[Senate Hearing 110-753]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-753
THE ``MATERIAL SUPPORT'' BAR: DENYING REFUGE TO THE PERSECUTED?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
__________
Serial No. J-110-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JON KYL, Arizona
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Michael O'Neill, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel
Mary Chesser, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...... 3
prepared statement........................................... 81
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 1
prepared statement........................................... 95
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin, prepared statement.................................. 98
Kennedy, Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 4
prepared statement........................................... 110
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 5
prepared statement........................................... 119
WITNESSES
Hughes, Anwen, Senior Counsel, Refugee Protection Program, Human
Rights First, New York, New York............................... 18
Mariana, Colombian Refugee....................................... 23
Rosenzweig, Paul, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C............... 6
Wenski, Bishop Thomas G., Diocese of Orlando, and Chairman,
International Policy Committee, U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, Orlando, Florida...................................... 22
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Anwen Hughes to questions submitted by Senators
Coburn, Kennedy and Feingold................................... 29
Responses of Paul Rosenzweig to questions submitted by Senators
Coburn, Feingold and Kennedy................................... 35
Responses of Bishop Thomas G. Wenski to questions submitted by
Senator Feingold............................................... 60
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), New York, New York,
statement...................................................... 61
Aronoff, Gideon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hebrew
Immigrant Aid Society, New York, New York, statement........... 64
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Angela C. Wu, Esq., Acting
Executive Director and International Law Director, Washington,
D.C., letter................................................... 67
Brand, Rachel L., Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.:
May 10, 2006, statement...................................... 68
May 10, 2006, answers........................................ 72
September 27, 2006, statement................................ 76
Chicago, Illinois, Executive Council, resolution................. 78
Church World Service, Washington, D.C., letter................... 80
Daskal, Jennifer, Senior Counterterrorism Counsel, Human Rights
Watch, New York, New York, statement........................... 83
Dewey, Arthur E., Assistant Secretary of State for Population,
Refugees and Migration, U.S. State Department, Washington,
D.C., statement................................................ 88
Hughes, Anwen, Senior Counsel, Refugee Protection Program, Human
Rights First, New York, New York, prepared statement........... 99
Hutchins, Thomas, Esq., and James Feroli, Esq., Immigrant and
Refugee Appellate Center, Alexandria, Virginia, letter......... 109
Land, Richard, President, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission,
Southern Baptist Convention, statement......................... 116
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Legislative Affairs
Office, Washington, D.C., statement............................ 121
Mariana, Colombian Refugee, statement............................ 125
National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Washington, D.C.,
statement...................................................... 127
National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, Illinois, statement.. 130
Parkins, C. Richard, Director, Episcopal Migration Ministries,
New York, New York, statement.................................. 136
Physicians for Human Rights, Cambridge, Massachusetts, statement. 138
Rosenzweig, Paul, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., statement... 143
Scharfen, Jonathan R., Deputy Director, Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, D.C., statement.................................... 148
Scheffer, David, Mayer Brown and Robert A. Helman answers to
questions submitted by Senator Durbin on the November 14, 2007,
No Safe Haven.................................................. 153
Steinberg, Naomi, Depuity Director, Southeast Asia Resource
Action Center (SEARAC), Washington, D.C., statement............ 159
Wah, Paw, Refugee, statement..................................... 161
Washington Post, March 5, 2007, article.......................... 162
UNHCR, The UN Refugee Agency, Geneva, Switzerland, statement..... 164
Wenski, Bishop Thomas G., Diocese of Orlando, and Chairman,
International Policy Committee, U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, Orlando, Florida, statement........................... 172
World Relief, Baltimore, Maryland, statement..................... 178
THE ``MATERIAL SUPPORT'' BAR: DENYING REFUGE TO THE PERSECUTED?
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J.
Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Kennedy, Feingold, Leahy, and
Coburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chairman Durbin. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Human
Rights and the Law will come to order. Good afternoon and
welcome.
The hearing is entitled ``The `Material Support' Bar:
Denying Refuge to the Persecuted? '' After opening remarks, I
will recognize my colleague and Ranking Member, Senator Coburn,
for an opening statement, then turn to witnesses.
First, a word about the origin of this hearing. Earlier
this year, the Subcommittee held a hearing on child soldiers.
At the hearing, Senator Coburn and I were surprised to learn
that under our immigration laws, the Department of Homeland
Security has branded some former child soldiers as terrorists
and prevented them from obtaining asylum in the United States.
Senator Coburn immediately suggested that we hold a hearing to
explore this issue. I want to thank him for requesting this
hearing and commend him for recognizing the importance of this
issue.
At the outset, let me also commend Judiciary Committee
Chairman Pat Leahy for his leadership on this issue. Senator
Leahy recognized this problem long before the rest of us, and
he continues to fight to fix the problem with the material
support bar.
As is our practice in the Human Rights and the Law
Subcommittee, I would like to begin this hearing with a very
brief video providing some background on this issue. This video
tells the story of one refugee who has been affected by the
``material support''. I want to thank UNHCR for providing this
video footage and for allowing us to use it at the hearing. And
now please run the video.
[Videotape played, material appears as a submission for the
record.]
Chairman Durbin. I want to thank UNHCR for providing that
video.
At the base of the Statute of Liberty, Emma Lazarus' famous
verse says, ``I lift my lamp beside the golden door.'' For
decades, the golden door to the United States has been open to
refugees seeking safe haven from ethnic, religious, and
political persecution. Our Nation receives more refugees than
any other nation. The American people's generosity has made the
United States a symbol of freedom and liberty around the world
and has given hundreds of thousands of refugees the chance for
a new life.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, security is
an imperative. We must carefully scrutinize everyone seeking to
enter our country, including refugees, to make sure that a wolf
in sheep's clothing does not slip through. But at the same
time, we must ensure that the golden door remains open to those
who are fleeing oppression.
Unfortunately, the so-called material support bar has
prevented many victims of human rights violations and terrorism
from obtaining refugee and asylum status. Under current law,
the Government denies asylum and refugee claims to anyone who
has provided what the law terms ``material support'' to
``terrorist organizations.'' These terms are defined very
broadly, and the Department of Homeland Security has applied
them in a manner that sweeps in conduct that no reasonable
person would consider material support or terrorism. As a
result, the golden door has been slammed shut for thousands.
Po Wah, whose story we heard in the video, is a good
example. Her application for resettlement in the United States
was denied. In 2006, the Secretary of State granted a waiver
for the residents of Tham Hin Camp. Po Wah has now lived in the
camp for 13 years. She now has a 5-month-old baby. She is being
permitted to reapply for resettlement in the United States, but
her parents will not be able to join her. Her father is
ineligible for a waiver because he fought against the Burmese
dictatorship.
Others have not been so fortunate. Here are some examples.
