken to London and why all those people
were paraded into the hotel suite to talk to them. But Alia
knew what was going on. I can imagine her lying awake at night,
knowing that she was in a free country at last, and knowing
that there was no way for her to get away from all those Saudi
men. What was she to do? Tell the London Embassy representative
that she and Aisha wanted to get out of there? She knew she
could never trust the American Embassy or anyone connected to
them. They were trapped, whether inside the despotic kingdom or
guarded in a hotel suite in London.
When Fox asked Aisha what they were going to do in London,
she replied: Visit Big Ben and go to the cinema. This was the
same line Jubeir had told William McGurn. The script was
rehearsed down to the last detail. Poor Aisha hadn't been to
the cinema since she was 3 years old, when I took her and Alia
to see E.T. here in the United States. There are no cinemas in
Saudi Arabia; and Asia, cloistered up in the kingdom, I'm sure
never heard of Big Ben.
Not only were Alia and Aisha kept in this little hothouse
controlled environment in a hotel suite in London by the men
their father sold them to, their father and his brothers, as
was told to me by the O'Reilly producer, but also the Jubeir
brothers who worked for the Saudi Government.
For 17 years the Saudi Government has been stating that
their Islamic law forbids the government to get involved with
these private family matters, but this public relations stunt
in London was written and directed by Qorvis, and maybe the
others, produced by the Saudi officials and Jubeir, and taped
by the American media under the full blessings of our own U.S.
Department of State.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud bin Faisal sent a recent letter
to the Government Reform Committee stating that there should be
a clear and joint vision, whose first priority would be the
interests of our children, and guarantees their life with
freedom and security. He also went on to say: I wish to explain
and--I wish to explain and ascertain that the Government of
Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with the travel arrangements.
You should know that the meeting was initiated by the husbands
of the two Gheshayan girls themselves.
So who are we to believe? The State Department states in
their written questions to the Committee for Government Reform
that Adel Jubeir called Washington NEA Bureau and made the
request for the London meeting. Adel Jubeir told William McGurn
of the Wall Street Journal that he had made all the
arrangements. Michael Petruzzello testified that Jubeir had the
idea when he was on the O'Reilly program. And now the Saudi
Foreign Minister sent a letter stating that the men that
married my daughters were the ones that initiated the travel
arrangements. And the Saudi-owned Arab News states that the
Saudi Government bore the expenses of their travel with their
husbands and children to London in order to allow them total
freedom to speak.
In a letter to Chairman Burton, Al-Faisal continues to hide
behind their stated belief system as though they are all
anointed and far too holy to be questioned about their actions.
He says what is really surprising is that you use unacceptable
allegations against the kingdom and its Islamic Shari'a laws;
therefore, we totally reject anything that damages our Islamic
Shari'a on which a total system of the state is founded, and in
which one quarter of the population of this Earth believe. This
Shari'a regulates and guarantees all humanitarian rights
without any prejudices. It is founded on God's orders which we
follow as well as the good objectives of Islam, mainly justice.
I am really sick and tired of these criminals, this Saud
family who took the Arabian peninsula by force after World War
I, and all their degenerate descendants who have stolen the
money from the oil revenues from the indigent people of Arabia
to continually hide behind this Wahhabi belief system and shove
it down the throats of the West as though they are saintly,
devoutly religious, righteous men who uphold justice, freedom,
and truth.
Quite the opposite is true. Just review the human rights
record of this sadistic regime with their secret police,
religious police, military police, and torture chambers. This
regime who takes their own people's money has nothing to do
with freedom or any of the virtues or high principles of
mankind. This continual posturing and lying is absurd.
Yesterday, Adel Jubeir held a press conference at the Saudi
Embassy to do some damage control on the Haifa incident.
Petruzzello was coordinating, of course. Jubeir continued to
state that there are only four cases of Saudi abductions. This
is a blatant lie. There are hundreds of American women and
children in Saudi Arabia that are prevented from leaving. They
are afraid of the men that rule them and the Saudi Government.
How can you compare Germany and Western Europe with the
repressive evil tortures done to these people inside Saudi
Arabia? When questioned by a reporter concerning the subpoenaed
documents, Jubeir stated: Is Chairman Burton serious about
dealing with child custody cases, or is he engaged in a
publicity stunt?
Jubeir and his servants are the experts in publicity
stunts, not Dan Burton. I haven't met a man of Dan Burton's
caliber and integrity on Capitol Hill since former U.S. Senator
Alan Dixon retired. He has been working to free American
citizens held hostage in a 9th-century hellhole. He deserves
our respect, admiration, and support. Everyone in this town
should be involved in this issue. Teddy Roosevelt would have
sent in the cavalry, and Winston Churchill the RAF. What did G
I Joe in the trenches die for? Certainly not for us to forfeit
the freedom of American citizens to a despotic regime like
Saudi Arabia.
In their response to the written questions, the State
Department repeats that their highest priority is protection of
American citizens. Consular officers met with my daughters in
London at the request of Adel Jubeir, not Alia and Aisha, and
against my wishes, knowing full well that the girls never had a
chance to speak freely.
The State Department was so eager to make this happen and
put a knife in my back and then turn it to appease their Saudi
clients, stop me and prevent my innocent daughters from even
having a chance at freedom. They knew the girls would be taken
back to their Saudi prison. If the Saudis and their American
pimps were sadistic and cold-blooded, what about our own State
Department?
The State Department feels they are justified. Case closed.
In their written response to questions posed by the committee,
they state that in the London meeting, Alia and Aisha were told
that they were American citizens and could claim their U.S.
passports at the American Embassy in Riyadh. What a joke.
Prince Saud states that any American citizen woman can leave if
she wants to, but no one has left. And U.S. Ambassador to Saudi
Arabia Robert Jordan states that he will not expel any U.S.
citizen from the embassy in Saudi Arabia like Monica Stowers
and her children were escorted out by the Marines. But Jordan
failed to state what he would do with these American women once
they got to the embassy. He didn't offer to assist them, to
offer them passports, get them into an embassy car, and then
take them to a U.S. military base and pack them safely on a
military plane heading for U.S. soil. No, Mr. Jordan didn't
make that promise. It would offend the Saudis and our special
relationship with them would be in jeopardy.
Funny thing, last week Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa
Al-Faisal, was caught funneling money to the same terrorists
that killed almost 3,000 Americans on their way to work one
September morning. The New York Times explained that the
princess was sitting in her poolhouse, surrounded by her eight
children, and received telephone calls offering her support
from Barbara Bush and Alma Powell. In 17 years, no one has
called me to say how sorry they are for what this government
and the Saudi Government have done to my family, but the Saudi
Ambassador and his wife are consoled by our highest leaders and
their families before the facts are known about their
involvement on an attack on our country. But of course the
Saudis are our friends, and this friendship is based on money,
and that is all that counts. Let's work backward from that
premise.
Meanwhile, Petruzzello stated in the October hearing that
he has no opinion about whether or not the Saudi Government is
holding Americans against their will in Saudi Arabia. He only
writes the scripts, disseminates the propaganda on Capitol
Hill, organizes dirty games against two defenseless, innocent
women who have suffered nearly all their lives at the hands of
the Saudis, and then collects his $200,000 per month from his
Saudi masters. In other words, he will do anything for money.
The Saudi Embassy has instructed all the lobbyists and
public relations specialists not to turn over the subpoenaed
documents. If they have nothing to hide and are so interested
in assisting the committee in resolving these cases, as their
attorney Maureen Mahoney from the Washington law firm of Latham
& Watkins states, why not just allow the committee to review
the documents?
In her letter of November 14th to Chief Counsel Wilson, Ms.
Mahoney states that the Saudi--that Saudi Arabia has given very
serious conditions--consideration to the issues raised by the
committee surrounding the kidnapping of American citizens. She
carefully outlines the steps that the Saudi Government has
initiated to protect the children and reach an
intergovernmental solution.
I can tell you that as a 17-year veteran of the Saudi
Government and their retainer schemes and dirty tricks, Ms.
Mahoney's statements are nothing but a perpetuation of non-
meaningful jargonese expressed by another paid mouthpiece for
the Saudis. What she is saying means nothing in reality to my
daughters, granddaughter, Monica Stowers' daughter, or the
hundreds of other American women and children in Saudi Arabia
whose voices cannot be heard and whom I represent in absentia.
The creation of a task force, ongoing dialog with the State
Department, means nothing. Prince Bandar's letter to Dan Burton
dated October 22nd states, ``The embassy retained these firms
to assist with its performance of core diplomatic functions.''
Does Prince Bandar call what happened in London over Labor Day
weekend part of the embassy's diplomatic functions? Sending my
daughters to London was a public relations stunt to harm the
efforts of the chairman and the committee to have my daughters
released. It was also a cynical, brutal manipulation of two
young women who are victims of contemporary slavery.
This is all part of the continual dissemination of factual
misrepresentations to Members of Congress and the media by the
Saudi officials and their PR people. These documents are of the
utmost importance to reveal the true facts behind what the
lobbyists and PR specialists have been doing to American
citizens. This has nothing to do with diplomatic relations, and
the Saudi Government is once again attempting to hide behind
some law or convention to protect itself from being revealed as
participating in possible criminal acts and against all
humanity which are certainly against all of God's laws.
For the Saudi Arabian Government to hide behind the Vienna
Convention for Diplomatic Relations is a scandal and a mockery
of that document. These torture lobbyist public relations
specialist law firms are working as foreign agents inside the
United States and are not diplomats. I further charge that
diplomats such as Adel Jubeir, Nile Jubeir, Prince Bandar, and
others like him be expelled from the United States persona non
gratis for their participation in criminal acts against
American citizens. We cannot deport Petruzzello and the other
U.S. citizens who sold themselves to the Saudis, but we can and
must hold them accountable for their dastardly deeds, and may
have God have mercy on their souls.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much Ms. Roush. I think you
covered it all very well.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roush follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Ms. McClain, we will recognize you now. We want
you to tell your whole story as you want to, but we would like
to hold it down to 15 minutes if we could. I know that you have
a lot you want to say, and, as did Ms. Roush--I mean I can
understand the emotion behind this because you have been
fighting this battle for so long, so we will be as lenient as
we possible can.
And Professor Denza, we will get to you in just a little
bit.
Ms. McClain. Congressman Burton and members of the
committee, thank you for asking me to appear here again. I have
personally had a long and unpleasant acquaintance with the
Saudi public relations machine in Washington. Shortly after the
Saudi Embassy aided in the kidnapping of my daughter Heidi Al-
Omary in 1997, I contacted----
Mr. Burton. Excuse me just one moment. I see the four Saudi
lawyers back there. Do you guys find something humorous in
what's going on here? I've noticed you were laughing. I thought
maybe you found something funny.
Thank you. OK. Ms. McClain.
Ms. McClain. I have personally had a long and unpleasant
acquaintance with the Saudi public relations machine in
Washington. Shortly after the Saudi Embassy aided in the
kidnapping of my daughter Heidi Al-Omary in 1997, I contacted
then-Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater. I took issue
with the Department of Transportation's failure to investigate
Saudi Arabian Airlines' complicity in the disappearance of my
child. I recommended that Saudi Airlines' U.S. landing rights
be suspended for knowingly allowing its employees, one of whom
is Heidi's uncle, to violate our laws. Foolishly, I believed
that Slater, a fellow Arkansan and former colleague at Arkansas
State University, would take an interest in a missing Arkansas
child.
Little did I know of the very cozy relationship between
Slater and the Saudis. I did know, of course, that Slater's
alma matter, the University of Arkansas, has been on the
receiving end of Prince Bandar's largesse in the form of a
$23.5 million gift to establish a Middle Eastern Studies
Center. Little did I suspect, however, that the same public
official who so cavalierly turned his back on my daughter would
go on to a lucrative position at Patton Boggs, the same outfit
that supposedly sits here today scoffing at Congress and
protecting the secret communiques of the Saudi terrorists at
Bandar's embassy. Patton Boggs' own literature lauds Slater's
accomplishments in the areas of national security and his
pivotal roles in liberalizing the global aviation marketplace.
Need I point out that Slater's concern for national security
and liberalization of global aviation allowed our children to
be stolen and subsequently allowed 15 Saudi terrorists to enter
our country?
In 1999, we victims of Saudi kidnapping plots were attacked
further by Bandar's PR gurus. Hill & Knowlton, as Ms. Roush has
already mentioned, intercepted our private e-mails and
threatened us. Apparently, H&K was upset about two things: one,
our upcoming press conference at the National Press Club on the
topic of Saudi human rights abuses; and, two, our Texaco/ARAMCO
boycott. Texaco is in partnership with ARAMCO on numerous
projects. Since ARAMCO is owned by the Saudi royal family, it
is they who give aid, comfort, and lucrative jobs to
international kidnappers like my ex-husband.
It is not difficult to guess why the Saudis want secret
communiques and documents regarding the abductions of our
children to be kept out of the public eye. Such revelations
would result in further humiliation for the embassy, even more
embarrassing than Mr. Adel Jubeir's exposure on 60 Minutes. The
release of documents relating to my daughter's case now in the
hands of lobbying firms could reveal the existence of the
following information: correspondence between the embassy and
the kidnapper regarding this matter; correspondence from me
informing the embassy of Heidi's legal status; records
indicating that the kidnapper was on the embassy payroll at the
time of my child's kidnapping; records pointing to the
involvement of a high Saudi National Guard official in the
harboring of the criminal in the Washington area; financial
records relating to the ticketing of the fugitive and my
daughter aboard a Saudi airline's flight; the names of other
Saudi government officials involved in the kidnapping of my
child; falsified birth certificate for my daughter; memos
relating to the embassy's knowledge of Al-Omary's and my
daughter's whereabouts in 1997 in spite of 2 years of Saudi
denials to the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh; and other documents
indicating whether the embassy's lobbyists are aware of the
Saudi Embassy's complicity in Heidi's kidnapping.
Just as the money trail has led back to the lap of Prince
Bandar's family in the September 11th terrorist attacks, so too
will it in the kidnappings of American citizens. If the Saudi
Embassy has nothing to hide, why have Bandar and his PR machine
gone into overdrive to protect known criminals like my ex-
husband, a mere lowly computer programmer?
The relationship between the embassy and the September 11th
terrorists, the complicity of the Saudi Embassy in the stealing
of American children, these are just two examples of the
concept of diplomatic immunity gone awry. Now American lobbying
firms are trying to give a whole new meaning to the term
``diplomatic immunity,'' as they aid and abet a massive cover-
up of Saudi crimes against American children. While the Saudi
Embassy continues to break U.S. laws, it scatters its blood
money all over Washington. The Saudi PR web of deceit manages
to buy or beg air time in the U.S. media to promulgate the
Saudi version of history: that the Saudis are our allies; that
Wahhabism is a peaceful religion, that Granny Haifa would
never, ever send money to terrorists, despite the fact that her
family financed a telethon to raise cold hard cash for suicide
bombers; and that there are no American children taken to Saudi
Arabia against their will. What other lies about the Saudi
Government are hidden in the secret vaults of Qorvis, Patton
Boggs, and the Gallagher group?
It is indeed a telling circumstance that even Patton Boggs
insiders are aghast at some of the dirty work they have been
forced to do. One whistleblower called for Patton Boggs to end
its relationship with Qorvis. He told Forward magazine in May
2002 that the Saudi-financed PR campaign was scurrilous. Patton
Boggs' managing partner, Stuart Pape, reported that several
partners had lobbied to drop Saudi Arabia as a client.
In the November 22nd issue of the New York Sun, Mr. Pape
revealed that the firm had been, ``instructed by the Saudi
Embassy to work with Mr. Burton's committee to find a solution
to the Saudi kidnapping problem.'' Is this what Patton Boggs
calls working with the committee; to seek lies in the refusal
to turn over subpoenaed documents? And now the escape of the
people I'm talking about.
Well, my daughter and I still don't have a solution. So
what are these lobbyists waiting for? After hearing Adel Jubeir
dismiss all but four case of international child abduction
yesterday, it is obvious that the Saudis' idea of a solution is
the same as it has always been: Delay, delay; stall, stall; and
then delay some more until our girl's old enough to be sold off
to the highest bidder. That is what the solution was for Pat's
and Monica's daughters, and that is what will happen to Heidi.
Last month, I and other grieving parents had to sit here
and bite our tongues as we were subjected to a sickening
display of stonewalling and double-talk by Bandar's mouthpiece,
Michael Petruzzello of Qorvis. We came here to tell the truth.
Unlike Mr. Petruzzello, we did not have an entourage of lawyers
whispering in our ears at every turn, telling us how to make
our lies sound good. There isn't enough cash in the entire
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to make the Saudi royals or their
Washington henchmen look any better than they do right now.
In conclusion, I would like to remind the Saudis that they
have no need to fork over tons of cash to the likes of Qorvis,
Patton Boggs, Gallagher, Hill & Knowlton and others of their
ilk.
Let me close by giving the best public relations advice the
Saudi Embassy will ever receive--and my expertise won't cost
them one red cent. I'd give the Saudi royals the same counsel
given to the Egyptian Pharaoh over 5,000 years ago. And I quote
from the Book of Exodus in the words of the Jewish prophet
Moses: ``Let my people go.''
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much, Ms. McClain.
Ms. McClain. You are welcome.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McClain follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. That is a very cogent statement.
Professor Denza, do you have a statement?
Ms. Denza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. You might pull your mic a little closer,
because sometimes it's hard to pick up. And--is your mic on?
Ms. Denza. I think it is on now.
Mr. Burton. Thank you.
Ms. Denza. I would like to begin, before coming on to the
exact definition of the term ``archives and documents under the
Vienna Convention,'' with a very important provision which
governs all the privileges and immunities set out in the Vienna
Convention on diplomatic relations. And that's Article 41,
first paragraph, and it begins: ``without prejudice to their
privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons
enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and
regulations of the receiving state. They also have a duty not
to intervene or interfere in the internal affairs of that
state.''
It is very clearly accepted now as a proposition of modern
international law that there is no question short of specific
exemptions or exceptions for embassies or their diplomats not
to be legally bound. And the Foreign Agent Registration Act,
which has been in existence for about 60 years, has a very
clear application to the operations of foreign states in the
United States. The policy of the act is--it seems to a lawyer
from outside, is that it is quite acceptable for the propaganda
activities, if I can use that expression, to be carried on, but
they must be carried on within the framework of transparency.