The material support bar blocks refugees who have provided
support to terrorist organizations or armed rebel groups under
duress, including R.K., a captured Sri Lankan fisherman, forced
to pay ransom to his terrorist kidnappers. Helene, a Sierra
Leonean woman who was gang raped and burned by Revolutionary
United Front members and forced to wash clothes and cook meals
for them. Jennifer, a 13-year-old Ugandan girl who was abducted
by the Lord's Resistance Army and forced to serve as the wife
of an LRA leader. And Mariana, a nurse from Colombia, who will
testify at today's hearing. Mariana's asylum claim was denied
because she was kidnapped by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia, also known as FARC, and forced at gunpoint to provide
nursing care to FARC guerrillas. In addition, Laotian Hmong,
Vietnamese Montagnard, and Afghan members of the Northern
Alliance, who fought alongside U.S. soldiers and against their
own governments, have been affected by the material support bar
because of the assistance they gave U.S. forces and their own
armies.
It is not the role of this Subcommittee to assign blame.
The fates of thousands of innocent refugees are too important.
Instead of pointing fingers, it is my hope we can join hands to
assure that fundamental human rights are protected. There is no
question that efforts are underway to address the problem
created by this material support bar. The administration has
taken some positive steps, exercising its waiver authority in
some cases. Congress has also taken some steps. Language
negotiated by Senators Kyl and Leahy that would exclude some
from the material support bar was included in the foreign
operations appropriations bill the Senate recently passed. We
will have an opportunity to discuss those measures today.
But there is also no question that many legitimate refugees
are still unjustly labeled ``terrorist supporters'' by the
material support bar. As I have said before, this Subcommittee
focuses on legislation, not lamentation, and today we will
discuss what more the administration and Congress can do to
ensure victims of persecution and terrorism are not denied safe
haven in our country.
Now I would like to recognize Senator Coburn of Oklahoma,
the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA
Senator Coburn. Well, thank you, Senator Durbin, for having
this hearing. It is a complicated, but nevertheless, very
important issue.
Concern over the way U.S. anti-terror laws affect certain
refugees and asylees who may otherwise be welcome in our
country was first raised before this Subcommittee during our
last hearing. At that hearing, we heard heart breaking stories
about how children forced into servitude by rebel armies had
been barred from refugee status in the United States by laws
that were intended to exclude terrorists. Such stories prompted
the Chairman and myself to seek further information on the
subject, and I look forward to learning more about the subject
today.
The United States has a rich and proud tradition of opening
its doors to those who are persecuted around the world. In
fact, the United States leads the world in refugee
resettlement, accepting more than 60 percent of those referred
by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and serving as that
organization's single largest donor. Moreover, this country
admits more refugees each year than the rest of the world
combined. Since 1975, the United States has resettled more than
2.6 million refugees. Our compassion has saved millions of
lives, and as a result, our country has been greatly enriched
and strengthened by the diversity that we have received.
It is true, however, that the number of refugees admitted
annually by the United States fell precipitously after
September 11th. That tragic event presented security challenges
never before seen in this country, and the vulnerabilities in
our immigration system that were exploited and exposed on that
day demand a response.
Unfortunately, the unintended result of that response has
meant delayed and sometimes denied access for innocent victims
of persecution around the world. Hence, we are faced with dual,
though not inconsistent, interests and the obligation to
maintain an aggressive anti-terrorism policy that protects the
lives of U.S. citizens and a desire to honor the commitment we
have made to refugees around the world.
I am encouraged that the number of refugees admitted
annually has risen since the initial post-9/11 decline. I
understand that the material support bar, which is the focus of
today's hearing, continues to act as an unintended barrier to
admission for some individuals. But I am also encouraged that
the administration has issued a number of waivers to provide
for relief for many.
I am especially encouraged by the duress waivers issued
this year, which should provide relief to many who were forced
to give material support to terrorist organizations against
their will. These acts, though slow in issuance and
implementation, demonstrate progress in our attempt to resolve
these problems. I remain concerned, however, that the progress
we may have made has been insufficient. Former allies, such as
the Laotian Hmong and the Vietnamese Montagnards, who fought
alongside U.S. soldiers in past conflicts, remain excluded from
entering the United States as refugees by the material support
bar.
Additionally, it seems that the relief has been slow to
reach bona fide refugees who should be covered by waivers that
have not already been issued. I would like to hear more about
whether and how these waivers have provided relief to deserving
refugees who have been affected by the material support bar. I
am also interested in learning more about how we can expedite
the waiver process and alleviate some of these issues more
efficiently.
I look forward to our witnesses' testimony, and again, I
thank you and the other members of this Subcommittee for being
in attendance at this hearing.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Coburn.
Senator Kennedy, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and
thank Senator Coburn for having this enormously important
hearing. Yesterday, Senator Cornyn and I met with the Secretary
of State in compliance with the statute to talk about refugees
and about the progress or the challenges, which are out there
on refugees and also about the Department's attitude toward
material support. And we also talked about the issue of
unaccompanied children.
I just want to thank you for having this hearing, and thank
you for both your attitude and Senator Coburn's attitude. There
is an expectation that there will be a ruling by the Department
on the Hmongs and the Montagnards very, very soon, but it is
long overdue.
And thank you for your reaction about the slowness in terms
of the consideration of these individuals who, according to the
best estimate by refugee organizations, number about 12,000.
And as we are looking at those individuals, particularly the
Iraqis--4 million now are homeless--many of the Iraqi
interpreters, who served next to American servicemen and -
women, risking their lives and did so bravely and courageously,
and now, if found, are going to be shot and killed, deserve to
have more expedited consideration of their application. I think
when you have, as we had yesterday, an American serviceman, a
sergeant who had been in the military, in the Army, and who
explains that his particular interpreter saved his life on
countless occasions, now is hidden in Syria, unable to go
outside because of fear of assassination and killing. There
needs to be an expedited process.
There is a desperate situation out there with regard to
material support and with regard to refugees in particular. We
are very conscious that there has to be a process in clearing
security-wise, but I find it very, very difficult, the delay of
the administration, when you have interpreters who have,
effectively, crosshairs on their back if they are found in
Iraq, their names published and printed on the doors of the
mosques, their brothers and sisters who have been interpreters
killed and unable to get any kind of sanctuary in the United
States. We are not talking about tens of thousands. We are
talking about several thousand. We, I think, have a strong
moral responsibility to deal with those issues.
I appreciate the fact that the Chair and Senator Coburn
mentioned unaccompanied children. There was legislation passed
in 2004 dealing with this issue, and there has been virtually
no movement. There is a conference that is going to take place
next wintertime, an interagency conference about this. But when
you find out about the exploitation of children and women in
these refugee camps, it is horrific. And I know the Chair has
been interested in child soldiers and others, but we have not
led the world in terms of trying to recognize this particular
group as being a particularly vulnerable group. And I think we
have some important responsibilities in those areas.