There are no specific exemptions in the Foreign Agent
Registration Act. The three firms we are dealing with are all
registered under the act, and I don't believe that there ever
has been any complaint by any foreign state that somehow this
act was incompatible with their ordinary operations. And, of
course, I accept it is an essential diplomatic function of the
Ambassador and his staff to be put in the position of, in this
case, Saudi Arabia. It used to be said that the Ambassador was
the eyes, the ears, and the mouth of the dissenting state. But
no one has ever seen any problem with the act.
The act, of course, has to operate within the exact terms
of the specific privileges and immunities. But part of my
reason, before I come to that, for setting out 41 and the
background is that I see no reason for construing the term
``archives and documents'' in this case which--it's an unusual,
it's an unprecedented claim. I see no reason for pushing the
definition of ``archives and documents'' out.
I will turn now to the definition and the terms of Article
24 of the Vienna Convention, which says very shortly that the
archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at
any time and wherever they may be.
Now the inviolability of archives is, in the history of
diplomatic laws, a relatively recent development. I think it is
fair to say that until the early years and perhaps about the
time that the Foreign Agent Registration Act was being passed,
it was generally regarded as only applying to archives on the
premises of the mission. And that's perhaps what one thinks of
as archives--ancient documents on parchment, old treaties,
records of memoir which are held physically, securely in the
embassy.
The question of the status of archives outside mission
premises came very sharply into focus in 1946 in a leading case
in Canada where the Canadian courts of appeals had to decide on
whether embassy archives from the embassy of the Soviet Union
were admissible. What had happened was that a Soviet cipher
clerk had defected, and when he defected, he had taken with him
incriminating documents which showed the existence in Canada in
the early years of the cold war of a whole network of spies;
and that extended not only to Soviet citizens, it extended very
importantly to a Canadian member of parliament. And that was
the Rose who--it was tried and appealed from conviction,
arguing that there was no other evidence against him except the
stolen embassy documents, and he couldn't be convicted.
Now, there were a variety of reasons given by the court for
rejecting admissibility and allowing the conviction to stand on
the basis of the archives. One of them, I noticed with some
interest, was that one of the judges actually said that the
relevant documents, which were documents of an espionage bureau
within the Soviet embassy, not directly within the control of
the Ambassador, were not embassy documents. I think that's--
there may be some importance in that reference to control.
Now, going to 1961, the Rose case was very much in the
minds of the negotiators. Certain propositions were clearly
established that archives and documents of the mission were
inviolable at any time. That was really referring to the
possibility of reach of diplomatic relations and wherever they
may be. And I think primarily what was in the minds of the
negotiators was not that somehow archives and documents could
cover up the whole of the in-and-out correspondence of the
mission; it was looking at the possibility that the archives
were in the custody of a member of the mission physically going
to a meeting, administrative foreign affairs, going to the
airport without being an accredited courier, possibly even
without having a mission status, or that they had actually
physically been lost or stolen, and that accident shouldn't
deprive them of their character.
The Convention also made clear that the documents don't
require to be identified by visible official marks, and of
course, in that the position is different from that of
diplomatic backs.
Now, there have not been very many cases about archives on
the whole. The most sensitive things tend to be rather
carefully safeguarded. But the case which I've referred to in
the opinion which I've given to the committee is very relevant.
It describes the test for archives is that the documents must
belong to or be in the possession of the mission. And I think
that case, which depended on legislation which carried over the
specific terms of the Vienna Convention--while, of course, it
clearly would not be binding on the U.S. court, would be very
persuasive, a decision at the highest level, the House of
Lords, and it was unanimous. And, as I understand it, the test
of the belonging to or in the possession of is--I think seems
to be generally accepted in the informal discussions there have
been.
Now, there was a slight lacuna in the ten council,
international ten council in that the international ten
council, to narrow the issues, said they were not concerned
with the documents in the possession of an agent or bailie of
the council. The reason for that concession, as I recollect--
because I actually was one of these appearing in the case--was
that there seemed no one reason to support that the documents
which had found their way into the public domain had actually
done so by being given to agents or bailies. So, the House of
Lords don't specifically deal with agency.
I think--I've been thinking about what the test is on the
question of documents where there may be some degree of an
agency relationship. One possibility is that at that point one
looks to local law to interpret. Of course, this is not my area
of expertise, but the common law is fairly uniform.
I don't think there are huge differences. I don't believe,
under English law, that the documents of consultants, advisors
to an embassy would be regarded as the property of the embassy.
The basic starting principle of the common law, as I understand
it, is that when a letter is sent, the physical property in the
documents passes to the recipient. There could, of course, be
special terms, but as I understand it, there have been no
special terms here. And, of course, there may be other issues
of copyright, for example, which I think, again, are not
material.
The test of local law to determine ownership is perhaps not
entirely satisfactory because it could lead to--possibly to a
lack of uniformity not only among the 180 states who are
parties to the Convention, but also, as I understand, within
the different jurisdictions in the--in the United States. It
would be rather difficult to determine the question differently
in the law of Virginia, in the law of District of Columbia.
It may be there that the right test is to look for--at
whether there are any circumstances in which documents
originating in an embassy, but sent outside could remain
protected. And thinking objectively about it, it seems to me
that really ought only to be the case where one is perhaps
talking about an agent who is purely a mouthpiece for the
embassy; and I underlined the possibility of an interpreter or
translator sent a document in the foreign language, the
language of the sending state, in order to translate it with no
substantive input into the content. And I think it's arguable
that, in that case, the document would continue to be an
archive.
That seems to me very different from the position of public
relations specialists whose function is very much to advise;
and then that takes me back to the policy of the act that
advice on how to present the case for your government is quite
proper. It's perfectly proper for the Ambassador to employ
local expertise, but he must respect and obey the local law
which provides the framework.
So, coming back, it does in fact remain my own conclusion--
although, of course, ultimately the question might require--
might well require to be tested in a court of law--but that in
the present circumstances, these documents, which cover, of
course, opinions generated outside the embassy--and I find it
very interesting to listen to the kinds of documents listed by
the previous witness as to what we are talking about, many of
these not in any sense being embassy memoranda or secret
communications between the Saudi Ambassador and his government,
but quite different kinds of information, perfectly properly
held within the scope of the act, and as it seems to me,
perfectly clearly accessible.
I'd just like to also deal with the question of the
correspondence of the mission, because that takes us over to a
different article of the Convention, Article 27, which deals
with freedom of communication. And that has been argued in the
exchanges that there have been about the status of the
documents.
Article 27.2 says that the official correspondence of the
mission shall be inviolable. Now, it is clear from--to some
extent from the records of the Convention that what was meant
by a correspondence was really material in transit. There is no
indication of the records of the conference that they were
meaning that any letter that came from an embassy to anyone in
the receiving state was inviolable. It was a question of the
agents of the receiving states not intercepting this--and, of
course, in this article there are a great many cases of
interception of an embassy's communications. And again
perhaps--I think it probably is the case that letters actually
in transit to an embassy are inviolable in that they can't be
intercepted in the post.
There is--I think it is also helpful in looking at the
extent of the protection given by Article 27 to look back at
the beginning of Article 27, which is, my view, the most
important article in the Vienna Convention. And what the
Article 27, at the beginning, says is, ``The receiving state
shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the
mission for all official purposes.'' Now, the critical point I
think is the next sentence, which says, ``In communicating with
the government, the other missions and consulates of the
sending state wherever situated, the mission may employ all
appropriate means, including diplomatic couriers and messages
in code or cipher.'' And there are also references to the
diplomatic wires.
One sees from the beginning of 27, which I think should be
carried over to paragraph 2 of Article 27, that this is not
really dealing with the correspondence between the mission and
the outside world; it is really dealing with internal
correspondence. It means that a state which can't afford to
send a courier and a bag can put a letter in the post, address
it to the government ministry of foreign affairs, and that
letter, if it accidentally is lost or if it is intercepted or
stolen, is not admissible in evidence. And again, I think the
test on 27.2 is legally the same as that applies in the case of
archives and documents.
There is very little case law on 27.2 for the simple reason
that it is the practice of government not to send delicate,
sensitive, controversial letters through the open post; they
send them by hand of a diplomatic agent or they send them by
hand of the courier. But I don't think that 27.2 gives a wider
protection to any of the documents that we are concerned with.
So simply to sum up in one sentence, it is not my view that
the documents in the--which are clearly in the possession of
the firms which have been subpoenaed are entitled to
inviolability. And it is also my view, having--in the light of
the correspondence I've seen, that the implications of
accepting the proposition put forward that these archives are
inviolable would be very far-reaching and very dangerous. And I
realize that the committee are very well aware of this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Professor.
Professor, do you have any concern that the legal theory
being put forward by the Saudis could be used to cloak the
documents of spies, terrorists, and other individuals who
receive funds and directions from embassies?
Ms. Denza. So far as documents, yes. I think that was what
I was alluding to in my concluding--concluding words. I think
there is no distinction of principle.
Mr. Burton. Let me just interrupt, because I want to make
sure in layman's language everyone understands. As I understand
your statements and all of the research that you have done, if
it's between the embassy and other internal governmental
agencies, that is held inviolate.
Ms. Denza. Indeed. Yes.
Mr. Burton. But if it is correspondence or some kind of
transmission between an embassy government or government entity
to a public relations firm that is in the control of the public
relations firm, then that is not inviolate?
Ms. Denza. I believe that is the correct position. These
documents are not inviolable.
Mr. Burton. Now, let me ask you about your credentials,
because I think this is very, very important. You advise--as I
understand it, you advise the British Government and the U.S.
State Department regarding the Vienna Convention. Is that
correct?
Ms. Denza. I was a legal advisor within the British Foreign
Office for a number of years. I think my main credentials
really are that I have written what I think is the standard
book on the Vienna Convention and diplomatic relations. And I
did work on these issues when I was working within government.
Mr. Burton. So you are considered probably, and I don't--I
know you are probably very modest. But you are probably one of
the foremost experts on the Vienna Convention.
Ms. Denza. I've always been very, very interested in it.
When I joined the Foreign Office as an assistant legal advisor,
the first thing I was asked to do was to--which was after the
conclusion of the Vienna Convention--was to write an article.
And the article grew over a period of about 10 years into a
book. And there has been a more--a second edition, which, of
course, I've written outside government and therefore which--
without using any privileged information.
Mr. Burton. Excuse me for 1 second. In the letters of the
lawyers for the Saudi Embassy, which you have received, they
claim that a court could conduct an in-camera review of
documents in a case of espionage and find that law
enforcement's need for the documents outweighs the embassy's
interests in keeping them secret. Do you think there is any
support for such a theory, or are the Saudis just making that
theory up to draw attention away from the disastrous
consequences of the privilege claim?
Ms. Denza. It is my view that this idea will not work in
the context of inviolable documents. I've--except that the
position may be different if you're dealing with a privilege
conferred by local law; for example, the privilege of the
executive or the privilege of the lawyer. It's then perhaps
possible for a national court, a domestic court, to carry out a
balancing act.
When you're dealing with inviolable documents, which if
they are inviolable essentially belong to a foreign government,
I don't think this is practical or possible. Either the
documents are inviolable or they're not inviolable.
Of course, some of the documents may also be covered by
claims to privilege, which is not my concern; that's a legal
professional privilege where there may be more than one ground
advanced to protect the documents. And, of course, I'm not
saying anything about what's the position, if it was argued
they were covered by legal professional privilege; but I don't
think there's any support in any of the cases for the idea that
an inviolability--the court of the receiving State--in this
case the United States--can properly balance the interests of
the foreign state against the interests of its own judicial
system. Such balancing as is done has to be done by the actual
terms of the convention.
Mr. Burton. Thank you. We have a little bit more tape I'd
like to run and then we'll get back to our questions and wrap
this up.
[Tape played.]
Mr. Burton. I think that pretty much says it all.
I asked questions of the State Department when they were
here. One of the questions was, has the State Department
expressed any concern to the Saudi Government regarding its
role in the kidnapping of Heidi Al-Omary? And the answer they
wrote back to me in writing was the Department has no evidence
that the Saudi Government played a role in the kidnapping of
Heidi.
And that is just so disgusting because it's so evident that
the Saudi Government knew about it, they were informed about
it, and they went ahead and granted the passports anyhow. And
I'm disappointed in our State Department for making that kind
of a statement because it's so evident that they were
complicitous.
Professor Denza, let me just ask you one more question. Is
there any reason to think that the definition of inviolability
under the Vienna Convention would differ depending upon whether
the Justice Department or Congress was asking for the
documents?
Ms. Denza. No. Inviolability implies that neither the
executive nor the legislative nor the judicial authorities in
the receiving State can use any legal powers of compulsion to
require documents to be supplied; or, in the case of personal
immunity, a person to appear. That was very clearly helpfully
set out in the judgment in the international case to which I
referred.
Mr. Burton. So if a public relations firm had
correspondence and other information in their control, in your
opinion, whether it was the Justice Department, the
administration or the Congress, the legislative branch,
subpoenaed those, they would be able to get them?
Ms. Denza. That's right. If they're not inviolable, then
the ordinary process of U.S. law apply.
Mr. Burton. OK. Let me just ask Ms. Roush and Ms. McClain
just a couple of questions here, and then we'll--I'll make a
final statement and then we'll wrap this up.
Ms. Roush, you have lot of experience dealing with Saudi
lobbyists. Have they been honest with you in the past?
Ms. Roush. No, sir. They have manipulated me and they've
lied to me and betrayed me and used me.
Mr. Burton. Have you ever received assurances from the
Saudi lobbyists that they're working on the return of your
children and that the Saudi Government was working in good
faith and what was really going on?
Ms. Roush. No. They have continually betrayed me and
deceived me, and the Saudi Government and their paid
mouthpieces have worked hand in hand for 17 years to keep me
from my daughters.
Mr. Burton. Let me ask both of you this question. It's my
understanding that both of you have been threatened in the past
by Saudi lobbyists. Can you tell us how they were threatening
you?
Ms. McClain. They have threatened us via e-mail. They have
threatened us with legal action on occasion if we did not drop
boycotts that we were involved in. And they just boycotted our
press conference that we had here in Washington. That was kind
of an implied threat, I felt.
Ms. Roush. Yes, when we were dealing with Hill & Knowlton,
the torture lobbyists in Washington, they sent me a letter that
is included in the file, saying they were going to sue me
because in fact they did not represent the Saudi Government.
Which I sent a letter back to them stating under--in the book
Agents of Influence by Pat Choate in 1990, they were listed as
not only representing the Saudi Arabian Government, but Prince
Talal and Adnan Koshaggi.
Mr. Burton. Did the lobbyists from Hill & Knowlton lie to
you regarding their relationship with the Saudi Government?
That's what you just commented about. They did lie to you.
Ms. Roush. Yes, they lied; blatantly lied.
Mr. Burton. You believe that permanent damage was done to
your daughters by what happened on August 31st in London,
correct?
Ms. Roush. Oh, sir, sir, what they did to my daughters in
London is unspeakable. It's inhuman. It's--these people,
Petruzello and etc., they should be held responsible for what
they did to my daughters, let alone what they did to me that
weekend. I truly thought that this was all coming down around
me, all my work to get my daughters back. But never mind what
they did to me. I can't even imagine Alia and Aisha and Alia's
baby in that hotel room in London, and that woman from Qorvis
was there, and they were coordinating all this, and O'Reilly's
producer. And they knew they were in a free country and they
couldn't get out, d they were forced to say things against
their mom, again and again and again. And then they were taken
back to Saudi Arabia, knowing full well that they couldn't get
out. They knew that was a chance. Alia did. Aisha was probably
so confused by it all, but certainly Alia knew what was
happening.
And it's frightful to realize the power of the Saudi
Arabian Government and the power of these lobbyists, how they
manipulate, how they manipulated my daughters. It's unspeakable
and it's against all of our laws and the laws of the Lord.
Mr. Burton. Do you think it's important that we obtain the
documents from the lobbyists so that we can see what was really
going on and why they sent your daughters to London?
Ms. Roush. I think that's exactly true. I think it's so
important because they're hiding so much about the
interference--the participation of the public relations firms
with what happened not only in the very past past, but also
concerning this whole scheme, this whole Stalinistic show trial
in London. I mean, I think there are documents there. It's my
belief, sir, that there are such incriminating documentation
that they might even be able to go to jail because of what they
did.
Mr. Burton. The Saudis claim that they're trying to resolve
the kidnapping of your daughter, Ms. McClain. Have you seen any
evidence of that?
Ms. McClain. I have not seen any evidence that they're
trying to resolve this. I just found out from an article on the
Internet that they had told Patton Boggs to go ahead and try to
resolve these. I haven't had any calls from Patton Boggs saying
we'd like to work with you on this. So the answer is no.
Mr. Burton. The Saudis and the U.S. State Department deny
that the Saudi Embassy was complicit in your daughter's
kidnapping. Do you believe them?
Ms. McClain. That is patently false. Several years before
my daughter was ever kidnapped, I sent all my legal documents
to Prince Bandar, to all the Saudi consulates in the United
States. I believe there was one in Houston at the time and I
think the other one was in Los Angeles. They all have those
documents. I sent them registered. I sent them certified. I had
them translated into Arabic so they knew exactly what they
said. And I said, this child does not have permission from me
or from the court to leave the United States of America with
her father. And Prince Bandar knew that.
Mr. Burton. So the State Department, en they say they have
no evidence that this--that the Saudis were complicitous, the
State Department must have their eyes covered.
Ms. McClain. I don't know if the State Department has that
evidence or not. I've told the State Department. I don't know
if the Saudis have turned those documents over to the State
Department or shared that information with them. But----
Mr. Burton. But you think the State Department ought to
help us in our quest to get these documents from the public
relations firm so that we can check that out.
Ms. McClain. Definitely. The State Department, the Justice
Department, the FBI, needs to get involved in this. I don't
think this is any less bad than embassy officials writing
letters and checks to terrorists. You know, to me this is just
as bad. My children are victims of terrorism.
Ms. Roush. It's worse. It involves our flesh and blood.
Mr. Burton. Let me just end up by saying--and I want to
thank my staff for all the hard work they've been doing on
this. Jim and David and Kevin, you guys work very hard and I
really appreciate it. You guys ought to give them a pat on the
back when you get a chance.