I thank the Chair.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Like Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy has been in the
forefront, a leader on so many human rights issues, including
this issue of material support, and I want to publicly thank
him, as I have in previous Subcommittee hearings, for allowing
us to form this Subcommittee, the first Human Rights
Subcommittee in the history of the Senate. It has been a
Subcommittee that we have tried to use effectively for
important issues, and we would not have had that opportunity
without his leadership. Senator Leahy.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, of
course, wanted to form the Human Rights Subcommittee after you
had agreed that you would chair it if we did. I think in our
Nation, if we actually believe in our moral core as a Nation,
then we have to stand up for these things.
I will put my full statement in the record, but I have said
in that regard that we need to bring our laws back into
alignment with our values. The revisions to the material
support provisions that were included in the PATRIOT Act and
the REAL ID Act undermine our Nation's commitment to human
rights. They are a reactionary, blunt-instrument approach to a
complex issue, and fear overcame common sense and our
collective conscience.
Surely, a young Colombian refugee forced to dig graves for
the victims of Colombian paramilitary soldiers and told he
would be killed if he did not do it cannot rationally be said
to have provided material support to his persecutors. But he
was denied asylum by our Government. To think how we would
point the finger of moral outrage at other countries doing
this, and yet we do it.
How about the Liberian woman who was raped and abducted by
rebels before being forced to cook and do laundry for them? Is
that providing material support? Mr. Rosenzweig, your
administration thinks it does. She was denied asylum.
We can give all kinds of other stories: Senators Coburn,
Durbin, Brownback, Kennedy, and Feingold have talked about
child soldiers. They are an obvious example. It is time to
bring our laws back in line with our moral values.
Thank you. I will put my whole statement in the record.
Chairman Durbin. Without objection, and thank you for being
here, Chairman Leahy.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Our first witness is Paul Rosenzweig. He
is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of
Homeland Security, and he has previously served as Acting
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development, Acting Assistant
Secretary for International Affairs, and Counselor to the
Assistant Secretary for Policy. Mr. Rosenzweig is also an
adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of
Law. Among other positions, he was previously senior legal
research fellow at the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies of
the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Rosenzweig has a J.D. from the
prestigious University of Chicago Law School, has an M.S. in
chemical oceanography from the University of California at San
Diego, and a B.A. from Haverford College.
Thank you for joining us today, and if you would please
stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that
the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Rosenzweig. I do.
Chairman Durbin. Let the record indicate that the witness
has answered in the affirmative. Please make your opening
statement. Your written statement will be made part of the
official record.
STATEMENT OF PAUL ROSENZWEIG, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Thank you very much, Senator, and thank you
very much for holding this hearing on such an important issue.
I want to begin by assuring you that the Department of Homeland
Security is committed to providing protection to refugees while
also safeguarding our national security.
Let me begin, if I may, by reiterating precisely why the
material support provisions are so vital to our national
security. One can define terrorism in two ways: either by
listing an organization as a terrorist organization, or by
defining the conduct that makes an organization a terrorist
one.
With respect to listing, we must recall that this Congress
as well as the courts have said that such organizations are
foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity and are
so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to
the organization is itself tainted.
With regard to a definition of terrorism by conduct, you
must also remember that the listing process is cumbersome and
slow, not nearly fast enough to keep up with the mutating
terrorist groupings. Thus, while al Qaeda is a listed terrorist
organization, its many subsidiary groups such as al Qaeda in
the Magreb are not. And, thus, support for those organizations
is only captured within the prohibition about broader conduct
definitions.
Thus, while I know this Committee is focused on the
barriers that the material support law presents to deserving
refugees, it is, in our judgment, equally important to begin
with the acknowledgment that this law provides absolutely vital
protections to American national security. It has allowed the
Department, for example, to remove a Saudi national who had
paid for and helped run the webside for an al Qaeda front
group, the so-called Committee for the Defense of Legitimate
Rights, an unlisted Tier III terrorist organization. And it
allowed us to deport a supporter and fundraiser for the
Benevolence International Foundation, whose associates in the
United States conspired to support the Taliban, which,
interestingly enough, remains today an unlisted organization.
Now, all that having been said, we are well aware at the
Department that the material support bar has the potential to
sweep too broadly and to prevent us from providing immigration
benefits to those who are deserving of them and to whom the
United States is and ought to be willing to provide refuge.
Since my last testimony before the House in May of 2006,
the administration has made substantial progress in assessing
the material support problem and providing exemptions where
appropriate. Since then, Secretary Rice has issued 11 separate
determinations for 8 different organizations regarding refugee
settlement applications. And as you noted, Mr. Chairman, the
Tham Hin camp, because of its atrocious conditions, was the
very first venue to which one of our exemptions applied. Thus,
the woman whose story is so affecting will indeed be able to
reapply now that the exemptions are in place.
In addition to Secretary Rice's actions, Secretary Chertoff
has issued parallel exemptions for the same eight groups with
regard to applications for immigration benefits or for asylum.
Just this past week, as Senator Kennedy noted, the
administration determined to issue two further material support
exemptions for Hmong and Montagnards who were valuable allies
in Vietnam. That exemption is now in preparation for the
Secretary's signature and should be issued in a matter of days.
Earlier this year, Secretary Chertoff also issued an
exemption for cases of duress support provided to so-called
Tier III groups, that is, groups that are unlisted. He later
also issued another duress support exemption for Tier I and
Tier II terrorist groups on the listing.
Armed with these exemptions, we have turned our attention
to implementation. Here, too, the record is one of success,
albeit slowly. DHS has issued more than 3,000 exemptions since
the first of the exemption authorities was signed. This has
enabled us not only to admit those who are exempt, but to
process tens of thousands in the camps in Burma, for example,
not all of whom needed exemptions to be allowed to resettle.
The exemptions have also allowed us to issue 200 exemptions to
the Alzado Cubans who are refugees.
Additionally, 124 duress-based exemptions have been issued.
That is up from the number cited in my testimony because each
day that goes by sees more additional grants. Those exemptions
have been issued to nationals of Iraq, Liberia, Somalia, and
the Democratic Republic of Congo.
And in the last days following an extensive national
security review, DHS has authorized the beginning of the
process for the first set of Tier I duress cases involving the
FARC.
But despite our success, one piece of work remains. We
cannot under current legislative authority exempt from the
application of the bar aliens who were actual combatants under
arms, and this accounts for our failure to provide relief to
many of the Hmong and Montagnards who fought beside our troops
in Vietnam, as well as to some of the child soldiers who are
the subject of your earlier hearing, as well as to the
refugee's father whom we saw in the video today. We lack that
authority.
The administration sent forward a legislative proposal to
fix this gap in January, and I invite and welcome your support
for that proposal. That limitation aside, however, the story of
the material support bar's application is one of steady
improvement. We are now poised with all the tools we need to
achieve our dual goals of both protecting refugees and
protecting the homeland. With your support, we can continue our
efforts to achieve those goals.
Thank you for your attention to this timely and important
issue, and I look forward to what I anticipate will be many
questions.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Rosenzweig, and before your
testimony, you came up and we had a brief conversation about
child soldiers. I believe Senator Feingold is on the Foreign
Relations Committee, and I think this matter may have been sent
to a staff attorney there, and I would like to see if you could
help us find out what progress has been made on that
legislative suggestion, which I think is valuable.