Let me end up by saying this. We're at the end of the year
and I see some of the lawyers for the public relations firms
out there. And I'm sure that they understand that at the end of
a session like this, it's hard to go ahead and get legal
actions taken. And so I'm confident that they feel they can run
out the clock on us. But it isn't going to work because we're
going to continue this next year. We now have the Senate that's
going to work with us. And I promise you that we will continue
to beat on this issue until something is resolved.
And the people are getting $200,000 $300,000 a month or
however much they get representing the Saudis, need to give
them some good advice. And that is, resolve these cases. Show
the American people and these mothers that they really do want
to solve these problems and do care, and that the Wahhabis over
there are not controlling the government--as many of us, myself
included, think that they are to a large degree--and that
they're going to be concerned about the human rights and the
rights of American citizens who have been kidnapped here in the
United States and taken overseas.
So this isn't going to go away. It's something that will
continue. I won't be chairman next year, but I don't know if
you guys know much about me. But I won't keep my light hidden
under a basket, and I'll make sure that we push the right
buttons to continue to move this thing forward. So you ladies,
don't give up hope. There's still--still some good possibility
that we'll get this thing resolved eventually.
And with that, thank you all for being here. We stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
and a complete set of exhibits follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
THE SAUDI CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE: MUST SAUDI LOBBYISTS COMPLY WITH
SUBPOENAS IN THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABDUCTION CASES?
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Weldon, Duncan, Ballenger,
Norton and Cummings.
Staff present: James C. Wilson, chief counsel; David A.
Kass, deputy chief counsel; Jason Foster, counsel; Caroline
Katzen, professional staff member; Blain Rethmeier,
communications director; Allyson Blandford, assistant to chief
counsel; Robert A. Briggs, chief clerk; Robin Butler, officer
manager; Joshua E. Gillespie, deputy chief clerk; Michael
Layman, legislative assistant; Nicholis Mutton, deputy
communications director; Leneal Scott, computer systems
manager; Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator; Phil
Barnett, minority chief counsel; Sarah Despres, minority
counsel; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa and
Earley Green, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Burton. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
Committee on Government Reform is called to order. I ask
unanimous consent that all Members and present witnesses'
opening statements be included in record. Without objection.
I ask unanimous consent that all written questions
submitted to witnesses and answers provided by witnesses after
the conclusion of this hearing be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that a set of exhibits relating to
this hearing be included in the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits and
extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that questioning in the matter
under consideration proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House Rule
11, the Committee Rule 14, in which the chairman and ranking
minority member allocate time to committee counsel as they deem
appropriate for extended questioning, not to exceed 60 minutes,
divided equally between the majority and the minority. Without
objection, so ordered.
Before we start, my good friend Cass Ballenger from North
Carolina is here and he'd like to recognize one of the
witnesses. So, Cass, we will recognize you.
Mr. Ballenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
put in a good word for a friend of mine, who has worked with me
in El Salvador back in the days when that was not the most
popular thing. You and I were some of the couple that did a
great deal of work there. And he was--I met him through the
Republican Study Committee, which was a fairly substantial
organization in our modern--in the days when we were in the
minority.
And I would just like to put in a good word for Jamie
Gallagher, who has been married to a staff member of mine
whose--his mother-in-law happens to be campaign chairman for me
in one of my strong counties. So don't beat him up too badly,
if you would, sir.
Mr. Burton. We're not here, Cass, to beat up on anybody. We
just want to find out some facts about kidnapped kids.
Mr. Ballenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Cass. Nice seeing you, Buddy, and
merry Christmas to you.
Let me also saw that Margaret McClain just gave me a bag of
pecans which were picked from a tree in her yard by her
daughter Heidi before she was kidnapped 5 years ago, and she
has been freezing these and saving these for special occasions.
I really almost hate to eat these, but I do appreciate the
thought, and maybe 1 day Heidi will be back here and she can
help you pick some more pecans. A couple of weeks ago--it is
nice seeing you again, Mr. Petruzzello. Couldn't find you last
week, But we are glad you are here today.
A couple of weeks ago, Prince Nayef, the Saudi Interior
Minister, blamed the Jews for September 11th. He stated, ``the
Jews have exploited the September 11th events to undermine the
image of Arabs before the American people to instigate the
latter against the Arabs and Muslims. The question is, is who
perpetrated the September 11th attacks and who were the
beneficiaries? I think the Jews themselves.''
This man, Prince Nayef, is the Saudi equivalent of the FBI
Director here in the United States. He is supposed to be
tracking down al-Qaeda terrorists in Saudi Arabia. He also has
a role in resolving these kidnapping cases. I don't think he is
on our side if he thinks that the Jews are responsible for
September 11th. If he is part of the Saudi initiative to solve
the abduction cases, it is not only easy to see where the bad
faith comes from, it is hard to summon up much optimism for the
future.
I start this hearing by discussing Prince Nayef because it
is important for the public to understand who we are dealing
with and what kind of people are in control of the Saudi
government.
Once you understand that, you know why it is important to
have this kind of scrutiny regarding the kidnapping of
Americans to Saudi Arabia. You also understand the enormous
frustration we feel when Saudi officials and their mouthpieces
lie to us. This is the 5th day of hearings by this committee on
the subject of Americans kidnapped by Saudi Arabia and to Saudi
Arabia.
Why are we holding these hearings? Simply put, the U.S.
Government has a choice. It can continue with the status quo,
the way these cases have been managed for the last 20 years by
the State Department, or it can face the facts.
The status quo is not working. For 20 years the Saudis have
refused to admit that there is a problem. They deny that they
are even holding kidnapped Americans. They deny that they have
been complicit in kidnappings. The State Department seems to go
along with that. It has taken the State Department years to
even request that the kidnapped Americans be returned. Who
knows if they will ever actually place pressure on the Saudis
to return them.
I don't think we should stand for the Saudis' behavior any
longer. In the 1 year the committee has been looking at this
issue, we have seen dozens of examples of Saudi deception and
deceit. And I will outline just a few examples of the ways in
which the Saudi government has lied and distorted the facts.
Just a couple of days ago we received a call and a letter
from a person who described himself as a legal advisor to the
Saudi Mission to the United Nations. I don't know if he is who
he says he is. I hope not. He told us that there are no
kidnappings, and that under international law a Saudi father
has the right to take his daughters.
He also said that the committee's investigation was part of
a vicious campaign, and that Congress is controlled by the
Israeli lobby. This person's thinking is echoed in many ways by
the Saudi Foreign Minister. He wrote to me a few weeks ago
saying, ``we reject anything that damages our Islamic Sharia,
on which a total system of the state is founded.''
Now, this Sharia regulates and guarantees all humanitarian
rights without any prejudices. That is what he said. Let me
translate. He was saying that the Saudis don't have a problem
if one of their citizens travels to the United States and
kidnaps a U.S. citizen. He was saying that he doesn't care if
our laws are broken.
He even told us when we met that Saudi Arabia doesn't
recognize our laws. When we go there, we are supposed to obey
their laws. So why shouldn't they obey our laws? The Saudi
Foreign Minister also sent a letter to Secretary of State
Powell in which he accused four American women of kidnapping
their children from Saudi Arabia.
Now, that might have sounded good. But, like most of the
other Saudi talking points, it was a lie. In two of the cases
cited by Prince Saud, the American children still live in Saudi
Arabia. In another one of the cases, the American girl was
kidnapped from America, held for 2 years and then escaped.
If the Saudi Arabia government is so calculated in its
deceptions, how can we believe them on any issue? The things we
are complaining about aren't simple misstatements. They are
calculated, carefully crafted lies. They are told for a
purpose, and they were told by their Foreign Minister to me,
and that is not very encouraging.
In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Saudi Ambassador
Prince Bandar stated that, ``some have charged that Saudi
Arabia is holding Americans against their will. This is
absolutely not true,'' Prince Bandar said. Prince Bandar's
statement is completely false. This committee has heard
testimony from just a few of the many American parents whose
children are held in Saudi Arabia. Even Prince Bandar's own
paid mouthpieces can't defend this statement. They don't even
try because it is so dishonest.
They may take huge sums of money from their Saudi masters,
but they won't tell a whopper that big. In fact, it looks like
some of the PR experts, three of them at Mr. Petruzzello's
firm, are so tired of representing the Saudis that they quit.
You might want to elaborate on that, Mr. Petruzzello.
The Saudi lobbyists have been saying how hard they have
been working to resolve the outstanding cases of kidnappings.
The truth is that no children have been voluntarily returned by
the Saudi government, not one. Even worse, there is not even an
indication that the Saudis are working to get the answers to
basic factual questions about the kidnappings.
Michael Rives' two kids have been held for 2 years. In
August we asked whether there was any legal basis to hold those
children in Saudi Arabia. There still isn't any answer. The
Saudis just want to run out the clock, and that isn't going to
work.
I could go on with dozens of examples of Saudi bad faith.
They accused me of offering a $1 million bribe to Amjad Radwan
to make her come to the United States, and they flew Pat
Roush's daughters to London so they could try to make a mockery
of the congressional delegation that I led to Saudi Arabia. So
these examples just go on and on.
So that brings us to why we are here today. Because the
Saudi government could not get its story straight, because it
could not tell us what was going on with these cases that we
had raised, we issued three document subpoenas to their
lobbyists. They refused to comply. Instead they came up with an
unprecedented claim of privilege. They claim that the documents
of these lobbyists and PR specialists are archives and
documents of the Saudi Embassy, entitled to protection under
the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Let me translate. The Saudis are hiding these documents.
They are stonewalling. They are obstructing Congress. It is
just that simple.
Last night the Saudis made an offer whereby a third party
could review the documents and answer questions about them.
Now, that is not going to be acceptable to the committee, but
it is really important because it shows that these documents
are not sacred. They just don't want us, the committee, the
government of the United States to look at them.
We tried to have this hearing last week. We invited the
three Saudi lobbyists to testify. They refused. We then told
them we would issue subpoenas. Their lawyers refused to accept
them. The lawyers claimed that a subpoena issued after
adjournment was invalid, which is not the case. Then when we
tried to serve the lobbyists, they were nowhere to be found.
They weren't at their houses, they weren't at their offices,
they weren't anywhere to be found, and we sent the U.S.
Marshals out and you guys might have just left town, I don't
know, or gone to the Saudi Embassy. Just another example of
Saudi cooperation.
So we had to come back again this week. I am glad that we
are here and we can discuss some of those issues. I appreciate
you gentlemen showing up today.
I am sure that the Saudis thought if they could skip that
one hearing we would just go away and the issue would go away.
Well, it is not quite so easy. We are holding this hearing
again. Ms. Roush and Ms. McClain have traveled back to
Washington again to attend this hearing. The Saudi lobbyists
have caused a lot of inconvenience and wasted a lot of time.
But we are patient and we will finally hear from them today.
It is my understanding that the Saudi lobbyists may claim
privilege over a lot of matters today. This is unfortunate,
because when he appeared before the committee 2 months ago
Michael Petruzzello answered questions about his communications
with the Saudi Embassy staff. According to one of the Saudi
Embassy's lawyers, the Saudi government chose to disclose
information to the committee at that hearing, and it is now
choosing not to disclose information to the committee.
Now, that is a major point. The Saudis certainly aren't
obligated to raise this privilege. Why are they blocking the
committee? The answer is simple. They don't want us to know
what is in those documents.
Now, last week's hearing was useful. We heard testimony
from the world's leading authority. Now this is--I know that
somebody here is going to say that there is a question about
this lady's credentials. But let me say that she is the leading
authority in the world on the Vienna Convention, and she is
used by the government of England and the government of the
United States whenever there is a question about the Vienna
Convention.
So I know Ms. Mahoney is going to try to say that she
doesn't know what she is talking about. But I want to stress
for everybody, she is the leading authority in the world on the
Vienna Convention. So, Ms. Mahoney, when you get to that, just
bear that in mind.
Last week's hearing was useful. We heard testimony from Ms.
Eileen Denza. Professor Denza stated quite clearly that it is
not my view, and I am quoting here, it is not my view that the
documents, which are clearly in the possession of the firms
which have been subpoenaed, are entitled to inviolability. It
is also my view that the implications of accepting the
proposition put forward that these archives are inviolable
would be very far reaching and very dangerous, end quote.
Let me repeat what she said. Very far reaching and very
dangerous. When Professor Denza was asked if the Saudi legal
theory could be used to protect documents of spies and
terrorists, their theory, she said yes. I think there is no
distinction in principle.
Now, I want everyone from the State Department and the
Justice Department to hear that. Let me read that to you one
more time. That is important. She is the leading authority in
the world. When Professor Denza was asked if the Saudi legal
theory could be used to protect the documents of spies and
terrorists, we are concerned about that right now, she said
yes. I think there is no distinction of principle.
Now, I want everyone from the State Department and the
Justice Department to hear that. I presume there is some of you
here today because we asked you to be here. According to
world's leading authority on the Vienna Convention, the Saudi
theory is wrong. And it could be used to protect not only these
documents that we want, but also documents about terrorism,
espionage, and any other activity that is directed by a foreign
embassy.
The Saudi theory would also put an end to the Foreign
Agents Registration Act, a vitally important law which makes
sure that the government and the public know about the
activities of agents of foreign governments. I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses from the State Department and what
they have to stay about this matter.
Finally, I want to note that I am deeply disappointed that
the Justice Department has declined to appear at this hearing.
As I just indicated, this claim of privilege has implications
that directly impact the Justice Department and their efforts
to investigate terrorism.
However, they informed me yesterday that they would not
testify at this hearing, because they're concerned about
offering an opinion in a matter where they are later asked to
prosecute a contempt citation. If we don't get some answers, I
assure you that there will be a move to have a contempt
citation in the next Congress. I will see to that, a contempt
citation.
I don't think this objection makes very much sense. We
aren't going to ask for any advisory opinion about our
subpoena. I think that the Justice Department is really failing
to defend its considerable interest in this matter, and I can
understand the quandary that the State Department and the
Justice Department is in, especially since we have a base in
Saudi Arabia and that we may be going into a conflict with
Iraq.
So I understand that there is a lot of things in this mix.
But the thing that needs to be realized by State and Justice
and our government is there is Americans who have been
kidnapped, who have been held against their will by a
government that is supposed to be an ally of ours, and we ought
to be doing everything we can to get them back, and we should
not be closing our eyes and winking just because we have a base
there. There is a lot of places that we could put bases if we
need to do our job. We have got floating bases all over the
Persian Gulf, and we have got other places that have asked us
to put our bases in close proximity to Iraq.
So this just doesn't wash with me. As far as the issue of
oil is concerned, as I have said before, we get about 15
percent of our oil from that area right now, not the 50 some
percent we used to, and they are not in a position economically
like they were 25 or 30 years ago. They have a balance of
payments deficit instead of a surplus. So it is unbelievable to
me that our government would continue to close their eyes to
these things and try to ameliorate the situation with the
Saudis when we are talking about American citizens who are
being held against their will.
Now, before we go to our panel, I think it is important
that we once again set the stage for this hearing. So I want
the staff to show a video of some of the testimony we have had
so that anyone who is paying attention can see what we are
talking about.
So would you roll the tape, please?
[Video played.]
Mr. Burton. I think what we will do is maybe at the
conclusion of the hearing run the rest of this tape, because I
think it is very, very important that the American people who
may be watching this on C-SPAN get the flavor of really the
problem that we have.
But anyhow, to move on with the hearing, did you have any
opening statement you would like to make, Dr. Weldon?
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Weldon. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to commend you
once again for your tenacity in pursuing this issue. The
holding of American citizens hostage in Saudi Arabia is
increasingly becoming a problem. Were it not for your
leadership in bringing this to the attention of the committee
and to the Congress, I don't know if there would be any forum
for those people to really have their grievances addressed.
I do want to say at the outset that not knowing you were
going to be having this important hearing today, I scheduled a
hearing for the Civil Service Subcommittee, which will be
starting in about 20 minutes. Hopefully our hearing won't go
that long and I will be able to come back later and join you.
But I consider this issue of extreme importance, and I
yield back.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Doctor. And I appreciate your help
yesterday as well.
We will now hear testimony from our first witness panel.
Pat Roush, Margaret McClain, Michael Petruzzello, Jack
Deschauer, Jamie Gallagher, Maureen Mahoney, and Morton
Rosenberg.
So would you please rise so I can swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Burton. We have heard lengthy testimony from you, Ms.
McClain and Ms. Roush in the past. So if you could keep your
testimony, I would like to try to keep everybody to 5 minutes
today if we can so we can get to questions. So we will start
with you, Ms. McClain.
STATEMENTS OF MARGARET McCLAIN, MOTHER OF HEIDI AL-OMARY;
PATRICIA ROUSH, MOTHER OF ALIA AND AISHA GHESHAYAN; MICHAEL
PETRUZZELLO, QORVIS COMMUNICATIONS; JACK DESCHAUER, PATTON
BOGGS LLP; JAMES P. GALLAGHER, THE GALLAGHER GROUP; MORT
ROSENBERG, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE; AND MAUREEN MAHONEY,
LATHAM & WATKINS
Ms. McClain. Chairman Burton and members of the Government
Reform Committee, it was clear to everyone who was present at
these hearings last week that the Saudi's Washington public
relations firms have further damaged their credibility. Dodging
this committee's subpoenas was an inexcusable cowardly act. If
these firms and their clients of the Saudi Embassy have no
criminal activity to hide, then what are they so afraid of?
In the wake of September 11th, these firms have already
learned that their association with the criminal enterprises of
the Saudis have begun to cost them dearly in terms of their
reputations. The spate of recent defections from Qorvis by some
of the firm's brightest minds should be an indication of
troubles to come. There is an old saying where I come from: You
lie down with dogs, you get fleas.
My own relationship with the Saudis entangled me in their
web of deceit and violence, but these public relations firms
are not looking past the dollar signs in their dealings with an
extremely demonic and virulent entity.
Patton Boggs, Qorvis and the Gallagher Group are in bed
with a family reminiscent of the crime families that once held
decent Americans hostage. My daughter, Heidi, and I have lived
as hostages of the Saudis for several years. But, after
September 11th, our whole country has been prey to their
Machiavellian schemes.
These public relations firms imagine themselves to be
immune from the Saudi's venomous aims. But let me disabuse them
of that notion. The Saudis have a long history of letting
others do the dirty work for them, leaving their partners on
the short end of any deal.
When I appeared here a week ago, I was most encouraged by
the remarks of Senator Blanche Lincoln from my home State,
wherein she announced new legislation to deal with Saudi and
any our child stealers. Senator Lincoln spoke of proposed
legislation which would make it mandatory for the State
Department to deny U.S. visas not only to the kidnappers, their
accomplices, and their families, but to their employers as
well.
My child's kidnapper is employed at the ARAMCO Oil Co. I
would be only too glad to see all of the Saudi ARAMCO employees
stationed at the huge complex in Houston expelled. In addition,
any ARAMCO personnel from Dhahran which plans to travel to the
United States, including the CEO, Mr. al-Jummah, could be kept
out of our country under such legislation.
Mr. al-Jubeir from the Saudi Embassy has given his PR
advisers a mandate to try to resolve what he calls child
custody issues. This is a ridiculous statement, meant to act as
a distraction. PR firms are not law enforcement and thus hardly
qualified to handle kidnappings. Their job is to spin the news
in their client's favor, and their real mandate is to make the
whole embarrassing issue of the Saudi Embassy's complicity in
child stealing disappear.
Mr. al-Jubeir needs to be informed that there is no child
custody issue in my daughter's case. I have legal custody, and
my ex-husband willingly signed a divorce and custody decree
issued in an American court. The kidnapper held legal residency
status in the United States, and so placed himself under the
jurisdiction of American law, and even swore an oath of loyalty
to the United States. In this oath, he denied his allegiance to
the Saudi royals.
Any involvement of Saudi-financed PR firms in my daughter's
case is a blatant conflict of interest and therefore out of the
question. Furthermore, Mr. al-Jubeir's suggestions that the
National Center on Missing and Exploited Children should be
involved in negotiations for my daughter's life is totally off
base.
I ask if anyone here has wondered why al-Jubeir has been
touting the accomplishments of the International Section at the
National Center. There are personnel at the National Center who
are or have been on the Saudi Embassy payroll, who have had
access to the records of our missing children, who have stabbed
various parents in the back at one time or another, and I
reject the involvement of these Saudi plants at any cost.
Mr. al-Jubeir went on at length about a bilateral solution
to these kidnappings. Who are these bilateral players he is
talking about? Translated into ordinary English, he means that
the criminals at the Saudi Embassy, their hired guns at the PR
and detective firms, their plants in the NCMEC, their pro-Saudi
friends at the State Department, and the fugitive Saudi
kidnappers themselves will be dictating all of the terms.
Basically al-Jubeir's plan just gives the criminal who
stole my daughter a get out of jail free card. I do not believe
our government should negotiate with criminals. Nothing short
of the unconditional return of our American children is
acceptable.
Those matters are criminal cases, not child custody
disputes. If Saudi Arabia is serious about resolving these
cases, then they must send our children home immediately and
arrest and extradite the kidnappers for trial in the United
States. My daughter's kidnapper faces multiple county, State,
Federal and Interpol charges for which he must be held to
account.
In the past the Saudis mouthpieces have intercepted my e-
mails, threatened Pat Roush, Monica Stowers, Maureen Dabbagh
and me. They invade our privacy and keep voluminous files on
all of us, which they dutifully turn over to their Saudi
handlers. This brings me to one of the disturbing aspects of
the recent behavior of Qorvis, Patton Boggs and the Gallagher
Group. In reading the subpoenas issued to representatives of
the three firms, I came across a most distressing information
that these firms at the instigation of the Saudis have
apparently engaged the services of private detectives to dig up
dirt on the parents of their kidnapped victims in an attempt to
harass, intimidate and victimize us further.
Perhaps this explains the mysterious hang-up phone calls in
the middle of the night, the hacking of our computers and Web
pages, and the Arabic speaking phone stalkers that have been
pursuing some parents. In the wake of our 1998 announcement
that we would be boycotting ARAMCO's partner Texaco, one of our
missing children's Web sites was accessed thousands of times
from inside Saudi Arabia, and then repeatedly hacked.
That is when the harassment from PR began. Coincidence? I
think not. I am beginning to feel like the rape victim under
cross-examination by the rapist's lawyer. That is how I feel
about the rapacious Saudi Embassy and their lackeys. They take
sadistic pleasure in torturing and enslaving innocent women and
children and then twisting the knife in the wound.
While cash-flows from the Saudi Embassy to kidnappers and
terrorists, the wives of present and former U.S. officials have
paid a courtesy call on the Saudi Ambassador's wife to
commiserate with her in her embarrassment. Her embarrassment--
--
Mr. Burton. Could you sum up? Because, like I said, I want
to make sure that we stay as close to 5 minutes as possible.
But thank you.
Ms. McClain. Just a minute.
Mr. al-Jubeir bemoans the fact that the attitude of
Americans toward his country is bordering on hate. Let me
remind the Saudi Embassy that the murder of American civilians,
the teaching of hate against us in their schools, their
espionage on American victims, their refusal to cooperate with
the Government Reform Committee, and the stealing and selling
of our women and children, these are not conducive to a big
love fest between us and the Saudis.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McClain follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. McClain. Ms. Roush.
Ms. Roush. Good morning. I don't have a prepared statement
this morning. But I would like to make a couple of points.
First of all, Ms. Diane Andruch I see is on the witness list.
She is representing the State Department. She is the same
little lady who sat here in the last couple of hearings with
her little scarves on and her little pert hairdos.
In the meantime, she was the hatchet job lady for my
daughters and gave the order that these characters to my left
to be able to do that little deed they did to my daughters in
London. I would like for the committee to address Ms. Andruch
and ask her why she gave the order when al-Jubeir requested it
for the American Embassy to send someone to that hotel in
London to interview my daughters without my knowledge, when
Randy Carolino called me and asked me for my permission to make
this happen, and I said no, and they went ahead and did that
anyway.
The second point I would like to make is, there is a letter
here addressed to the committee chairman by Ms. Leslie Kiernan,
who is the representative of Mr. Petruzzello from Zuckerman
Spaderman. In the letter she says that the committee--Mr.
Petruzzello will appear, but she objects to the way that the
committee treated Mr. Petruzzello the last time that he was
here.
I am wondering if Ms. Kiernan and Mr. Petruzzello and the
Patton Boggs representative and Jamie Gallagher realize what
they have done to my daughters. And if they object to Mr.
Petruzzello and the others being here, as exemplified by last
week's little shenanigans with him running away, with all of
them running away from Federal marshals, what do they have to
hide?
Do they ever think about, does it ever keep them awake at
night what they have done to my innocent daughters? They object
to being here and being asked some questions from the committee
concerning this dastardly deed. I think not.
What are they hiding? Why won't they produce those
documents? I believe that these documents are so incriminating
that we can trace evidence to Prince Bandar and to al-Jubeir.
Al-Jubeir is the spin doctor who is referred to in the Weekly
Standard this week, under the article Spin Doctors, as a lying
son of a bitch. I think he is a pathological liar and a menace
to America. He has caused me and my family a great deal of
pain, and he should be held responsible for this, and he should
be kicked out of the United States persona non gratis.
And Petruzzello, the people from Patton Boggs and Jamie
Gallagher should be held responsible for what they did to my
daughters. But I can tell you one thing, Mr. Chairman, the
clock--they may think the clock is going to run out for you,
but the clock will never run out for me.
I am going to bring this to world forums, and my book is
coming out and a film. So help me God, the clock will never run
out, and they will be held responsible one way or the other.
Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Roush.
Mr. Petruzzello.
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my
name is Michael Petruzzello. I am the Managing Partner of
Qorvis Communications, an outside communications firm for the
Saudi Embassy in Washington.
I am here today in response to the committee's subpoena. As
I explained when I testified before the committee in October of
this year, Qorvis Communication was hired late last year to
assist the Saudi Embassy on media and communication matters in
the United States. The vast majority of our communications work
is related to the war on terrorism and bilateral U.S.-Saudi
relations. We do not set or implement policy.
I understand that I am being asked to testify today
regarding Qorvis' response to the committee's document subpoena
and the Vienna Convention. I am not an attorney, and I am not
the person at Qorvis who is responsible for subpoena
compliance. In addition, I am not an expert on the Vienna
Convention.
As I understand it, counsel has advised the committee that
the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia has asserted that the
documents are protected by the Vienna Convention, as well as
other legal privileges.
Pending a resolution of these legal issues between the
Embassy and the committee, Qorvis cannot produce the documents.
I do not believe I can add anything to the committee's
consideration of these legal matters.
Furthermore, as the committee is aware, I have already
testified at great length regarding the underlying child
abduction issue.
Before closing, I would like to respond to the accusation
that I acted improperly by not appearing at the hearing last
week. Nothing could be further from the truth. I worked all day
Tuesday and tried to prepare for the hearing in the event I was
called, and I did not evade service. I was home Tuesday night
and Wednesday morning.
With that, I will answer any questions I can.
Mr. Burton. The U.S. Marshal came to both your office and
your house but you say you were home?
Mr. Putnam. I was not home at that--when they came to my
house.
Mr. Burton. Well, we will ask your colleagues from the
other PR firms where they were, too, because all three of you
were missing, couldn't find you. But we will take you at your
word.
Mr. Deschauer.
Mr. Deschauer. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Weldon, I am John J.
Deschauer, Jr. I am an attorney at the law firm of Patton
Boggs. The Embassy of Saudi Arabia retained us in November 2001
to provide them with legal advice and counsel regarding
developments within the executive and legislative branches of
the U.S. Government affecting the U.S.-Saudi Arabian bilateral
relationship.
In June of this year, after your committee held its first
hearing on the subject of international child custody cases and
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we were specifically asked to
counsel the government, again through the Embassy, on the legal
issues concerning the subject of child custody, and to provide
advice to the government of Saudi Arabia on ways to bridge the
gap between two very different legal systems in ways that
protect the interests of the children in question and help to
reunite them with their families.
At the outset, let me acknowledge that it has been this
committee's personal involvement and public hearings that have
brought this very serious issue to the forefront. At the same
time as a parent myself, I have read every word spoken by the
parents who have testified before this committee. I can only
begin to imagine the pain that these people have suffered in
these cases.
While we are advising our client on the legal issues
involved, I cannot nor will I--cannot nor will not put out of
my mind the harrowing stories that these parents have hold.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia believes international child
custody is a serious global problem. It is the position of the
Saudi government, as made in their public statements, that
every effort must be made to develop a resolution that protects
and promotes the interests of the child, while recognizing the
rights of both parents.
Accordingly, our firm has been asked by our client to
provide it with legal advice concerning the subject of
international child custody, existing and potential
multilateral and bilateral frameworks, and possible U.S.-Saudi
protocols to address these issues.
You have asked me here today to testify about the
application of the Vienna Convention to the subpoena sent to
Patton Boggs on October 10, 2002 by committee counsel, James
Wilson.
The subpoena directs a variety of documents relating to
this firm's representation of the Royal Embassy of Saudi
Arabia. I am not an expert in either Vienna Convention or the
attorney-client privilege. I have attempted to address these
issues in my written statement.
I would also like to address the circumstances surrounding
last week's hearing. I want to make it clear that I am
appearing voluntarily, that my inability to appear last week
was the result of a last-minute notice and a long-planned
personal trip, and that the embassy in no way instructed or
otherwise encouraged me not to appear.
I am here voluntarily today and ready to answer your
questions within the bounds of my ethical obligations to my
client.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Deschauer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Deschauer.
Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Weldon, my name is Jamie
Gallagher. I am 39 years old, self-employed in a consultant and
lobbying business, the Gallagher Group, LLC. I am not a lawyer.
My counsel, James D. Wareham, is here with me today.
For 4\1/2\ years, I served as the Senior Policy Analyst for
the Republican Study Committee here in the U.S. House of
Representatives. During that period, Mr. Chairman, you served
as the Study Committee's vice chairman, and I was fortunate to
work closely with you and your staff on a wide range of issues.
From there I served as Director of Congressional Affairs at
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission from 1991
and 1993. I then joined the staff of Senator Judd Gregg, your
former colleague, as Legislative Director.
I subsequently served as his Administrative Assistant, and
ran his Washington, DC, office. In 1995, I joined the lobbying
firm of Boland and Madigan as a vice president. In January
2000, I left Boland and Madigan to fulfill my entrepreneurial
dreams and start my own lobbying and consulting business.
On November 15, 2001, I was retained by the Royal Embassy
of Saudi Arabia, through Qorvis Communications, LLC, to advise
the Embassy on its relationship with the U.S. Congress, and to
a lesser extent with the executive branch. I often confer with
Members of Congress and their staff on matters of mutual
interest.
On October 8, 2002, this committee subpoenaed the Gallagher
Group in connection with its investigation of whether any
children of Saudi and American parents who are being kept by
one parent in Saudi Arabia wish to return to the United States,
but have been prevented from doing so.
I was not retained by the Embassy to advise them on the
handling of cases under investigation and have no direct
knowledge about any of those cases.
Immediately after receiving the subpoena, I gathered all
documents requested by the committee. All of the documents were
prepared or maintained in my capacity as a registered agent of
the Embassy. Upon learning of this committee's demand for
documents belonging to the Embassy, the Saudi Ambassador wrote
me on October 21, 2002, to request that I refrain from
producing the documents to this committee, because they are
protected by the Vienna Convention.
After reviewing analyses prepared by counsel for the
Embassy, a letter prepared by the staff of this committee, and
consultation with my own counsel, I concluded I must honor the
Saudi Ambassador's request. I am not a lawyer and I know very
little about the complexities of the Vienna Convention.
U.S. Department of State, the Department of Justice and the
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia are far more competent than I to
express a view on the scope of the Vienna Convention. As I
understand it, both the Departments of State and Justice
believe the Embassy has raised this issue in good faith, and
both agencies are in the process of carefully studying the
Convention and analogous legal precedents.
I hold the institution of the House of Representatives in
highest possible esteem. Indeed, I spent many years working as
a staff and the Members in this body. I believe firmly,
however, that I am not qualified to address the legal questions
addressed by this committee's effort to obtain access to
documents belonging to and reflecting confidential advice
provided to the Saudi Embassy. In addition, I have not been
involved in handling the cases that are at the core of this
committee's investigation.
In conclusion, I am appearing here today to be interrogated
on a highly technical legal matter with which I am nearly
entirely unfamiliar. I ask the committee to respect the
position that I am in and recognize the limited value to be
afforded by my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Deschauer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Mr. Gallagher, before we go to Mr. Rosenberg, I
would just like to ask you, you do know that when an agency or
an individual gets a subpoena from the U.S. Congress and they
refuse to honor that subpoena, they run the risk of being held
in contempt by the Congress. You do understand that?
Mr. Gallagher. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I just wanted to make sure that you understood
that, because the Saudi Government, even though the they are a
client of yours, they are asking you not to do that, they have
no authority to put you in legal jeopardy. But the subpoena
that we have sent does, and we intend to pursue those
documents, because we think they are very important as far as
these women and kids are concerned.
Mr. Rosenberg.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Weldon. My name
is Morton Rosenberg. I am a specialist in American public law
at the Congressional Research Service at the Library of
Congress.
You have asked me here today to address two legal questions
that have been raised in your proceedings. One is the lack of
the authority to hold this hearing and to issue subpoenas
during an adjournment of the Congress and to enforce those
subpoenas.
And, second, you have asked me to say something about the
efficacy of the attorney/client privilege claims before
congressional committees. I have submitted a written statement
which at length deals with these issues. I will shorten,
briefly give you my conclusions.
The Patton Boggs assertion to your committee that your
committee has no authority to engage in investigative oversight
activity after the adjournment sine die of the House appears to
lack a substantive basis. It is founded essentially on two
Office of Legal Counsel opinions, the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel opinions which rely essentially on the
fact that when Congress adjourns it can't pass any laws. And
from that they deduce that not being able to pass laws, they
can't do oversight, they can't investigate, they can't prepare
for when Congress comes back in session.
This is, of course, reputed by the fact that we are here
today. That is some evidence of your authority. But the House
and the Senate, by rules of their respective Houses, have
authorized all of their standing committees to meet, hold
investigative hearings, and to issue subpoenas during
adjournments and recesses.
Those rules are authorized by the Congress, which
authorizes each House to promulgate rules for their activities.
The allowance of committees to operate during recesses and
adjournments have been recognized as far as back as 1790 by
Thomas Jefferson in his writings. Indeed, if a proper contempt
resolution is issued by a standing committee during this
adjournment period, it may be reported by the Speaker of the
House, who after due consideration of the committee's report,
may forward it to the U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia for prosecution.
The only pertinent court opinion on the Senator Bayh issue
supports your legislative authority. In that opinion, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an order of a direct
court which challenged the right of a committee to act during a
recess in the efficacy of a subpoena and said that court rather
surprisingly denies the right of Congress to conduct business
through its committees after it adjourns, even though all
adjournment means is that the Congress is in recess. The
Congress does not end until the congressional term expires. In
this year it's January 3rd.
With respect to the congressional practice with respect to
the common law testimonial privileges, that also has been
recognized as being a matter that is in the discretion of the
Chair and ultimately in the committee that is issuing
subpoenas. Your committee and other committees, especially over
the last--this discretion has been recognized since the 19th
century, and over the last 25 years has been developed
extensively, to the extent that committees like yours test each
assertion of attorney-client privilege, which is welcomed
individually, with particular regard whether a court would
accept such a claim.
On the basis of the record before you, it would appear
quite unlikely that the three firms retained by the Saudi
embassy would meet the high burden necessary to establish such
a claim. Of significant import, I believe, is the
correspondence with the--the correspondence with the committee
does not indicate that the firms are doing predominantly legal
work for the Embassy but rather lobbying work or consulting
work which courts have consistently found insufficient to
invoke the privilege.
You have invited, however, in your subpoenas and in your
letters, these firms to present privilege logs, which hopefully
would establish that they are doing actual legal work for the
Embassy, and those, you know, could be considered by you then.
As of now, though, it's my understanding that there has been no
attempt to support their claims.
I would be pleased to answer questions about both of these
legal issues if you wish.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg; and we appreciate
always your legal expertise and the information you give this
committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenberg follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Ms. Mahoney.