It seems like when you look at the specific cases here, you
find elements that obviously would be taken into consideration
by any judge who is trying to be dispassionate and objective:
age, duress, circumstances, in some cases narcotics, other
substances are being used. All of these things would seem to me
to be reasonable things to bring into the material support
conversation.
Are you allowed to take those things into consideration?
Mr. Rosenzweig. Absolutely, sir. And, indeed, that is part
of what we do. Let me give you an example. This is from the
guidance that we have issued to the field for adjudication of
duress exemptions as opposed to some of the other factors, but
each one is different.
We ask our adjudicators, when we provide them a non-
exhaustive list, their direction is to assess each case under
the totality of the circumstances. But we ask them to first
assess whether there is a reasonably perceived threat of a
serious harm. And then we tell them this means things like
whether the applicant reasonably could have avoided or taken
steps to avoid providing the material support; the severity and
type of harm inflicted or threatened; to whom the harm or
threat of harm was directed; the imminence of the harm
threatened; the likelihood that the threatened harm would be
inflicted as opposed to just being an un-imminent threat.
In addition, we asked them to then also inquire on the
other side within the totality of the circumstances: the amount
and type of material support provided; the frequency of the
material support provided; the nature of the terrorist
activities committed by the terrorist organization engaged; the
applicant's awareness of those terrorist activities, since lack
of awareness would clearly be relevant; the length of time that
has passed since the applicant provided the material support;
the applicant's conduct since that time. All of those are a
congery that go into a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis
that actually gives us a great deal of flexibility to ask these
questions on a fact-specific basis and address each case on a
case-by-case instance.
Chairman Durbin. I am glad to hear that. The problem we
have, of course, is that we are given a capsule summary of the
circumstances, and when we read of a 13-year-old Ugandan girl
who was abducted, sexually assaulted at the age of 13 by the
Lord's Resistance Army, and forced to serve as the so-called
wife of one of their leaders at the age of 13, it would seem
that on its face this is a case that would not argue that she
was providing ``material support'' to a terrorist organization
but was, in fact, enslaved by this organization. She was denied
refugee status.
Do you know anything more about that case?
Mr. Rosenzweig. I don't know about that particular case,
but what I do know is that the Lord's Resistance Army is a Tier
II listed organization as opposed to one of the unlisted Tier
III organizations. And that is because of the many horrific
things that the have done, including, it would seem, this.
We have proceeded cautiously in using our authority to
exempt material support provided under duress to Tier I and
Tier II organizations precisely because we do not want to
create unintended consequences that prevent us from continuing
to use the same provisions to exclude people of the sort that I
alluded to in my statement. The Lord's Resistance Army is one
of the groups that is scheduled for an intensive national
security analysis within the interagency and within the
administration, with the expectation that if that analysis
proves to warrant it, we will begin processing such cases as
well.
Chairman Durbin. Let me just close by asking this question:
Aside from the substance of the law and its application, I
would like to ask you about the timing of the reviews.
Two years ago, under the REAL ID Act, we created waiver
authority at your agency. You said that the Department of
Homeland Security has issued over 3,000 exemptions to
individuals who provided material support, and most of these
were for refugees outside the country. You did not mention
those who were already in the U.S. and seeking asylum.
It is my understanding that at this point the Government
has granted waivers to only nine asylum seekers; over 440 are
pending. Is that correct? And if so, what is the justification
for delay in processing the waivers for these asylum seekers?
Mr. Rosenzweig. I believe your numbers are correct. There
have only been nine grants within the asylum division, and
there are approximately 440 that are on hold. There are a
couple of reasons that lie behind that time frame and
sequencing. First, of course, is that we started the process in
which we were exploring how to exercise this waiver authority
outside the United States rather than inside. We did that for
the reasons that are so radically demonstrated by the video
that you showed us. The conditions there are so horrific that
we wanted to address those first, and we wanted to address
those in a context where we could assess whether or not we had
the capability to adequately and accurately make determinations
and adjudications about people. Having grown comfortable with
that, we extended that authority back into the United States.
Then there comes a second order of delay, which is the
first extension within the United States applied to asylum
seekers and immigration benefit seekers other than those who
sought support under duress. That, too, is a complicated issue
that posed a series of intricate legal problems. We
particularly did not want to move domestically on duress cases
in a way that would affect pending Department of Justice
prosecutions, issues that they are more capable of addressing
for you than I am.
It turns out that almost all of the asylum cases that are
pending on hold pose duress questions. Thus, since the issuance
of the duress exemption for Tier III, we have processed eight
Tier II duress cases in the asylum, and there are approximately
70 more left. There now are about 120 FARC duress exemption
cases that have been on hold that are in train to be processed
expeditiously now that the administration has determined to
move forward with processing of those cases following the
national security analysis I alluded to. We will then in train
add the Lord's Resistance Army, the other opposition groups in
Colombia, the AUC and the ELN.
Chairman Durbin. What is the timeline on that?
Mr. Rosenzweig. Well, those determinations are out for
review within the national security community. I do not know
the time frame for them coming back. My experience in the group
determinations that we began in Thailand is that the very first
one of them took a great deal of time because that was asking
the national security and intelligence communities to do
analysis that they had never done before. They are very used to
asking questions like how many Russian tanks there are and
things like that, but not these sorts of questions. The first
one for the FARC took a commensurately long time, but I am
confident that the newer ones will go more quickly, and you
will see additional extensions of Tier I duress waivers I would
say for sure this calendar year.
Chairman Durbin. Senator Coburn.
Senator Coburn. Thank you.
So, really, we have two problems. One is there are
statutory changes that need to be made, that you all feel need
to be made, and I would like for you to outline specifically
what those are. And then the second problem is actually working
through the process, and I guess our question is: How do you
speed up that process? So two questions. One, what are the
exact statutory changes that need to be made, specifically? And
number two, how do we help you speed up the process or how do
we hold your feet to the fire to get the process speeded up?
Mr. Rosenzweig. Well, on the first of those, Senator, the
administration has submitted a legislative proposal, the
details of which get into the intricacies of sub-sections and
sub-sub-sections of the INA. But, broadly speaking, today the
exemption authority that the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Homeland Security have is limited to just a few
subsets of terrorist-based exemptions.
We may exempt, for example, material support provisions. We
may also exempt from that people who are representatives of
other groups who espouse--who engage in political speech. We
lack the authority to waive the application with respect to INA
212(a)(3)(B)--I think that is right--which is the provision
that prohibits us from admitting anybody who has carried arms.
The structure of the administration's proposal is
essentially to take off all those limitations and to say, as
broad as is the exclusion authority for people who engage in
support or otherwise are related to terrorist activity, make
our exemption authority identically commensurate. If you do
that, we will be able to exercise that authority with respect
to the people who have yet to have the relief that they have
sought.