Ms. Mahoney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Maureen Mahoney, and I'm an attorney at the law
firm of Latham & Watkins. I have represented the Embassy on
issues pertaining to sovereign immunity and diplomatic unity
for over 20 years now. I am predominantly a constitutional and
appellate lawyer, but I consider myself an expert on these
issues.
I want to acknowledge at the outset that we understand that
these are very important issues for the committee, and they are
very important for the U.S. State Department and for all
foreign embassies in the United States and abroad. We don't
take lightly the invocation of these lives, but I've studied
these matters in great depth, and I want the chairman to
understand that it is personally my opinion that the Embassy
has properly interpreted the treaty and that it would be a
breach of this treaty for the committee to try to hold these
consultants and lawyers in contempt for failure to produce the
documents that have been requested. I truly believe that. I
think it's the right answer, and I think if we litigated this
issue ultimately a court would decide in our favor.
I have attached to my testimony two letters that I've
written to the committee which explain the legal issues in some
great depth, and I would ask that they be entered into the
record of this hearing.
I'd like to address three basic issues.
The first is why I think that our interpretation of the
committee--of the convention, of the treaty, is the correct
one, why it's reasonable, most consistent with the language and
purposes. Second, I'd like to talk a little bit about Professor
Denza's opinion, which I understand you are relying upon quite
heavily, and explain why I don't think it's persuasive. And,
third, I'd like to talk a little bit about the issue of what
implications our assertion of privilege has here for espionage
and terrorist investigations, that sort of thing.
First, I just want to put in the most plain and practical
terms what the issue here is, and it's really whether the
Vienna Convention, which is a very broad convention that's
designed to promote diplomatic relations in the United States,
protects an embassy's right to consult with local advisers in
this country and in other countries on a confidential basis,
whether that's something that the convention is designed to
promote. This answer affects not only the interests of the
Saudi Embassy but every embassy here in the United States in
the conduct of foreign affairs here and throughout the world.
I'd like to make the first point, which is the language of
the convention strongly supports the Embassy's interpretation
in this case in two respects. First, Article 24 makes it
explicit that the archives and documents of the mission, the
documents of the mission are inviolable at any time and
wherever they may be. It is not simply documents that are in
the possession of the Embassy but also documents that belong to
the Embassy that are located someplace else.
Article 27 says that the U.S. Government, the receiving
state, must promote and protect free communication on the part
of the mission for all official purposes. That makes it clear
that one of the responsibilities of the United States as a
nation is to make sure that diplomatic missions can do their
job by having free communication; and courts have repeatedly
said that means--can mean confidential communication if there's
a need for it in order to perform their functions.
In addition, the express purposes of the convention are
very important, because our courts repeatedly say that treaties
have to be interpreted in a manner that promotes the purposes
of the convention, and here the express purpose is to ensure
the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic
missions. Those functions are broadly defined to include
ascertaining by all lawful means, conditions and developments
in the host country, negotiating with the government of the
host country and promoting friendly relations between both
countries. These purposes are directly implicated here.
Looking at the purposes, I think we have to recognize that,
especially for countries that have cultures that are more
different than our own, there is a great need to have local
expertise, to have American advisers. Now, the Embassy could
hire these advisers on a part-time basis and have them be at
the Embassy, but there's no reason in the law why they should
be required to do that in order to get their services. Instead,
it is commonplace for embassies, and I think for the U.S.
Government as well, to hire consultants, local experts, on a
contractual basis to serve as agents; and that's what they have
done here.
Chairman Henry Hyde of the House International Relations
Committee recently held hearings about the importance of
improved public relations to U.S. foreign policy and explained
the need to hire these very kinds of experts to help advise the
United States how to promote its foreign policy interests
throughout the world. So I don't care that the Saudi Government
is the only government that has a need for outside expertise.
The question, then, really is, is there a need for these
communications to be confidential?
I think, Mr. Chairman, you've recognized before that things
work best if there can be candid advice from advisers about how
to proceed, to make recommendations about what is the best
course of proceeding in these child custody matters and
elsewhere. They can't get that candid advice if they're not
going to be able to have confidential communications.
There is right now--in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has
said that it is too plain to question whether there is a need
for governments to have confidential communications when trying
to decide how to proceed. Right now, we are in the middle of a
circumstance where this committee is investigating these issues
and where the Saudi government is attempting to negotiate a
resolution with the State Department, and yet the committee
says it wants to see the confidential communications that
relate to this ongoing diplomatic negotiation. That would
seriously undermine the ability of the Embassy to get candid
and confidential communications.
I have to acknowledge that there has not been a U.S. court
that has directly addressed this issue, but that doesn't say
that there isn't strong support for our interpretation in a
variety of contexts. And the reason it hasn't been addressed I
think is because it hasn't been done before. I don't believe
this committee, or at least not that I know of, has ever tested
the Vienna Convention in this way before by seeking these kinds
of confidential documents from an embassy's consultants.
But I think the important thing here is to understand that
in a variety of contexts the executive branch and U.S. courts
have recognized the need for confidential communications when
deliberating about issues of diplomatic negotiations. This goes
all the way back to 1796 when George Washington refused to
provide information to Congress relating to ongoing diplomatic
negotiations and said that these kinds of negotiations often
depend on secrecy and a full disclosure of all the measures,
demands or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or
contemplated might have a pernicious influence----
Mr. Burton. Would the gentlelady yield just a moment?
Wasn't George Washington, in effect, using executive privilege
as the President in that case?
Ms. Mahoney. Yes, he was.
Mr. Burton. Well, we're not talking about executive--the
President using executive authority in this particular case.
Ms. Mahoney. Mr. Chairman, what we're talking about is a
convention that says that the U.S. Government has an obligation
to protect and promote free communications for official
purposes by a government, by a sovereign. This is a foreign
sovereign, and the point here is that as part far back as 1796
George Washington told this Congress that it would undermine
the operations of the U.S. Government to share that
information, very similar information, with congressional
committees, even though they were on the same team, and yet----
Mr. Burton. Ms. Mahoney, we've gone beyond the 5 minutes,
but you and I can have a little dialog here, because I think
it's very important that we go into this in some detail. It
sounds like to me that the Saudi Embassy is prepared, using you
as their legal adviser, to go to court to try to protect these
documents, and I can understand that. And whether or not I
agree with you or whether or not Ms. Denza agrees with you,
who's the foremost expert on the Vienna Convention, the fact of
the matter is this could be tied up in court for a long time
and this could end up being a moot point.
So let me just ask you this. Let's just say, for example,
that the Saudi Embassy and the Saudi Government knew something
about the 15 terrorists from Saudi Arabia that blew up the
World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon here in the United
States and let's say there was some correspondence that was
transmitted between their lobbying firm and the Saudi Embassy
that may have shed some light on this. And let's just say that
there might be some more possible terrorist attacks that might
be in the offing that might be enumerated or, if not
enumerated, maybe some information might be in those documents
that would lead us to preventing the possible attack that might
occur. Are you telling us that, because of this privilege, we
couldn't get that information, the U.S. Congress?
Ms. Mahoney. Mr. Chairman, if the Saudi Government has
retained agents in the United States to assist in the--in acts
of terrorism, that agency relationship would be void for
illegality from the get-go. There would be no protection for
documents in the possession of the third party under those
circumstances. I do not believe that an American court would
say that under those circumstances that was a proper agency
relationship or that the documents would be the property of the
Embassy.
Mr. Burton. So now we're talking about kidnapped children,
kidnapped from the United States. Now, can you tell me the
difference?
Ms. Mahoney. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Wait a second. We're talking about breaking a
law with the complicit support of the Saudi Embassy. In the
case of the Terre Hautean young woman, her daughters were
taken, three of them. The court of jurisdiction had contacted
the Saudi Embassy, told them that they were not to take those
children out of the country. They knew of the divorce decree
and who had custody. The father said he wouldn't take them out
of the country. He went directly to the Saudi Embassy, got
three passports for the children, and the mother hasn't seen
them since. They're in Saudi Arabia. Now, that's a kidnapping
case. Now, we're talking the difference here between a
terrorist case and a kidnapping case, and I want you to define
the difference.
Ms. Mahoney. Mr. Chairman, these consultants and lawyers
have not been hired to assist the Saudi Embassy in kidnapping.
Mr. Burton. Well, we don't know what's in those
transmissions. We don't know what's in that correspondence.
Just like if there was a terrorist involvement and that
correspondence took place, we wouldn't know that unless we saw
the documents.
Ms. Mahoney. Mr. Chairman, there are a variety of sources
of information; and courts often draw lines based on the
information that the U.S. Government has. The U.S. Government
doesn't have any information that these firms, which have been
assisting the Saudi Embassy and responding to your concerns and
working with the State Department, have been hired as part of
an illegal scheme to engage in criminal wrongdoing----
Mr. Burton. Ms. Mahoney, let me just say this. We talked to
Mr. Petruzzello when he was last here and he said he didn't
know anything about a lot of these issues, but when we pushed
him, he told us he was involved in the writing of letters, in
the writing of all kinds of documents that showed very clearly
that the Saudi Government was not involved in any way and was
not guilty of involving themselves in these things. I mean, he
was involved--and he said that under oath--he was involved in
writing these documents.
Now, why, if he was involved in these documents, would that
not be a part of the problem?
Ms. Mahoney. Well, because he wasn't hired to commit
illegal acts, Mr. Chairman. That--I don't think there's been
any suggestion that there is evidence to indicate that these
consultants and lawyers have been hired to----
Mr. Burton. But that's not the point. But he may, through
the correspondence he may have, be aware, or his firm may have
in their possession, evidence about illegal acts. Just like if
there was a terrorist attack and there was some correspondence
that might be relevant to that, they would have that in their
files as well. So I don't see the difference.
Ms. Mahoney. Mr. Chairman, the Embassy could certainly
have--any embassy, not the Saudi Embassy, any embassy in the
United States could have information that the U.S. Government
might like to have, documents that are in their possession or
that they own that are located elsewhere, but that doesn't mean
what the U.S. Government is entitled to have them. It is a
signed treaty that says it will respect the protections of the
treaty, and those protections require the United States to
promote and protect free communication, and they also require
them to respect the inviolability of documents that belong to
the Embassy how and where they're located.
Mr. Burton. I won't belabor this. I will just say that I
have heard of your credentials. I know that you're a very, very
brilliant attorney and you've done an outstanding job over the
last several years, many years, and you've represented the
Saudi Embassy many times and I think you acquit yourself very,
very well. But the fact of the matter is the foremost authority
in the world on the Vienna Convention testified last year that
she does not agree with your--but you are being paid by the
Saudi Embassy, which you've admitted, and I understand you're
going to take their position, and I understand that it's likely
that if we press this that you'll go to court to keep the
American people from knowing what was in those--that
correspondence.
Now, let me just go on, because I feel very strongly about
this. We have here women who have had their children kidnapped
while under a court order to stay in the United States. Their
kids have not been seen since and may never be seen again. They
can't even talk to these kids. Some of these women that I
talked to in Saudi Arabia told me that their lives were
threatened on a regular basis by their husbands if they didn't
walk the talk and do exactly what they said.
If you lived in Saudi Arabia, if you lived there and was
married to a Saudi and he said, ``Don't leave the house,'' and
you did, there's nothing the government could do if he beat the
hell out of you and made your life a hell on earth. And you're
an American citizen, and we've got American citizens over there
that are suffering like that right now, and we're trying every
way we can to get these kids and these women back.
One woman told me she wanted to be put in a box with her
kids and sent out of the country in the belly of a plane, if
necessary. She said, anything to get us out of here because of
the hell we're living in. And it was not an isolated case. And
the bottom line is all of these machinations that are taking
place right now by the Saudi government, their lobbyists and
you--I'm sure they're legal, but the point is, wrong is being
done, and they can't get their kids back, and all these
roadblocks that are being thrown up, and you're--I'm sure you
could throw up a legal roadblock that would tie this thing up,
and you probably will, for months.
And the thing that bothers me is nothing is going to be
done about these kids or these women--nothing--and you keep
saying the State Department is responsible for doing that.
Well, I agree, they should be putting pressure on them, but
they haven't done anything, and our Justice Department isn't
doing anything. And, God forbid, the administration really
hasn't done much, and I have high regard for it. But the fact
of the matter is these kids aren't coming home. They're
American citizens.
We had one case where a woman went to get her kids, took
them to the Embassy, said, this is American soil, we want our
kids to go--we want to go to America; and the Embassy official
had a Marine pick the kids up and take them to the front gate.
The woman was arrested, and the kids were sent back. The girl
was 12 years old, and because there was a reprisal that was
going to take place, the father married her off at 12 years old
to a man she didn't even know.
Now, you know, that sort of thing goes on, and what you're
saying now is that the Saudi Arabian Government has a legal
right for us not to get documents that may or may not prove
that they were complicit in this kidnapping, and kidnapping is
a felony, and you're saying that there's a difference between
that and terrorist activity. And I just don't see the
difference.
Ms. Mahoney. Mr. Chairman, if the Saudi Embassy was
complicit, by, for instance, issuing a visa, that is not
kidnapping under U.S. law. I mean, there is a case on this in
the Ninth Circuit----
Mr. Burton. It wasn't a visa. It was a passport.
Ms. Mahoney. Well, whatever. I mean, I think the point is
the same. These are serious issues. They're obviously serious
issues. It's commendable for the committee to look into them,
but, at the same time, it is the responsibility of the U.S.
Government to honor its obligations under the treaty to go
about its processes in a way where it acquires the information
in a manner that's consistent with the treaty.
The Saudi Government has offered to provide information in
a variety of different ways; and I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I
was very troubled by the letter that I received from counsel
for your staff today and by the opening comments that
essentially said that the fact that I have tried to reach some
sort of compromise that would allow the committee to get access
to underlying facts without having to disclose the confidential
deliberations that are reflected in these documents was an
indication that the Embassy didn't really care about
inviolability after all, that this wasn't really important----
Mr. Burton. Well, let me comment about that letter, because
I approved it. I approved that letter, so don't blame the
counsel. Blame me.
Let me just tell you this. The Embassy said that they would
give these documents to a third party, and the third party
would give us information of those documents that was relevant
to our investigation. The problem with that, counsel, is that
we don't know that the third party is going to give us all of
the information that's relevant to our investigation. We don't
know that the third party is going to be honorable.
The Saudi Government has paid $200,000 to Mr. Petruzzello's
firm a month--I don't know how much he's paying to everybody
else or you, but I don't know whoever the third party that
would get these documents might not be getting a pretty good
hunk of money from them as well.
Now, let me just finish--and, as a result, this committee
is trying to find out why these kids are stuck over in Saudi
Arabia and these women are stuck over in Saudi Arabia. We might
never get the facts.
Now, I don't know whether you're aware of it, and this is a
little different subject, but the Saudi Embassy and the Saudi
Government has been faced with a lot of problems lately.
One of the problems is, after a suicide bomber blows up
themselves, killing a lot of people in the Middle East, they
end up paying the family some money, because they've gone
through some suffering.
Also, the Saudi Ambassador, Mr. Bandar, to the United
States, his wife gave money to some people that was a conduit,
we believe, to the terrorists that attacked us on September
11th at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Now, both of those things are in question right now. So,
you know, we don't have the greatest feeling of honesty and
integrity coming out of the Saudi Embassy.
Then we have an expert from the Vienna Convention that says
we're entitled to these documents that we have subpoenaed from
these lobbyists who are getting $200,000 a month, and what do
we get? We get nothing but a person coming up here whose
expertise on the Vienna Convention may be very good, but you're
certainly not known as the foremost authority. But you said
very clearly that if this is tested in court, in court, that
you feel like your position would be upheld.
Now, there's a--I know you don't mean it this way, but
there's an implied threat there that if we pursue this, this is
going to end up in court and it will drag on for months and
months and months and maybe years. You know what I'm talking
about. You know how the courts are. And so these women and
these kids aren't coming home, and the Saudi Government once
again with their money and their stonewalling will be able to
stop the American government through our very good, open, legal
system from getting to the truth and getting to an honest
resolution of this.
The fact of the matter is, these are American citizens
we're talking about who are there against their will, who want
to come home, and they can't, and the Saudi Government is
blocking it. And you're going to do a great job, I'm sure, as
you have in the past, legally to make sure that happens.
Ms. Mahoney. Mr. Chairman, could I respond for a moment to
Professor Denza's opinion? I promise to be brief.
But you have referred to her so many times as the leading
authority, and I do think it's very important to point out that
Professor Denza's opinion about this actually changed several
times and that it was not actually firmly grounded in the
language or purposes of the Convention. And, in particular,
when you sent a letter sending her opinion in the first
instance, you said, Professor Denza believes that the most
relevant precedent supports the committee's position. It was a
decision by a British court that she had relied upon in her
opinion to say that any document an embassy voluntarily gives
to a third property cannot be the property of the embassy under
Article 24.
But she actually misread the holding of that case, Mr.
Chairman. In fact, the court actually held that the, ``property
in the document,'' would pass to a third-party recipient, ``in
the absence of any relationship of principal and agent.''
That's exactly what we have here, is documents that are
passing between the principal and the agent. So the case--the
one case she said was relevant actually supports our
interpretation, not hers. So------
Mr. Burton. Ms. Mahoney, we're not here today to get into
the legal arguments that you may be preparing for a court of
law, and we don't have the time to go into all the legal fine
points about this. So let me go on and get on with the other
questions that we want to ask the panel, because we're going to
be here a long time. We'll get back to you with some more
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mahoney follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. Judge Duncan, did you have a question? And then
I'll go to you, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Duncan. I don't really have any questions at this point
except to say that I certainly appreciate your holding this
hearing; and, in fact, as I have said several times before, I
have been so impressed by the issues that you take up. In fact,
my staff didn't tell me about the hearing in Boston or I would
have tried to go up there for that hearing, and I was--as you
know, I've been very interested in the subject that you had a
hearing on yesterday, but I wasn't able to come. But this is
very, very important, the issues that you're dealing with here
today.
You know, I spent 7\1/2\ years as a circuit court judge in
Tennessee before coming to Congress and several years in law
practice before that, and I think one of the things that is
frustrating or surprising to a lot of people who aren't
lawyers, they think that the law is all black and white, and
it's really not. Most of American law is in really a gray area,
and on most issues I can find about as many cases, even U.S.
Supreme Court cases, supporting one side as supporting the
other.