With respect to how to speed up the process and hold our
feet to the fire, well, this hearing certainly helps. But
beyond that, I think that what has happened is that we were
faced with a new and challenging set of issues, one that
involve a very intricate interplay between provision of
criminal and immigration law that is literally of the vital
centerpiece of much of the counterterrorism activity that my
colleagues in the Department of Justice undertake. And we had
to proceed cautiously to ensure that we were not creating
precedents that could be adversely used by criminal defendants,
for example, in material support cases or things like that.
That is why we did proceed on a very step-by-step basis, first
in a single camp, then with respect to a single community, then
with respect to camps only overseas, then domestically, then to
the duress.
We are now actually at a position where there are, in my
judgment, only two pieces that are left to be done
administratively. The first is the continuing expansion and
processing of Tier I and Tier II duress exemptions, and the
second is, with your assistance, the extension to combatants so
that we can take care of that piece. The first of those I have
undertaken and will undertake to continue to move along as
quickly as possible. The second of those I cannot do without
your help.
Senator Coburn. When will that happen, the first one?
Mr. Rosenzweig. The first one? Well, as I said to Senator
Durbin, we have put in train each of the groups. We are trying
to prioritize them based upon the size of the affected
communities. And this is one of the situations where, frankly,
we can use the assistance both of the members of this
Committee, your staff, and people in the NGO community for
helping us to identify additional groups that require this sort
of scrutiny. We were very successful in that cooperative
relationship, in my judgment--you will have to ask them--with
the NGOs in the Tier III.
Senator Coburn. I think the thing this Committee would like
to get a feeling, kind of like what Senator Kennedy said, is
these are lives that are at risk, and I think what we want to
make sure is that when lives are at risk, we go full speed
forward and we do not use the idea of doing what is safe when
we can do what is right. And, you know, what we would like to
see is to make sure that this is prioritized, that it is a
priority, that there is a fire running all the time, because
time is the enemy of a lot of these people. And our inability
to be responsive and timely could cost them their lives.
We are going to work, Senator Durbin and I have committed
to work to get the legislative changes that you need. But I
think we need to hear from you a commitment that this is a
priority, we are going to do it, because every life that is
hanging out there that we do not make a positive impact on is a
life that is going to be lost or wasted.
Mr. Rosenzweig. You have my unreserved commitment. If I had
to say, in my position I have responsibility for literally
every policy matter that comes across the Department's plate,
ranging from immigration and refugees to border screening to
preparedness. And I personally have spent more time on this
issue than on any other by far in volume, and that will
continue to be the case, I think, until this issue is finally
resolved.
Senator Coburn. Thank you for your assurance.
Chairman Durbin. Senator Leahy.
Chairman Leahy. Well, I am not going to ask questions. I
will leave that to Senator Kennedy. But I agree with both you,
Mr. Chairman, and I agree with Senator Coburn that this should
be more of a priority. I think of the tens of thousands of
Iraqis that we promised assistance to and a tiny handful
receive help. And, frankly, Mr. Rosenzweig, I am sure you work
very hard, and I am sure you are very dedicated. But I have
heard nothing but the same kind of bureaucratic boilerplate I
have heard from your Department when in the Appropriations
Committee we asked them how are you doing in the cleanup after
Katrina. And I heard all these things about policy meetings and
this panel and that group and this policy and so on. But, of
course, we have hundreds of millions of dollars squandered, and
trailers never used. It is like the comments we heard that
everything was okay in the Superdome, and yet people were
dying.
I would like to hear a lot less boilerplate and see a lot
more action.
Chairman Durbin. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you. Thanks very much for being
here. Let me go through these numbers of waivers. We know that
there has been some legislative change, and we thank Chairman
Leahy and Senator Durbin and Senator Coburn and Senator Kyl.
But we have not seen a lot of transparency in this process. And
I would like to just sort of run through this quickly with you.
The ongoing process between the Department of State,
Homeland Security, and Department of Justice in identifying the
groups that merit a waiver and how we decide whether these
waivers are granted, could you describe that for us?
Mr. Rosenzweig. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Maybe you could tell us how they have
shifted and how they have changed, because I think Senator
Coburn raises a very legitimate question about the timeliness
of this. Tell us about your--you can start with maybe your
Department and the Department of State since you have indicated
that you deal with all of these issues--immigration, refugees,
border security.
Mr. Rosenzweig. I am not sure I understand the question
precisely. Let me--
Senator Kennedy. The question, let me get--describe the
ongoing process in the Department of Homeland Security, State
Department, and Department of Justice in identifying groups
that merit the waiver and deciding whether the waiver should be
granted.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Thank you. That clarifies it.
There is an interagency group chaired by the NSC that
comprises Justice, State, and the Department of Homeland
Security. Typically, I am the representative of the Department
of Homeland Security at that interagency group. My counterparts
are the head of the Office of Legal Policy in the Department of
Justice, the Assistant Attorney General--formerly Rachel Brand;
her successor is a man named Brett Gerry--and Assistant
Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration Ellen
Sauerbrey. We meet regularly and routinely to discuss the
development of policy with respect to these groups.
With respect to nominations of particular groups, initially
much of the impetus for those came from our colleagues in the
Refugee Affairs Division of the USCIS and the Department of
State's PRM Bureau, who were familiar with the conditions in
the Tham Hin camp, for example. More foundationally, they are
often motivated by the information they receive from
nongovernmental organizations and the UN High Commissioner on
Refugees.
The UN High Commissioner on Refugees had, for example, been
advancing the cause of the Karen and the Chin in the camps in
Thailand for several months in an effort to assure that we took
them to our attention.
Senator Kennedy. Well, let me get to this because of the
time--and I do not want to--you get recommendations of the High
Commissioner. They go through nongovernmental agencies, then
through the Refugee Affairs. Then they come into the
Department. I am asking what is the process. What is the
process for considering them? How do you work this through?
What is the motif?
Mr. Rosenzweig. Well, I mean--
Senator Kennedy. We have a motif allegedly about how we
legislate around here. Sometimes it is followed and sometimes
it is not, but at least we have got a motif--most people could
describe generally what it is. What is the motif now? How do
you proceed? And how do each of these agencies proceed? You
have to know it.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Because you are in charge. So I want to
know how you proceed. You have three major agencies that make
the judgment that you have just identified, and I would like to
know, because we have had difficulty in finding out--you have
sat through those meetings--exactly how that process sort of
works its way through.
Mr. Rosenzweig. A good example would be how we have
processed or are processing the next extension of the Tier I
and Tier II. Having done the FARC--
Senator Kennedy. Let's take the Montagnards, for example.
Who started that? What did your Department say about it? What
did Homeland Security say about it? What did the Justice
Department say? How did that process--you say it is about to
get the Secretary's signature. She indicated that as well. But
let us just take those two high profile and tell us exactly how
that went through. Did you have to have more than one meeting?