But I will tell you this. And I have to admit I did not
handle a lot of domestic cases. I did some, but that was not an
area of the law that I particularly enjoyed, but I will tell
you that I know from law school and from the cases that I
handled that in the law of domestic relations it is said over
and over and over and over and over again in almost every case
that the interests of the child are paramount. That's the main
thing that courts are supposed to take into consideration in
custody cases or in the disputes over children, what is in the
best interest of the child, or what's in the best interest of
the children.
I think in this area it is certain, and there's no question
that it's in the best interest of these children to have
relationships with both their mothers and their fathers.
They're not getting that now. These--we've heard testimony of
children that have been taken away in the middle of the night
or surreptitiously and haven't seen their mothers for many,
many years; and we've heard some pretty sad and very compelling
testimony. And I can tell you this. It's my strong opinion, and
I believe that of the chairman also, that our State Department
can and should be--could and should be doing a whole lot more
in this regard, and if Saudi Arabia is really the ally that
they want us to think that they are, then the Saudi Arabian
government should and could be doing much more in regard to
these children.
So I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing,
and I hope that we will keep on this--keep on top of this until
something more is done to help these children. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Judge.
Judge, could you--I'm going to need you to take the Chair.
I have to step out for just a minute.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these
hearings. I think they are extremely important.
I was back here on October 3rd, and I've listened to the
testimony of the children, and I agree with you, Congressman
Duncan. I practiced law for about 20 years before coming to the
Congress and a lot of domestic law; and the key phrase is, what
is in the best interest of the child? This is a frustrating
process for us, watching this go on, to hear the testimony of
mothers who haven't seen their children for years.
Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to read my statement and then
I'll just listen in.
The House Government Reform Committee has held several
hearings to look into the recurring problem of abduction of
American children to Saudi Arabia. These children, because of
Saudi law, are not free to leave Saudi Arabia despite being
U.S. citizens and having a custody order from an American court
giving their non-Saudi parent custody.
Most custody cases in Saudi Arabia are handled by Islamic
law, where the father retains legal custody. According to the
State Department, there are 47 cases in which more than 90 U.S.
citizens are being held in Saudi Arabia.
We meet today to examine the legal arguments the Saudi
Government has put forth as grounds for directing its
representatives not to comply with a congressional subpoena.
After the October 3rd hearing, Chairman Burton issued
document subpoenas to Qorvis Communications, Patton Boggs and
The Gallagher Group, the three principal firms representing
Saudi Arabia and the country's interest regarding the abduction
issue. The subpoenas sought the firms' documents regarding
their activities on the abduction cases. The three firms have
refused to comply with the subpoenas. The primary basis for
their refusal to turn over the documents is an instruction by
the Saudi Ambassador to invoke his government's privileges
under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. They have
claimed that their documents are, ``documents and archives,''
of the Saudi Embassy and that such documents in the hands of
outside law and public relations firms are protected,
``documents of the mission,'' under the treaty.
Mr. Chairman, I was very frustrated after that October
hearing when Mr. Michael Petruzzello, who is before us again
today, could not or would not answer the questions put forth to
him regarding the abduction cases. I hope it is not the case
today and that all of the agents of the Saudi Government
testifying today will be more forthcoming. Last week we heard
from Pat Roush and Margaret McClain who recounted their
hardships in trying to secure the return of their children out
of Saudi Arabia. I am happy to see them here again today.
Mr. Chairman, it is hard to say if parental child abduction
is increasing or if the public simply has become more aware of
the problem. I believe that by shining the spotlight on
parental abductions of American children to Saudi Arabia by
this committee will bring this issue to the forefront and
persuade the State and Justice Departments to reevaluate their
policies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I yield back.
Mr. Duncan [presiding]. I think what we're going to do at
this point, we're going to take a very brief, about 5-minute
break, until Chairman Burton can return. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burton [presiding]. If we could, I'd like to get the
panelists back to the table so we could ask some questions.
Maybe some people have gone to the ladies' room or something or
the men's room. If that's the case, we'll wait just a couple
more minutes. Sorry I had to leave the chamber, but I had
something else that came up. Since we're in--since a lot of
Members aren't here, we have to handle it the best way we can.
Is everybody back? We still have some people missing. OK.
I'm going to ask some questions that may not seem relevant
at the outset, but there's a reason for them, so I hope you'll
bear with me as I ask these questions.
Mr. Petruzzello, Prince Nayef of the Saudi Interior
Ministry recently stated that, ``Jews have exploited the
September 11th events to undermine the image of Arabs before
the American people to institute the latter against the Arabs
and Muslims.'' The question is, who perpetrated the September
11th events and who were the beneficiaries? I think it was the
Jews themselves. Mr. Petruzzello, do you agree with Prince
Nayef's analysis of September 11th?
Mr. Petruzzello. I believe bin Laden and Al Qaeda committed
that act. I believe that he has admitted to it, and I believe--
I don't know what to add beyond that.
Mr. Burton. How about you, Mr. Deschauer?
Mr. Deschauer. Absolutely not.
Mr. Burton. How about you, Mr. Gallagher?
Mr. Gallagher. I don't believe his statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Do you believe that kind of a statement should
be condemned?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Deschauer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallagher. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Prince Nayef is one of the main officials
responsible for tracking down Al Qaeda terrorists inside of
Saudi Arabia. Now, how can he do a good job if he believes that
the Jews and the Jewish state are responsible for September
11th?
Mr. Deschauer. Sir, I have no personal knowledge of the
operations of Saudi law enforcement.
Mr. Burton. Well, my staff received a call Monday from
someone named Issa Nakhleh who describes himself as the legal
adviser to the Saudi mission to the United Nations. Do you know
if a man named Nakhleh is the legal adviser to the Saudi
mission at the U.N.?
Mr. Petruzzello. Never heard of him.
Mr. Deschauer. I've never heard of him, sir.
Mr. Gallagher. Never heard of him, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Nakhleh told my staff that there are no
kidnappings and that international law allows the Saudi father
to take his children back to Saudi Arabia regardless of U.S.
custody orders.
Mr. Petruzzello, do you believe that there are no
kidnappings?
Mr. Petruzzello. I believe there have been kidnappings.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Deschauer.
Mr. Deschauer. Sir, based on the testimony of the
witnesses, yes, there have been children.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. I agree with his statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Petruzzello, you testified at the last
hearing that the Saudi Government understood how important this
matter was and that they are working hard on it. How is it
that--how is it possible if a Saudi legal adviser claims that
there are no kidnappings? I mean, how is that possible? I mean,
you have the head of the Saudi legal--the equivalent of our FBI
and you represent that government. How is it that's possible if
the Saudi legal adviser claims there are no kidnappings?
Doesn't that show an inconsistency? I mean, you've heard the
testimony. You agree there were kidnappings. The government
you're representing says there are no kidnappings.
Mr. Petruzzello. Who is this, the legal adviser that said
this?
Mr. Burton. He's a man--we have his letter here. Where is
his letter? I'll put that in the record. Just 1 second. It's
exhibit No. 25. You probably don't have those exhibits in front
of you, do you?
Let me have a copy of that. Here we are.
His name is Issa Nakhleh. He's in New York. He's a
barrister at law, and he says that--he says that he's legal
adviser to the Saudi Arabian mission to the United Nations, and
he says there are no kidnappings. And you say you don't agree
with that.
[Exhibit 25 follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Petruzzello. I've never heard of him. I have no idea
what he wrote to you.
Mr. Burton. Well, he represents their government, to a
degree, at the U.N. bcause he's a legal adviser. But you've
never heard of him.
You testified at the last hearing that the Saudi Government
understood how important this matter was and that they're
working hard on it. How is it that if they're working hard on
it nothing seems to be happening?
Mr. Petruzzello. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. What is the
question?
Mr. Burton. You testified that the Saudi Government
understood how important these kidnappings are and these
custody matters are and that they were working hard on it. How
is it that since you were last here--it's been, what, 2 months
now--nothing has happened?
Mr. Petruzzello. I believe I testified that the government
takes this issue seriously. They have activities going on.
There's people and resources dedicated to the issue.
Mr. Burton. The problem is there has been no child, none,
returned, not one. There has been no evidence whatsoever that
the Saudi Government is trying to get these kids back to their
mother who has custodial rights according to U.S. courts when
they were kidnapped from here. So how is it that the Saudi
government is working hard on this? You're representing them.
You talk to them. I imagine you talk to Prince Bandar and the
others over there. What are they doing that's working hard on
it?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, we all hope that these cases
get resolved, and, you know--I mean, I understood that they're
complex cases. I don't know why they're not getting resolved.
Mr. Burton. But you said they're working hard on it. What
evidence do you have that they're working hard on it?
Mr. Petruzzello. Well, that they have people in the Embassy
working on this, that they have an ad hoc test group in Saudi
Arabia that has dedicated the issue----
Mr. Burton. So you have firsthand knowledge, then--
secondhand knowledge, then, from talking to them that they have
people working on this?
Mr. Petruzzello. They've said that publicly.
Mr. Burton. Is there any manifestation that they're
accomplishing anything? Or are they just buying time?
Mr. Deschauer. The government has said that they're
committed to solving this and----
Mr. Burton. Pull the mic a little closer.
Mr. Deschauer. Sir, the government has made public
statements that they're committed to solving this. The Foreign
Minister presented a letter to the Secretary of State
suggesting the establishment of a working group. My
understanding is that the Secretary of State replied. The
Embassy has designated two officials in the Embassy to work
with the State Department. My understanding, again, secondhand,
is that they've been in contact--regular contact now with the
State Department Office of Children Services.
These issues have been around for years, as you've
correctly pointed out, but we believe that the government of
Saudi Arabia is----
Mr. Burton. Would you pull your mic a little closer? They
can't hear you.
Well, the government's also said, according to their--the
head of their FBI over there, that the Jews were responsible
for the attack on the United States on September 11th, and
that's--that kind of calls into question whether or not they're
really, really going at this in an aggressive manner if they're
not telling the truth about something as serious as what
happened on September 11th.
I mean, I have not--you would think that this committee
would be the first organization to know if they were really
pursuing this. And although they say they've talked to the
State Department and they've got some kind of working group, we
have heard nothing, we have seen nothing, and we've been
constantly trying to get information on this from you folks as
well as others, and there's been nothing that we've found that
shows that there's any movement whatsoever.
Mr. Deschauer. Well, sir, the State Department is on the
second panel, so I'll defer. I'm not going to----
Mr. Burton. Well, we'll ask them about that. We'll ask the
State Department about that.
Mr. Nakhleh also suggests that this investigation is a
result of Congress being controlled by the Israeli lobby. Have
you heard anything like that, or have they said anything to you
like that?
Mr. Deschauer. Sir, I've never heard of this gentleman.
I've never had any contact with this gentleman. This name is
never heard. I've never heard this name.
Mr. Burton. Well, we're in the process of contacting the
people at the U.N. to find out what capacity he is in as far as
the Saudi Government is concerned.
At the last hearing, Mr. Gallagher, we questioned Mr.
Petruzzello about the statement made by Prince Bandar in the
Wall Street Journal that some have charged that Saudi Arabia is
holding Americans against their will. This is absolutely not
true. Mr. Gallagher, do you believe that Prince Bandar's
statement is accurate, that no Americans are being held against
their will?
Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, I believe--I have no firsthand
knowledge of that statement, but I do believe, Mr. Chairman, as
I stated previously, that--in response to your question, that
there are cases of kidnapping of children.
Mr. Burton. So then Prince Bandar, who is the Ambassador to
the United States, when he made that comment to the Wall Street
Journal was not telling the truth?
Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, I have no--I've not spoken to
Prince Bandar about this issue ever, and I have no firsthand
knowledge as to what information he was given in order to make
that statement.
Mr. Burton. I know that you're all in a difficult position
when we ask you these questions, because you're lobbyists for
the Saudi Government and you're getting money from them, and
that's how you make your living. I understand that, and they
pay you pretty handsomely. But the fact of the matter is you're
the people that represent them and try to make sure that they
have a positive image here in the United States. Prince Bandar
has been the Ambassador to the United States for a long, long
time; and he said, quote, in the Wall Street Journal, some have
charged that Saudi Arabia is holding Americans against their
will. This is about absolutely not true. That's a categorical
statement: No Americans are being held in Saudi Arabia against
their will.
Now, you guys represent them. You're to put a nice face on
them. What do you think about that statement that Prince Bandar
is making? You're supposed to make him look good and make the
Saudis look good. He says that no Americans are being held
against their will. Do you think he's telling the truth?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, you know, I presume what
Prince Bandar was saying in that is that, you know, children
born to Saudi parents are Saudi citizens, and, you know, I
think that's what gets--that's part of what gets into the whole
complexity of this issue.
Mr. Burton. You were here the last time, Mr. Petruzzello,
when you--there was a 16-year-old, lovely young lady who
escaped, and it was on 60 Minutes. You saw that tape. And she
testified that when she was in front of the Saudi--or the
American Embassy people over there, she said that she didn't
want to come to America, she didn't want to see her mother, she
didn't want to come here and all that sort of thing, and then
when she was here before the committee when she was in a free
country and a free world she said she was afraid they would
kill her. She said she was being held against her will. She
wanted to come to America for a long, long time, that she was
an American citizen. You heard all that.
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, I did.
Mr. Burton. How can that be interpreted any other way than
they're holding Americans against their will? There was a
perfect example.
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know how to respond to that.
Mr. Burton. How about you, Mr. Deschauer?
Mr. Deschauer. Sir, I haven't spoken to Prince Bandar about
that. I had nothing to do with the production of that document.
So I don't know what Prince Bandar meant legally by the term--
when he used the term ``American woman.''
Mr. Burton. Well, that was an American woman. She was 16
years old. She's not--not 21, but she's an American, and we
have other American women.
I talked to an American woman over there who had two
children. I'm not at liberty to give you too much information,
because this woman gave me some graphic details about how her
husband had threatened her. And she told me, put me in a box
with my kids, stick me on anything you can, a plane, belly of a
plane, and get me out of here. She says he indicated he would
kill her.
Now, how can you interpret that any other way than an
American and her American children are being held against their
will?
Mr. Deschauer. Well, sir, because of the issues of dual
citizenship. That's what makes these cases so complex, not only
in Saudi Arabia but throughout the world. I mean----
Mr. Burton. This is the only country in the world, the only
country in the world where an American woman cannot leave the
country if she wants to. She has to get the consent, and so do
the younger women, they have to get the consent of the
controlling man, usually the father or the husband. So if they
want to come to America and they're an American citizen, they
have no rights whatsoever, even though they're an adult
American citizen. Now, would you consider that being held
against their will?
Mr. Deschauer. Sir, I have no personal knowledge of a
particular people being held against their will.
Mr. Burton. Did you see the testimony? You said you read
all the testimony.
Mr. Deschauer. I did.
Mr. Burton. Did you read that testimony?
Mr. Deschauer. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Burton. So you heard the testimony that was in----
Mr. Deschauer. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Do you think those people were lying?
Mr. Deschauer. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. So you think they were telling the truth?
Mr. Deschauer. I have no reason to doubt them, sir.
Mr. Burton. You have no reason to doubt them. I think Mr.
Petruzzello said the same thing last time. So you have no
reason to doubt them, and yet Prince Bandar, the Ambassador to
the United States who's a representative of the Saudi
Government, said, ``No Americans are being held against their
will. That's absolutely not true.''
Now, I know what position you're in. You can't say that you
think he told a lie, but come on, guys. You represent them. You
know he lied. You know he lied, and his mouthpiece--what's that
guy's name? Al-Jubir. You know he lied.
In fact, on 60 Minutes you saw that piece earlier when he
said he didn't know anything about this young lady trying to
get a passport and get out. He says, I just heard of it a month
ago, and there was a letter that Mike Wallace had that showed
it was in 1988. In 1988 there was a letter signed by him saying
we're not going to do anything about it.
Those guys lie. You're representing people who lie about
American people being held hostage.
I know you're making a lot of money, and I know you don't
like to be here, and I don't like having you here because I
know you're pretty nice people. I know you're nice people, I
really do. The reason we're doing this is not to beat the heck
out of you guys but to beat the heck out of the Saudi
Government by letting the American people know that they're
paying people who have to make a living here--you guys have to
make a living. They're paying American people to put a good
face on everything they say, even their lies, even their lies.
And the thing that's really troubling is when you know for
a fact that terrorists--the majority of the terrorists who have
done damage and killed American people came from Saudi Arabia,
the vast majority, 15 of the 19, that Osama bin Laden is a
Saudi, that the--what's it, the Wahhabis are teaching the kids
in the school over there to hate Jews and hate Americans. Every
single day that's what they're teaching, and they control the
educational system. They are. Don't shake their head and tell
me they're not teaching them. I know what they're teaching
them.
And they're supposed to be our ally, and they're lying
about keeping American citizens there against their will. And
they're paying people here to represent them legally, like Ms.
Mahoney. I'm sure she's a very fine lady and a competent
lawyer. And they're paying you guys. And because we have such a
free enterprise system and an open system they've been getting
away with it, and kids are suffering.
You know, there's a poem that I read a long time ago
called, God give us--it says, God give us men--a time like this
demands strong men, tall men who live above the fog in the
duty--in public duty and in private thinking, men whom the lust
of office cannot buy, men who have determination and a will.
You ever hear that poem? Men whom the lust of office cannot
buy, and I don't think the poem was just talking about people
in public service. I think he was talking about people who are
paid to mislead, maybe not intentionally, but paid to mislead.
And the final part of it is, wrong rules of the land and
waiting justice sleeps. Wrong rules of the land and waiting
justice sleeps. And so it bothers me so much.
You know, I heard you say, Mr. Petruzzello, the last time
you were here, you know, you would do anything, anything to
keep your kids from being kidnapped and held against their will
someplace, and I believe that, and I believe that's true of Mr.
Deschauer or Mr. Gallagher. I'm sure you guys would do anything
to protect your kids and your family. You'd probably take a gun
and go out and fight people who were trying to take your kids,
and I think that's the way it ought to be.
These women had their kids kidnapped, never to see them
again, never to talk to them again except maybe on a rare
occasion when pressure is brought to bear. And they were given
custody by an American court, and the Saudis don't recognize
that.
Mr. Petruzzello, last week I received a response from
Prince Saud to a letter I sent to Crown Prince Abdullah on
September 12th. That's exhibit No. 11. The letter makes some
pretty surprising claims. First, Prince Saud states that the
government of Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with the travel
arrangements of the Gheshayan sisters.
Is that true, that the Saudi Government had nothing to do
with the travel arrangements of those folks?
[Exhibit 11 follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Petruzzello. I have not seen that letter. So maybe I'll
take a moment. But----
Mr. Burton. Did anybody in your firm get a copy of that
letter?
Mr. Petruzzello. No.
Mr. Burton. Do you have any knowledge that the Saudi
Government was or was not involved in getting--making travel
arrangements for them to go to London when we went over there?
Do you have any knowledge about that?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, as I testified last time, I
didn't know who made the arrangements for the trip. I presumed
it was the government.
Mr. Burton. The women did not travel alone. They did have a
male contingent with them, though.
Mr. Petruzzello. As I understand it, their husbands were
with them.
Mr. Burton. Were all their children with them?
Mr. Petruzzello. I believe so. I'm not sure, but I think
that's right.
Mr. Burton. Do you know who paid for the trip to London?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I don't.
Mr. Burton. Abdul Aziz--boy, it's hard to read all these
names--Al-Suwaiyyegh, the director of the Foreign Ministry's
office in the Western Province, wrote in the Arab News, exhibit
18, that the Saudi Government paid for it. So the Saudi
government paid for the trip, according to what he said in the
Arab News.
So those women pretty much were in a controlled
environment, even though they went to London, in my view. They
had men with them, not just their husbands but others. They
were in their abayas. The minute they went into another room,
they took their abayas off, but when the men came back in, they
sat in a corner, put their abayas back on and were very
subservient to the men and let them answer questions, not
unlike the young woman who testified here that when she was
with her dad she had to say certain things, but when she came
to America and was sitting at that table, she told the truth.
So we don't know, but we do know that the Saudi Government
sent them to London, paid for them to go to London, made the
travel arrangements for them to go to London at the very time
that I took a congressional delegation to Riyadh and Jidda to
try to get these women out of there. So when they said that
they hated their mother, they wished she was dead, they never
wanted to see her again, when her mother told us that the
opposite was true the last time she talked to them, contradicts
that.
If the Saudi Government paid for the trip, how could Prince
Saud's statement be accurate? He said they had nothing to do in
that letter, and that letter I've just referred to, he said
that the Saudi Government had nothing to do with making the
travel arrangements to go to London. So if the Saudi Government
did pay for the trip, as was said in the Saudi press, then how
can his statement be accurate? This is Prince Saud, the Foreign
Minister.
[Exhibit 18 follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know how to respond to that. I
didn't talk--I didn't see this letter from Prince Saud. I
didn't even know he sent one or talked to him about it
beforehand.
Mr. Burton. Well, let me ask you this. If he said they
didn't pay for the trip and plan for it and then it comes out
in the paper from a Foreign Ministry office that it was paid
for by the government, would you say that was untrue? I mean,
you've got the Foreign Ministry's office in the Western
Province wrote in the Arab News that the saw Saudi Government
paid for it and the Foreign Minister said they didn't. There's
an inconsistency there, wouldn't you say?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yeah. I would say one would have to go
back to Prince Saud and ask him to clarify it, because he's not
the kind of guy that I think would make misstatements. But, you
know, I don't----
Mr. Burton. You don't think he'd lie?
Mr. Petruzzello. From what dealings I've had with him, no,
I don't think so.
Mr. Burton. Do you think Prince Bandar would lie?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I don't think so.
Mr. Burton. You don't think he lied when he said that no
Americans are being held against their will?
Mr. Petruzzello. I think that gets back into the question
we talked about earlier about who's a citizen of what country,
but I don't think he intentionally meant to lie to you or
anybody else.
Mr. Burton. They're American citizens. They're American
citizens, and they've been kidnapped and taken over there, and
they want to come home. So they're held against their will,
wouldn't you say?
Mr. Petruzzello. And I hope they do.
Mr. Burton. And they're held against their will. So when
Prince Bandar says they're not being held against their will,
that's not accurate. And when Prince Saud says that the
government had nothing to do with sending those women to London
when we went to Saudi Arabia so we couldn't work on that issue,
he's not telling the truth either.
The letter from Prince Saud also states that the meeting
was initiated by the husbands of the two girls themselves. Is
that true?
Mr. Petruzzello. I do not know.
Mr. Burton. This has been such a highly visible issue, and
you work with the Saudi Government trying to help them with
their public relations, you don't know anything about that?
Mr. Petruzzello. As I testified last time, I don't know how
the trip was organized or who organized it.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Deschauer, do you have any knowledge of
that?
Mr. Deschauer. No, sir. I don't know anything about it.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Gallagher, do you have any knowledge of
that?
Mr. Gallagher. No, Mr. Chairman. I was not involved in
planning, setting up, or any arrangements for the trip.
Mr. Burton. At the committee's last hearing, Mr.
Petruzzello, you testified that the London meeting was inspired
by Adel al-Jubeir and his appearance a couple of weeks prior to
where he appeared on the O'Reilly show, and made a commitment
to have the Geshayan sisters interviewed and meet with the U.S.
Government officials outside of Saudi Arabia.
So which is it? Was the meeting initiated by the Geshayan
sisters' husbands, or was it initiated by Adel al-Jubeir? I
mean, he said he was going to do it on the O'Reilly show and it
was done. Would you assume that he did it?
Mr. Petruzzello. As I testified last time, is that, as I
understood, it was my impression that there was activity--I
don't know who specifically, but there was activity inside the
government to try and get the sisters to come to America. They
have been trying to do that for some time.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Deschauer, Prince Saud's letter concludes
that we totally reject anything that damages our Islamic
Shari'a. We totally reject anything that damages our Islamic
Shari'a on which the total system of the state is founded, end
quote.
It sounds like the Saudi Government has staked out a pretty
extreme position that does not contemplate any resolution of
these kidnappings outside of the Shari'a. Would you say that is
accurate?
Mr. Deschauer. Sir, I don't know. I am not an expert on
Islamic law.
Mr. Burton. Well, the Shari'a law says that the man has
complete control, and that the government cedes to him the
authority over the family and the women and everything else and
that they can't do anything without their approval.
And he says, ``We totally reject anything that damages our
Islamic Shari'a on which the total system of the State is
founded.'' And that is also that they don't recognize anything
but Islamic law and the law of Saudi Arabia.
So if there is an American child born, and it is an
American citizen, and a court gives custody to the mother, they
don't recognize that at all. So they don't recognize it as
kidnapping because the father has complete control anywhere in
the world, and he can take the child anytime he wants to. Is
that pretty much your understanding, or do you have any idea
about that?
Mr. Deschauer. Sir, I am not an expert in Islamic law.
Mr. Burton. Prince Saud states that the--the law regulates
and guarantees all humanitarian rights without any prejudices.
Do you think that law protects women's rights without any
prejudice? It doesn't sound like it. I don't want to continue
to put you on the spot with this. But the fact is they
recognize men; they don't recognize women or kids.
Ms. Rousch, Ms. McClain, what can you tell us about the
Saudi law and how it treats women and children? And does it
guarantee your rights if you go over there? And why would
Prince Saud make statements that are so plainly false?
Ms. Roush. Shari'a law does not protect the rights of
American Christian women at all. I was advised to go to court
by the State Department to try to seek custody of my children
right after they were taken in 1986. I have absolutely no
standing in the Shari'a law. And other American women who have
gone to court in Saudi Arabia have lost their children, and
then they have absolutely no standing at all. We have no
standing with Shari'a law. Shari'a law only upholds the claims
of the father and the male. The males rule.
Mr. Burton. Now, I don't remember who it was, but before
you answer, Ms. McClain, we had a woman here who was a
Christian woman, and she had divorced her Saudi husband and
wanted to go see her children. But she was afraid for her life,
because he had remarried, and if she had gone over there,
according to the Shari'a law, she could be----
Ms. Roush. An enemy of Islam.
Mr. Burton. She could be subject to the death penalty.
Ms. Roush. Yes. Joanna Tonetti.
Mr. Burton. She is the lady from Terre Haute, Indiana.
Ms. McClain. I totally reject the statement that the Prince
made that Shari'a law allows people to have all of their
humanitarian rights. Under Shari'a law, very few people--even
Saudi women who were born in Saudi Arabia can lose their
children the same way that we have lost our children. If the
man over there decides to take the children away from the wife,
he can, and never let her see them again.
So it is not just us American women; it is those Saudi
women that live there that don't have any rights under these
laws either.
Mr. Burton. I understand that. But, we certainly can't get
into the problems of the Saudi people themselves. That is
something for the government and their religious leaders to
deal with. I am concerned about American women and children.
Mr. Petruzzello, earlier Prince Saud sent a letter to the
Secretary of State in which he suggests that four American
mothers had kidnapped their children from Saudi Arabia to the
United States. Do you know if the list that he sent to the
Secretary of State was accurate?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, you asked me about that last
time I was here. And I don't know any more than I did last
time, which is that I hadn't seen the list and I didn't know
anything about those cases. Not quite sure whether it was--what
it was referring to.
Mr. Burton. Have you tried to find out anything about that?
Mr. Petruzzello. On those cases, no.
Mr. Burton. How about you, Mr. Deschauer, do you know
anything about that?
Mr. Deschauer. No, sir. I had nothing to do with that
letter.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. No, Mr. Chairman. I have never seen the
letter, never seen the list. I asked, at the hearing where Mr.
Petruzzello testified, I asked your counsel in the hall for the
list. And I have never seen it. But he did inform me that he
had seen the list, but I have never seen the list.
Mr. Burton. Have you seen the list? I think that you have
the list in front of you, the December 27th letter. Excuse me,
exhibit 27. Could you take a look at it now, Mr. Gallagher, and
the others, see if you are familiar with that?
[Exhibit 27 follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, I don't recall seeing that
letter.
Mr. Burton. You haven't seen it? Why don't you take a look
at it now and see do you have any knowledge of whether or not
it is accurate or inaccurate? It is from Prince Saud. As the
Foreign Minister, it should be an accurate letter; would you
not say so?
Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, I have no firsthand knowledge
of where this list came from, who prepared it, and I cannot
give you an informed opinion about it.
Mr. Burton. I know. But assuming that the Foreign Minister
of Saudi Arabia sends a letter to Secretary of State Powell,
saying that four children were kidnapped from Saudi Arabia, you
would assume that he would be telling the Secretary of State
the truth, wouldn't you? You wouldn't think that he'd lie to
Secretary of State Powell?
Mr. Gallagher. I would not think so, sir.
Mr. Burton. But the fact is, it isn't true. It isn't
accurate. We have checked that out. There have been no kids
kidnapped from Saudi Arabia. We had one case where a child was
kidnapped from the United States, and her grandmother sold her
house and got $200,000 and paid to help her escape, which she
wanted to do.
But, that certainly can't be considered kidnapping. The--
and two of the cases he cited, the kids are still in Saudi
Arabia. So that was--so that was either an inaccuracy on the
part of Prince Saud or it was a lie, one of the two. And I
personally think it was probably the latter.
And it really is troubling that we know that Prince
Bandahar has lied. We know that al-Jubeir has lied. And now we
are pretty sure that Prince Saud has lied directly to the State
Department. These are people that you are representing. I won't
use the term--``son of a gun,'' I will use that instead of what
was in the paper. But al-Jubeir was called a lying son of a
something in this week's Weekly Standard.
When we met with Prince Saud, he was repeatedly dishonest.
Prince Nayef, who has jurisdiction over child abduction issues,
thinks that the Jews are behind September 11th. A legal advisor
to the Saudi mission to the U.N. thinks that Israel runs the
U.S. Congress and tells us that there are no kidnappings. We
get a list from the Saudi Government that lies about children,
saying they were kidnapped from Saudi Arabia, and yet you say
everything is going really well and we should trust them and
you, and--why should we trust them? Why should we trust them?
They are working very hard to set up commissions and stuff to
look into this to bring these kids back home? Why should we
trust them after we know the Foreign Minister lied, the Saudi
Ambassador lied, their spokesman lied, Mr. al-Jubeir. Why
should we trust them? I don't think you have to answer that.
Now, the need for the documents. Ms. Roush, have you ever
received assurances from the Saudi lobbyists that they are
working on the return of your children and that the Saudi
Government was working in good faith? Have you received
anything like that?
Ms. Roush. Have I ever seen anything from----
Mr. Burton. That would indicate from the lobbyists or from
the Saudi Government that your children--that they are working
on trying to get your kids back?
Ms. Roush. Absolutely not. They are not working on it. They
never communicate with me. The only communication that they
have with me is through my daughters, in coercing and
manipulating Alia and Aisha to go on a trip to London--which
they have never been out of the country before in 17 years--and
in manipulating the media and the State Department in--and
producing and directing a Stalinistic show trial involving my
innocent daughters.
And Mr. Petruzzello was involved in that. And I don't know
about the others, but Petruzzello certainly was. He had a
member of Qorvis Communications in the room, in the room with
my daughters. They have never been allowed to leave in 17
years. These are two little girls who are grown up and are big
girls now, and have never been able to breathe the freedom of
freedom. They were taken to a free country, to London finally.
And Mr. Petruzzello sits here very innocently and says he
doesn't know, he doesn't understand Shari'a or any of the Saudi
laws; yet he understood enough to take my daughters to London.
Mr. Burton. Let me ask Mr. Petruzzello a question. Did you
have somebody from your firm there when they were there in
London?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Oh, you did. But you don't know any more about
it than you just had someone there?
Mr. Petruzzello. There was a young woman from our firm, who
was about the same age as the sisters, that was there for the--
for the interview that the girls had with Fox News.
Mr. Burton. Did you help assist the interview with Fox
news?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Burton. So you sent somebody over there. What kind of
knowledge did you have of this meeting and this trip that they
took? If you sent someone over there, you had to know that they
were going. Who told you that they were going?
Mr. Petruzzello. Adel al-Jubeir told me they were going.
Mr. Burton. Al-Jubeir told you they were going. Did he tell
you they were paying for the trip, the government was?
Mr. Petruzzello. At the time, no, he didn't discuss it.
Mr. Burton. Well, do you know that they paid for the trip?
Mr. Petruzzello. Just what I have read in the paper.
Mr. Burton. Did you ask al-Jubeir any questions about the
trip and what was going on?
Mr. Petruzzello. You know, as I testified last time, you
know, the--the request was to notify Fox and to provide
somebody to be there, a woman, young woman, just to be there
for the interview. That is what we did.
Mr. Burton. Did the young lady that went over there have
any indication about these young women? Can--did she tell you
that they were with men or by themselves, or what did she say?
She didn't come back and just say it was a nice trip and that
is it.
Mr. Petruzzello. What she said was that they were with
their husbands. Not during the interview, but their husbands
were there, and they were there with--I think one child, I
think.
Mr. Burton. Were there any other men there?
Mr. Petruzzello. No.
Mr. Burton. Just the husbands?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Burton. There wasn't anybody there from the Saudi
Government other than the husbands?
Mr. Petruzzello. No.
Mr. Burton. You are pretty sure about that?
Mr. Petruzzello. Based on what I have heard, yes.
Ms. Roush. Mr. Chairman, I was told by Mr. O'Reilly's
producer Kristine Kotta, that their uncles were there and their
father was there also in the hotel with my daughters.
Mr. Burton. And if--if a woman in Saudi Arabia does
something that is not agreed to by the husband or the male in
the family, what happens to them?
Ms. Roush. They are either killed or tortured.
Mr. Burton. Or beaten.
Ms. Roush. Beaten, tortured. Yes.
Mr. Burton. So do you think your daughters, even though
they were out of Saudi Arabia and in London, could freely say
what they wanted to say?
Ms. Roush. Absolutely not. My daughters were in a
controlled environment; whether they were in Saudi Arabia or
they were in that hotel in London, they were totally
controlled.
Mr. Burton. You don't think your daughters want to see you
dead, do you?
Ms. Roush. My daughters love me very much. They want to be
with me in the United States. They told me that when I saw them
in 1995. And Aisha told me that last year when I was able to
talk to her, she said, ``I love you, Mom. Come here Mom.
Help.'' And then her father took the phone away from her.
Mr. Burton. Let me get this straight. In 1995 they both
told you they loved you?
Ms. Roush. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Last year your one daughter said, We love you,
and the father took the phone away?
Ms. Roush. Yes.
Mr. Burton. How does that square with what was said on Fox
News that they hated their mother and they never wanted to come
back and they wished that she was dead? Do you think they could
change that fast, in a year, when they haven't seen her?
The Saudi Government claims that it was just sending your
daughters, Ms. Roush, to London so they could speak their mind.
And you answered that obviously we shouldn't take the Saudis at
their word. Do you think it is important that we obtain the
lobbyist documents so we can see what was really going on and
why they sent your daughters to London?
Ms. Roush. Absolutely. I think these documents are
extremely important. I think their e-mail, their communication
between them and Jubeir is very important when they were
organizing the whole thing.
I think Petruzzello was in it from the ground floor. I
think he organized it, he directed it, and Jubeir and him
produced it together. It was a little scheme. Jubeir had been
trying to make that happen since July after our last hearing
when he went to Ambassador Bill Burns of the State Department.
And they called me, and I said absolutely not.
But Jubeir would not be silenced on this. He wanted it to
happen when he met O'Reilly. He knew that he could make it
happen. And this man here beside me, Petruzzello, helped him
put the whole thing together.
Those documents can be very incriminating to all three of
these people. I believe that, sir.
Mr. Burton. The Saudis claim that they are trying to
resolve--Ms. McClain, they are trying to resolve the kidnapping
of your daughter. Have you seen any evidence whatsoever that
they are trying to help with that?
Ms. McClain. No, I haven't seen any evidence of that. I
have not seen any evidence of that. In fact, I think they are
working actively to make sure that my daughter and I are kept
apart.
Mr. Burton. The Saudis and the U.S. State Department deny
that the Saudi Embassy was complicit in your daughters'
kidnapping. The Saudis and our State Department. Do you believe
that?
Ms. McClain. No. I know that they were complicit in the
kidnapping of my daughter. My ex-husband was a part-time
employee of the Saudi Embassy. As the assistant Imam of the
Jonesboro Islamic Center, he was receiving pay from the Saudi
Embassy for that position. I sent all of my legal documents to
them in 1994 and in 1995. You should have copies of that from a
previous hearing. They know that I had legal custody of her.