Has it gone on--did the Justice Department say, look, we ought
to be able to go ahead and then did Homeland Security say, no,
it is going to take longer--we are going to have to review
this? How does it all work?
Mr. Rosenzweig. No, on the contrary, Senator, I mean, the
first nomination that I know of for the Montagnards and the
Hmong came in a collaborative process that was a joint
interagency agreement among State, Justice, and DHS. And they
have been on our minds because of their quite high profile and
their truly affecting circumstances for quite some time.
It has been severely complicated by a bunch of questions
that have only recently been resolved. Let me highlight for you
two of them.
The first is that, unlike--
Senator Kennedy. Just--because my time is up--I am trying
to get the material support process. How does this role fit
into Homeland Security and the Department of Justice? What was
the nature of the discussion when you came to the Montagnards?
You must have sat in there.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Well, there is a discussion that
Justice Department, Homeland Security conducts. You have got
the Montagnards, you have got the Hmong. You must have sat
through it. Now, how does that go?
Mr. Rosenzweig. Well, I--
Senator Kennedy. I can tell you how discussions go in
genetic discrimination with--well, the Senator has left--
Senator Coburn over here. I can tell you how those
conversations go, and we can all talk about it. How does it go
when you are trying to make these judgments on material
support?
Mr. Rosenzweig. Well--
Senator Kennedy. You want to try to explain so that the
public understands the process. We do not believe that it has
been transparent. We do not believe that it has been open. You
are the person, as you have just admitted, that knows about it,
and there should not be any reason that you cannot really tell
the Committee exactly how it works.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Well, as I was saying, Senator, there was
no dispute on the face of it that the Hmong and Montagnards
were a group that ought to have relief. So we agreed
interagency that they were for consideration, and then they
were sent out to the national security community to ensure that
the latest information that we had from the intelligence
community did not indicate any contrary reason why they should
not be granted relief. Upon completion of that--
Senator Kennedy. Could I just--because my time is up. If I
could just ask one other question. On the Iraqis, the refugees
that are coming in here, as you know, in 2005 we took 198; in
2006, 202. I am not going to get into the numbers, but they are
illustrative. Iraqis admitted as refugees so far in 2007, 990.
We expect hopefully you will get to 1,700.
Let me ask you, what role will material support play in
terms of these Iraqi refugees?
Mr. Rosenzweig. It is unlikely to present a large issue. We
have already adjudicated at least one Tier II duress material
support case for an Iraqi refugee. I anticipate that there will
be other cases on an individual basis, but it is unlikely that
anybody presenting themselves as a refugee will also have been
somebody who provided material support to al Qaeda in Iraq. In
that unlikely circumstance we will obviously have to face the
question. But, by and large, given the large number of
refugees, many of whom are, as you said in your opening
statement, people who are known to have embedded by U.S.
Government personnel, the material support bar obviously has
no--
Senator Kennedy. What if they did it to Saddam Hussein's
henchmen, if they had a kidnapping, paid money to them?
Mr. Rosenzweig. I think we would have to probably face that
when we come to it. I am corrected that we have actually issued
a blanket waiver for any Tier III material support that is in
the blanket exemption for any Tier III material support that
involves non-designated groups in Iraq. So that actually helps
me out quite a bit.
Chairman Durbin. Senator Kennedy, thank you for raising
that last point, and let me follow up on it.
When I recently visited Iraq, I learned that there were
some 4 million displaced persons--2 million internally and 2
million outside of Iraq, refugees; rough estimates of 600,000
or 700,000 in Jordan, over a million in Syria, some in Egypt,
and undoubtedly in other countries. And I was also told at the
time that the United States had accepted some 700 Iraqi
refugees. And so you have said that material support, as I
understand it, is not generally an issue, with these Iraqi
refugees?
Mr. Rosenzweig. It has not presented itself thus far, no.
Chairman Durbin. I am trying to figure out why it is taking
so long, why they have to leave Iraq to apply for refugee
status. This displaced population is causing great hardship in
Jordan. I did not visit Syria so I do not know, but it is
causing great hardship in a country that is not wealthy. Though
we assume most of the Middle East is wealthy, Jordan does not
have oil or gas. And they are struggling to find water and the
basics. Just allowing the children of these refugees into the
Jordanian school system means that 10 percent of their school
population will now be Iraqi.
So it seems to me, going back to earlier statements by
Senator Kennedy and others, that we have a certain moral
obligation here. Many of these people who are asking for
refugee status literally risked their lives for us, for our
soldiers, for our people, and for our cause. And I do not know
what role you play in these Iraqi refugees being processed, but
can you give me some kind of assurance that this is going to
change soon and that we are going to bring more into protection
here in the United States who deserve it?
Mr. Rosenzweig. Yes, I can. Let me first, though, address
the timeline question and then the numbers, because though I
know it seems a long time to you, the processing time for Iraqi
refugees is now down to between 4 and 6 months, which is
shorter than for any other refugee population anywhere else in
the world. You saw the Tham Hin camp where they have been
waiting 10 years, and that is precisely because the Department
of State, the International Organization for Migration, and DHS
have been investing substantial and significant resources in
speeding up the process.
To that end, the President's report on refugees will set a
target, one that I am confident we will meet, of accepting
12,000 refugees from Iraq next year, which will be roughly 12/
70th of the total goal for the entire world. So that is quite a
substantial commitment.
That having been said, you know, if there are 600,000 in
Jordan--and there are--the United States cannot possibly accept
all of those. We have accepted more for referral from UNHCR
than the rest of the world combined at this juncture, and we
are going to continue to move forward on that.
Chairman Durbin. How many have we accepted?
Mr. Rosenzweig. We have accepted for referral to the USA
RAP program 11,019 as of Monday. Of those, 10,484 were referred
to us by the UNHCR, 229 were referred by U.S. embassies, and
306 were what we call ``direct access'' referrals.
Chairman Durbin. And how many have been accepted by the
United States so far?
Mr. Rosenzweig. To date, there are 942, I believe--it may
be higher because this is Monday's number--who have actually
been admitted. We have completed interviews on 4,309 of them,
conditionally approved--or fully approved some 2.987. I have
asked--I have often likened this a bit to like water in a hose.
You turn on the tap at one end, and it does not come out the
other end until a bunch of things have happened.
We turned on this hose in February. It is now essentially
at full flow, and for the next fiscal year, we are going to be
processing essentially 1,000 a month, which is more than any
other single individual refugee population.
I should add that there are two other reasons why things
are slow. You did not go to Syria. My staff cannot go to Syria
either. The Syrians have denied us visas for them to come and
process refugees. If we do not go, we cannot process.
Chairman Durbin. So how many DHS staff or employees are
currently sent to Jordan, where you can go, to process the
600,000 or 700,000 Iraqi refugees?
Mr. Rosenzweig. We send teams of four to six whenever there
are individuals who are ready for an interview. That is a
middle point in the process.
Chairman Durbin. So how many total have been sent to
Jordan?