I--I reminded them that she was not allowed to leave the
country, and they let her leave anyway.
Mr. Burton. You told the Saudis that?
Ms. McClain. Yes, I did.
Mr. Burton. And our State Department, were they aware of
that at that time?
Ms. McClain. I don't know if they were or not.
Mr. Burton. Do you think the State Department takes the
Saudis' assurances regarding kidnapping cases at face value?
Ms. McClain. Well, I think they take them at face value. I
think they just believe anything the Saudis tell them.
Mr. Burton. Do either one of you think it would be
important if the State Department was confronted with evidence
that the Saudis had been misleading them about their actions in
resolving these kidnapping cases?
Ms. Roush. Let me answer that, sir. The State Department,
during--the records that we found from the subpoenaed documents
from the State Department concerning my case proved that the
State Department has created documents to support their Saudi
friends. They have created a number of documents in my case
which are absolutely downright lies concerning things that
never happened--that I said that never happened. And these
documents have come forward.
And the State Department--it is not a matter of not
knowing. The State Department defends the Saudi Government.
They do everything the Saudi Government said, as exemplified by
this meeting in London when Jubeir gave the order. He wanted
the State Department to be there, and they were there, ``Johnny
on the spot.''
Mr. Burton. Ms. McClain, do you think it is important--do
you think it would be important if the State Department was
confronted with evidence that the Saudis had been misleading
them about their actions in resolving these kidnapping cases?
Ms. McClain. Yes, I think it would be very important.
Because right now it looks like the Secretary of State is, you
know, very close to the Saudis because of his involvement on
military affairs. And I think that is a conflict of interest
with his involvement on children's issues.
But I think if he were to see some actual evidence that the
Saudis were involved, I would think that he would try to call
them into account for it.
Mr. Burton. I will ask this of Mr. Petruzzello and the
other two men. You obviously believe that the committee should
not get these records and that we should leave the Saudi
government alone to resolve these cases.
Do you know how many kidnapped American children have ever
been voluntarily returned by the Saudi government? Do you know
how many?
Mr. Petruzzello. No.
Mr. Burton. Do you, any of you?
Mr. Deschauer. I don't have any personal knowledge of it.
But, sir, you said none.
Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any personal
knowledge.
Mr. Burton. Well, Mr. Deschauer is correct. They have
never, ever returned an American child that we know of.
Mr. Petruzzello, given the track record of your client that
they have never returned a kidnapped American child, why do you
think that we should accept the Saudis' assurances that they
are actually trying to solve this problem by setting up these
committees to look into it?
Mr. Petruzzello. Mr. Chairman, you know, constructive
dialog between the two countries is really the only way we are
ever going to get any resolution, any progress.
Mr. Burton. Well, my question was: Given their track record
that they have never, ever returned a kidnapped American child,
why do you think that we should accept their assurances? Do you
think a ray from heaven came down and all of a sudden they see
the light?
Mr. Petruzzello. I think, you know, in part, through the
work of this committee, that this issue is at the forefront,
absolutely.
Mr. Burton. Well, I want you to tell your clients, and I
admonished you to do this the last time. Tell them this ain't
going to go away. It is just not. We have got--I am going to a
press conference in a half an hour with Senator Stabenow, and I
guarantee you she is a real tough lady, she is a fighter. And
she is going to be doing over in the Senate what I am doing
here. And of course I am not going to go away.
So the Saudis need to know, and since you are representing
them, and I think you represent them well, I think they need to
know from you as their public relations people that they really
need to get on the stick and get some of this stuff resolved,
get it all resolved.
Once they get that out of the way, man, they can go and do
some of these other things and have us off their back.
Let me just talk to you a little bit about your activities
in your business. Mr. Petruzzello, you get $200,000 a month
from the Saudis. How much does the Gallagher Group get?
Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, for the first 6 months of this
year, I received $5,000 per month. For the second 6 months I
received $10,000 per month.
Mr. Burton. OK. Sounds like you ought to be getting more if
he is getting 200,000 a month. You ought to talk to them and
say you guys need to up the ante, especially if you have to
come up here and listen to me. That ought to be worth a bunch.
How about you, Mr. Deschauer?
Mr. Deschauer. Sir, my law firm, Patton Boggs, we are
currently receiving $50,000 a month.
Mr. Burton. Geez, how is he getting so much more than you?
Mr. Deschauer. Sir, I don't know.
Mr. Burton. The thing about it, Mr. Petruzzello, that is
really funny is last time you were here I couldn't figure out
how you get $200,000 a month and you couldn't remember
anything. I thought, man, this is a business that I ought to go
into.
Mr. Petruzzello. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me explain. The
$200,000 actually, part of that goes to the firms of these two
gentlemen.
Mr. Burton. Oh, really.
Mr. Petruzzello. As well as to other people who provide us
with support.
Mr. Burton. I see. How much do you keep?
Mr. Petruzzello. It varies from month to month.
Mr. Burton. But it is a pretty good hunk?
Mr. Petruzzello. Well, but not inconsistent with what other
countries spend.
Mr. Burton. You know, I ought to get out of this job. I
mean, there is so much money to be made out there it is not
funny.
Other than the Patton Boggs, Qorvic and the Gallagher
Group, what other consultants or outside advisers work for the
Saudi Embassy? Do you know? Do you know of other firms that
work for the Saudi Embassy? How many do they have? There must
be some others.
Mr. Petruzzello. There are other law firms, I think some
that you pointed out last time. But I don't know who--the total
of everybody that works there.
Mr. Burton. I think that they have four or five others
maybe?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know.
Mr. Burton. Does the Saudi Embassy or their government use
any private investigators that you know of in the United
States, or have they ever to your knowledge?
Mr. Petruzzello. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Burton. You guys have never been involved with them
using private investigators?
Mr. Deschauer. Absolutely not, sir.
Mr. Gallagher. Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. They have not in the past, to your knowledge?
Mr. Gallagher. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Does the Saudi Arabia Embassy or their
government hire any person or entity to conduct research or
investigations regarding its critics or opponents in the United
States? To do background information, you know, newspapers and
stuff like that?
Mr. Petruzzello. I am not personally aware of any of that.
Mr. Deschauer. I have absolutely no knowledge of anything
of that sort.
Mr. Burton. Have you ever heard of the Arlington Research
Group?
Mr. Petruzzello. No.
Mr. Burton. Any of you?
Mr. Deschauer. No, sir.
Mr. Gallagher. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. Well, that is something that we will check up
on. OK.
Mr. Petruzzello, we began meeting with you in August to
discuss individual kidnapping cases and to provide you with
information about them so that the Saudi government could begin
working to resolve them. Five months later it doesn't look much
like there has been any progress made. At a meeting with you
and Nail al-Jubeir on August 19th, we pointed out the Rives
case. We informed you that the Rives children were American
citizens, not Saudi citizens, and asked why they are being held
in Saudi Arabia.
As I recall, the father is from--no, the mother was from
where? She is from Syria. So she is not a Saudi citizen. So
even if you followed the logic of the Saudi government, this is
not a Saudi mother.
And so the Rives children are American citizens, not Saudi
citizens. And we were asked by--we asked you why they were
being held in Saudi Arabia. Mr. al-Jubeir indicated that he was
puzzled by the facts of the case and he would try to get
answers. Do you know whether the Rives children are in fact
United States or Saudi citizens? Do you know anything about
that?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know. I know that the Embassy was
working on trying to find out an answer to that. I don't know
if they have given you an answer or not.
Mr. Burton. Gosh, how long does it take to get an answer?
Al-Jubeir is the spokesman for the government of Saudi Arabia.
Saud is the Foreign Minister, the Foreign Ambassador here is
Bandar. You think they couldn't pick up the phone and in 5
minutes find out if he is a Saudi citizen, and yet that father
has not heard about his two kids that were kidnapped and taken
over there. This guy--this woman is from Syria. The fact is she
is the daughter of a very important Syrian who has close ties
to the Saudis, and so the Saudis are covering up for them. Do
you have any knowledge about that?
Mr. Petruzzello. No.
Mr. Burton. You have no knowledge about that?
Mr. Petruzzello. No, I know they are working it out. I
think the parent deserves an answer about what the citizenship
of the child is.
Mr. Burton. Why is it taking so long to get an answer? Do
you have any idea? I mean, it has been how many months? We are
talking 5 months. Five months, when if he picks up a phone he
can find out like that.
Mr. Petruzzello. I wish I had an answer to that. I don't
know.
Mr. Burton. Ms. Norton, I didn't see you down there. I
don't want to monopolize it. Did you have a statement that you
wanted to make?
Ms. Norton. I can wait until you're done.
Mr. Burton. Well, I have a lot more questions. So I will
yield to you right now.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
you once again for demonstrating that when this committee takes
hold of such a serious issue it doesn't do a 1-day stand on the
issue. I note that the professionals before us who represent
the Saudi government are lobbyists or public relations people.
I believe that you are under an obligation to advise your
client that your client has a massive public relations problem
that is developing into a larger, far more serious problem
affecting the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the U.S.
Government.
Saudi Arabia, oil rich, an important ally, has gotten used
to cushy treatment from successive administrations. All of
that, most of that predated September 11th. The Saudi
government is being looked at in a way no one would have
perhaps even begun to look at the country before September
11th. And what has caught the attention of the American people
in particular of course is the large number of Saudis, almost
exclusively Saudis, who were the perpetrators of September
11th, which has led us to then look beyond that issue into
other matters affecting the relationship between Saudi Arabia
and the United States of America.
What the Saudis who run an authoritarian regime may not
understand is that no President and no Congress can keep an
issue that is bubbling up the way that this issue is to the
American people from in fact becoming more serious. Foreign
relations is normally the province of the Foreign Affairs
Committees and of the President of the United States.
But if an issue becomes controversial enough, there is
nothing that the President or the Congress can do in a
democracy to save them from themselves. This has gone--this
matter, which involves individual families, looms larger for
the average American than the 19 Saudis who boarded those
planes, we are assured that the President and the appropriate
committees are trying to deal with our safety, looms larger
than the great gulf between the way the Saudis generally treat
their own population, their women, their children, and the way
we treat ours.
This now strikes at the gut for the American people. When
you are talking about separating mothers and fathers from their
children, this is going to be out of the hands of the President
of the United States very quickly. Nothing that the very smooth
foreign affairs consultants who front for the government, no
papers that they distribute are going to be able to help the
government, which seeks good relations with our government, if
you continue to let this matter get out of hand.
The response on the subpoenas, the nonresponse from the
government on these family matters are lighting a slow fire
that can ignite at any point. That is how it happens in this
country. I don't need to tell you who are seated here at the
table, who are in the public relations business, that once this
thing continues to bubble up the way it is now, it is going to
be out of everybody's hands, and it can affect what nobody on
this committee is trying to affect. We are not trying to--we
are not trying to affect the normal good relations between the
two countries. But in a democracy, when the people become
demanding enough, there is nothing we can do because we have to
be responsive to the people. I am reaching that point where the
government may be forced to act against its own interests, its
interests in keeping an ally for counterterrorism purposes, in
keeping an ally because we need the oil. All of that can go by
the board if the people get angry enough.
So if you are in the lobbying business, and if you are in
the public relations business, you need to have a sit-down of
the most serious kind with your principals. By profession I am
a lawyer. And in the counsel of a lawyer and a client, you can
tell people the honest to God truth. And the honest to God
truth is that the Saudi government is messing with our children
and our families, and that is where we draw the line in the
sand. You got to tell them, before this gets out of hand. It is
part of your professional obligation as lobbyists for the
government, as public relations specialists for the government,
to tell them the truth that you may not be able to do anything
for them, that their allies within the administration may not
be able to do anything for them if we do not come to any far
quicker resolution of this problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here.
Let me just ask a few more questions and then we will let you
guys go have some lunch and relax a little bit.
Do you know if al-Jubeir has made any effort to learn the
answers to the questions we have been asking since our August
19th meeting about Rives? You work with him fairly regularly I
would think. Do you know--has al-Jubeir said anything or done
anything to help with that problem, the Rives case?
Mr. Deschauer. Yes, sir. And in fact, we at Patton Boggs
who have had ongoing consultations with both Mr. Wilson and Mr.
Cass, I believe we received a letter on or about November 18th
with a list of questions, one of which addressed the Rives
case.
And we have gone to the Embassy and asked for that
information to provide to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Cass.
Mr. Burton. What happened? What has happened?
Mr. Deschauer. Well, one of the things that intervened, the
letter that we got in asking us to directly, and our client has
said one of our jobs that--and again, we are acting as a law
firm. But one of our jobs was to facilitate communications. And
one of the intervening things which we had no control over was
the month of Ramadan and then the government was closed for
Ayid.
But I believe that in an interim response that we might
have provided to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Cass, the preliminary
indication was that the children are not Saudi citizens.
Mr. Burton. Well, the letter or information received
doesn't satisfy the issue. Are you a little suspicious of al-
Jubeir not really in doing much? Or do you have any idea that
he is really pursuing this, or is this just a superficial----
Mr. Deschauer. Well, sir, as an attorney the conversations
that I have with a client are protected by the attorney/client
privilege. So all I can tell you is that we received the
request and we are pursuing the information.
Mr. Burton. You are saying what you said is protected by
the attorney/client privilege?
Mr. Deschauer. The conversations, sir, that I have with a
client.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Jubeir, al-Jubeir.
Mr. Deschauer. Nail al-Jubeir.
Mr. Burton. Yeah. Well, we don't want to violate the
attorney/client privilege. It seems like there is so much that
we can't get to. We can't get to the documents that you folks
have that may be relevant to our investigation, and now we
can't even hear what they may have said regarding the
kidnapping of two kids that were not--that aren't even Saudi
citizens.
Mr. Petruzzello, has anyone contacted Mr. Rives' Saudi
brother-in-law? He is a prominent Saudi official with UNESCO in
Paris. He shouldn't be hard to track down. This shouldn't take
more than a day? Has anybody contacted his brother-in-law and
talked to him?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know.
Mr. Burton. I think you indicated you were going to try to
help us with this, didn't you?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. And we have
tried to be as cooperative as we possibly can.
Mr. Burton. What have you done to be cooperative?
Mr. Petruzzello. I certainly relayed all of your requests
from the last time I testified.
Mr. Burton. To Mr. Jubeir and----
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes.
Mr. Burton. And Ambassador Bandar. So you gave them the
message?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes, I did.
Mr. Burton. I think they probably saw the message anyhow,
don't you think?
Mr. Petruzzello. Probably so.
Mr. Burton. This is probably late night TV for them. At the
last hearing you attended, you heard testimony from Maureen
Dabbagh. Maureen's daughter has been missing for 10 years, and
she doesn't even know where she is being held. Has the Saudi
government located Nadia, her daughter?
Mr. Petruzzello. I don't know.
Mr. Burton. You relayed that to them, too?
Mr. Petruzzello. Yes. Mr. Chairman, since last time I
testified, I have had no involvement in any of these. I think,
you know, that the activities that Mr. Deschauer just described
is what has been carried forward. But I wish I could be more
helpful.
Mr. Burton. Well, I have to tell you that these hearings
seem like an exercise in futility, because we just keep going
round and round and round and nothing really changes. But I
think what the Delegate from Washington said is very true.
It isn't going to go away. I don't think the members of the
committee, even those who aren't here today, are going to let
it go away. I will keep bringing it to their attention.
And I am not going to be chairman next year, I am sure that
you guys all know that. But I think I can convince my
successor, when necessary, to issue subpoenas. And I probably
will be a subcommittee chairman, and I will make sure that this
area is in my subcommittee's jurisdiction, either that or since
I am also one of the senior members of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, I will do it over there.
But one way or the other we will stay after this. I want
you to know that I know you guys do a good job up here for a
lot of your clients. And I didn't bring you up here just to
beat the heck out of you. But what I wanted to do is make the
case that the Saudi government, you have got to be careful I
know because they are paying you and if you say the wrong thing
they are going to cut you off.
But the fact is they have lied and lied and lied to this
committee. They have lied and lied and lied to these mothers.
They have been roadblocks to getting American citizens back in
this country, and it is something that will not be tolerated.
We are going to keep the heat on them until something happens.
It may be that they never bring these kids back. But I
think the end result will be, and I hope that Prince Bandar may
be watching, I wish you the best. But I hope Prince Bandar will
realize that ultimately either we will start getting some
results or this will have a devastating impact long-term on the
relationships between the Saudi government and the United
States.
There is other places we can get oil. We can expand the
amount of oil that we are getting from Venezuela. We can do
more research here. And the President wants to do that in the
ANWR and elsewhere. We can buy oil from the Soviet Union. There
is a lot of places that we can go. If we keep the pressure up
here in Congress, and I intend to do that, there will be some
changes made.
So this is much further reaching than just these kids and
these women who have been kidnapped and are being held against
their will. So the Saudis need to know that there will be a
price to pay for this, Prince Bandar and Prince Saud. There
will be a price to pay for this long term if they don't get on
the stick and get this job done.
Since you guys represent them, and I am sure that they will
know about this, but I hope that you will convey that you--I
know Mr. Gallagher has known me since I was the vice chairman
of the Republican Study Committee, you know that. I am the
founder of the Conservative Action Team, which is now the new
Republican Study Committee. So you know that I usually follow
through on what I am saying. So tell them that we are going to
keep pushing on this. OK?
OK. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Hill and
Nolan dated December 10, 2002, regarding last week's hearing be
included in the record. Without objection so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burton. I want to make one more thing clear. That is
Senator Lincoln is the one that is working with me in the
Senate on this issue, on the Saudi issue and not Representative
Stabenow. I am working with her on something else. So I had
that backward. But Senator Lincoln, make no mistake about it,
she is determined on this issue as well.
Ms. McClain, Ms. Roush, thanks again for coming up here. I
know it is a tough thing for you to keep coming up, But we
really appreciate it. We won't quit.
Thank you very much. I have some questions I would like to
submit for the record for you. If you take a look at those, we
would appreciate it if you'd answer them.
Ms. Mahoney, you are a great barrister, but I am
disappointed that you are going to be one of the roadblocks if
we move to a contempt citation if we don't get these documents,
because I know it will tie this up for a long time, and I think
those documents are very relevant to getting these kids back.
It troubles me. But I know that you gave got to do your job.
With that, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings and
additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
-