Mr. Rosenzweig. We have been to Amman four times that I
know of, and we go on essentially a week's notice when people
are ready for our portion of it. There is a prefatory phase
that is conducted by IOM, and I am pleased and, quite frankly,
very proud to say that so far we have addressed and interviewed
every single interview-ready individual within a matter of
weeks from their being ready for interview.
Chairman Durbin. Since I was there a few weeks ago--and I
can tell you that the problem has overwhelmed Jordan--sending
six teams of six, I am sure they would react by saying you have
to do a lot more than that. And I hope we will. I understand
that there is a security issue here that we have to be
sensitive to and mindful of. I also understand that currently
we have 65,000 Iraqi civilians who were supporting our effort
in Iraq, risking their lives for our cause, and for theirs--a
joint cause, I should say. So I hope that we will be more
sensitive to the impact and the need for quick action.
If you say that this started last February, that was 4
years into this war before we started dealing with this issue.
And clearly we are long overdue in meeting an obligation here.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Your latter point is well taken, but with
respect to your former point about not putting sufficient
resources to it, there are space limitations, people
limitations, and I have to repeat, we are simply not going to
be in a position to accept 600,000 Iraqi refugees. We will
accept and process everybody who is qualified within the
context of--DHS has thrown resources at this. We have pulled,
frankly, adjudicators from other populations around the world
to make sure that we answer the mail every time.
Chairman Durbin. I am going send it to Senator Coburn with
one last comment. We cannot accept 600,000 or 700,000, and I
would not suggest it. We certainly can accept some moral
responsibility for helping Jordan and those other countries who
are trying to provide humanitarian assistance to them.
Mr. Rosenzweig. That I would certainly agree with. That, of
course, is in my colleague from the Department of State's
purview for providing humanitarian assistance.
Chairman Durbin. Senator Coburn.
Senator Coburn. I just think the record needs--I served as
a medical missionary in Iraq after the first Gulf War, and a
lot of these refugees do not want to come here. They want to go
home. And so we cannot use the number of 600,000 or 700,000
because their real choice is to go home. And so that is a whole
other set of issues, but we need to be very clear. Those that
have helped us, those that want to seek our help, we ought to
be ready and able and willing to help. And I thank you for your
testimony and the hard work that you do.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Rosenzweig, for your
testimony.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenzweig appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. It now is my pleasure to call before the
Subcommittee the second panel of witnesses. Please note that
the Subcommittee is taking special security measures to protect
the anonymity of one of our witnesses. This witness will
testify under a pseudonym, and she will be surrounded by
screens to protect her identity. No video or photographs of
this witness will be permitted. The U.S. Capitol Police are
present. They will escort from the hearing room anyone who does
not abide by these rules.
We are honored to welcome a distinguished panel of
witnesses to share their views. Each witness will have 5
minutes for their opening statement, if they would please take
their seats at the table. Their complete written statements
will be included in the record.
I would like to ask all of the witnesses if--do we need a
minute? Okay. Just a minute here while we set things up.
[Pause.]
Chairman Durbin. I would like to ask the witnesses, if they
would not mind, to stand and be sworn in. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ms. Hughes. I do.
Bishop Wenski. I do.
Mariana. I do.
Chairman Durbin. Our first witness is Anwen Hughes, an
attorney with the Human Rights First organization. She is
senior counsel of Human Rights First's Refugee Protection
Program. She helps oversee Human Rights First's pro bono
representation for indigent asylum. Ms. Hughes received her
J.D. from Yale Law and B.A. from Yale College. Ms. Hughes has
been before this Subcommittee before, having testified at our
child soldiers hearing about the impact of material support bar
on these child soldiers.
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention and for
being with us today, and please proceed with your testimony.
And as I mentioned, your written statement will be made a part
of the record.
STATEMENT OF ANWEN HUGHES, SENIOR COUNSEL, REFUGEE PROTECTION
PROGRAM, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Ms. Hughes. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Coburn, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing
and for inviting me here today to offer the views of Human
Rights First on this important topic.
For nearly 30 years, Human Rights First has worked to
protect and promote fundamental human rights and to ensure that
the rights guaranteed to refugees under the Refugee Convention
and its Protocol remain available to them under U.S. law. At
the same time, we have a longstanding commitment to the proper
application of the ``exclusion'' clauses of the Refugee
Convention, which allow the denial of international protection
to refugees who have committed serious violations of the human
rights of others or other serious crimes, including acts of
terrorism.
I am here today to talk about the way the terrorism bars in
our immigration law enacted to bar terrorists and their
supporters from the United States are undermining our ability
to protect refugees and are barring as ``terrorists'' the
victims of the people and groups these immigration law
provisions had intended to target, as others have been
explaining earlier.
Several asylum seekers are here with us today whose
experiences illustrate the real human costs of this situation.
One is a nurse from Colombia, Mariana, who will be testifying
in a moment. She was kidnapped by FARC guerrillas and forced to
treat their wounded. She will be testifying in person today.
Also here today is a Nepalese medical worker, referred to
in his immigration papers by his initials, B.T., who was
abducted by Maoist rebels and forced to treat their injured
members.
Another refugee with us here is a member of Burma's Chin
ethnic minority. For similar security reasons, we are referring
to her publicly by her initials, which are S.K., who was denied
asylum based on the finding that she had contributed to a Chin
organization, some of whose members had used force against the
army of the Burmese military regime.
A former student activist from Bhutan is also present at
this hearing. As a refugee in Nepal, he had taught at a school
that took money from him, probably because the school was being
subjected to extortion by Maoist rebels. Because of this, this
man's case has been frozen for over a year, prolonging his
separation from his wife and his little daughter.
How do we get to a point where people like this became
targets of our counterterrorism efforts? The root of this
problem really lies in our immigration law's definition of
``terrorist activity,'' which is defined to include the use of
any weapon or dangerous device, other than for mere personal
monetary gain, to endanger persons or property. If read
literally, this definition covers everything from simple
assaults to ordinary warfare, to what most people actually
would consider to be terrorist activity. The essential elements
of this definition have been on the books since 1990, but the
passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the REAL ID Act compounded
their effects.
These pieces of legislation defined as a terrorist
organization any group of people that engages in or has a
subset that engaged in terrorist activity, as I just defined
it, and there is no centralized government control over a
decision that a group falls under that definition. They also
provided that anyone who provides material support to a
terrorist organization is held to have engaged in terrorist
activity himself.
Now, under the Refugee Convention, in order to be excluded
from protection, a refugee must bear individual responsibility
for serious wrongdoing, either because the refugee personally
committed an excludable act, which would include acts of
terrorism, as that term is commonly understood, or because he
or she contributed to the commission of such acts in a
significant way and did so knowingly and voluntarily.
What we now have under our immigration laws, unfortunately,
is a situation where a person can be returned to persecution
for giving support to a group without any showing that any
member of the group even engaged in any wrongdoing that would
justify exclusion of that person, much less of the refugee who
gave to the group as a whole.
Miss K, the Burmese Chin woman who is here with us, is an
example of this. She has been denied asylum for giving to the
CNF, the Chin organization I was referring to, based only on a
finding that the CNF used arms in self-defense against the army
of the Burmese military regime, which has targeted the Chin and
also other Burmese ethnic minorities, like the Karen, who were
represented in the video that was shown earlier, for ethnic and
religious persecution.
But DHS has also amplified the unintended consequences of
these definitions by interpreting them in the most expansive
possible way. DHS has effectively read the ``material'' out of
the term ``material support,'' excluding people from protection
based on minimal contributions or based on forms of assistance
that bear no logical connection to terrorist activity. For
example, DHS has considered emergency medical care to
constitute material support to terrorism. Mariana, the nurse
from Colombia who be testifying shortly, was kidnapped by FARC
guerrillas and is an example of this. But she is not the only
one.
The medical worker from Nepal who is with us here also was
kidnapped and forced to treat injured Maoist guerrillas. He was
granted asylum by the immigration judge, but DHS has appealed
that decision to the BIA, and the case has been pending there
since 2005.
DHS has also refused to recognize any defenses to this bar,
including duress, as Senator Durbin and others were referring
to earlier. It is hard to see how these interpretations advance
our national security. In the overwhelming majority of these
cases, the reason the U.S. Government knows that these refugees
gave anything to an armed group at all is because the refugees
themselves have come forward and told the Government about this
of their own free will and under oath. Also, posing a threat to
the security of the U.S. is an independent bar to asylum. In
almost all of these cases, we are talking about people DHS does
not contend pose any threat whatsoever to the United States.
Now, the statute provides authority for DHS and the
Secretary of State overseas not to apply certain of these bars,
and new legislation would expand this authority to cover the
rest of them, subject to certain exceptions. This waiver
authority is important, and its expansion is a positive
development. But as has been noted and confirmed earlier, while
about 3,000 refugees overseas have been granted waivers, only
nine asylum seekers have received waivers to date, and there is
still no process in place to grant waivers to any asylum seeker
whose case is pending before the immigration court.
This means that although Chin refugees in exactly the same
situation as Miss K, for example, are now being resettled in
the United States, she herself remains in removal proceedings,
and she was detained for 2 years because of this.
The other refugees attending this hearing today are in the
same situation and have also seen their lives placed on hold.
They are unable to travel or plan for the future, and they
cannot be reunited with their spouses and children, who often
remain in very dangerous situations overseas.
And these are the cases we know about. One of the scary
things is that DHS and the Justice Department, as far as we are
aware, do not have mechanisms in place to keep track of the
cases that are pending before the immigration courts or the
Federal courts that DHS intends to eventually consider for
waivers, so that there does not appear to be a reliable system
in place to keep those people from being deported before that
can happen.
I would also note that these are the results that we have
seen at the end of a 2-year period in which this problem has
been the intense focus of the Government and also of the NGO
community. From a practical standpoint, we have had serious
concerns that this level of reliance on waivers is just not a
feasible solution in the long term, especially if DHS maintains
its current interpretations of the core legal definitions that
are sweeping so many of these cases into this terrorism bar
framework.
This scheme also raises very fundamental due process
concerns. Administrative agencies are not infallible, and many
of the asylum seekers who come before them are unrepresented by
counsel and struggle to communicate their stories through
inadequate translation and across significant cultural and
linguistic barriers. For the asylum seekers involved, what is
at issue here can be the difference between life and death, and
we believe that these cases deserve the same procedural
protections and the same review that our legal system normally
accords to interests of this magnitude.
In conclusion, progress on implementing the waiver
authority that currently exists is a positive development, and
it should be pursued and it should also be closely monitored,
both in asylum and adjustment-of-status cases and also in
refugee cases overseas. Expanding the waiver authority is also
an important step to help many refugees currently barred from
protection. But in order to bring our system of refugee
protection back into line with our treaty obligations and our
historical traditions of extending protection to the
persecuted, Congress ultimately will need to address the
overbroad definitions that lie at the heart of this problem.
The people the U.S. Government actually needs to target,
including the examples that Mr. Rosenzweig was citing earlier,
would lie well within a more focused set of definitions that we
should all be able to agree on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to answering
any questions the Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hughes appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much, Ms. Hughes.
Our next witness is Bishop Thomas Wenski. He has had a long
and distinguished career. He has headed the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Orlando since November 2004. He was previously
auxiliary bishop of Miami for 7 years. He is chair of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops' International Policy Committee,
and was previously chair of their Migration Committee. He also
served as Chairman of the Board of the Catholic Legal
Immigration Network. Governor Jeb Bush of Florida appointed
Bishop Wenski to the Governor's Task Force on Haiti. U.S.
Attorney Paul Perez appointed Bishop Wenski to the Human
Trafficking Working Group. His biography will tell you that he
has been involved in extensive humanitarian efforts in Cuba,
Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, and many Central
American countries.
Bishop Wenski, thank you for joining us today. The floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF BISHOP THOMAS WENSKI, DIOCESE OF ORLANDO, AND
CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE, U.S. CONFERENCE OF
CATHOLIC BISHOPS, ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Bishop Wenski. Thank you. I would like to thank you,
Senator Durbin and Senator Coburn, for inviting me to testify
here today.
The United States bishops and their Catholic dioceses are
the largest nonprofit provider of services to refugees in our
country, and we are gravely concerned with the impact of the
issue of material support on bona fide refugees, asylum
seekers, and others who come to our shores fleeing terror and
persecution.
Mr. Chairman, let me say up front that the bishops and I
appreciate the efforts of Congress to protect the American
public and ensure our national security. Since 9/11, national
security has been an urgent priority for the American public,
and rightly so.
It is the view of the bishops that national security
interests and important principles undergirding our democracy
are not incompatible. We need not undermine our honored
traditions and democratic principles in order to achieve
security. In fact, we can achieve both with the proper balance.
With the issue of material support, we are concerned that
we have failed to strike that proper balance and that people
who are victims in their own countries, forcing them to flee,
to become refugees fleeing terror, are now victimized again by
the unintended consequences of an ineffectual policy.
Mr. Chairman, in my testimony, my written testimony, I have
included several examples of refugees who have been denied
resettlement in the United States because of the material
support bar. Their stories are horrific, but similar in at
least one respect: they were forced to provide some sort of
support to a terrorist organization, as currently defined in
law, at the risk of their health or lives. In most cases, they
were providing this support under duress to groups or resisting
regimes our own country also opposes.
Tragically, current law does not adequately take into
account the circumstances whereby an individual provides
material support to a group, nor does it properly distinguish
between groups that are actual threats to our Nation and those
who are not. For example, Colombians fleeing the civil war in
their country have been particularly vulnerable to the material
support bar because of the common practice by rebel groups to
force payments from them at gunpoint. Burmese aiding rebel
groups against the Burma military junta often were forced to
support the groups at the risk of death.
To its credit, the administration has taken some steps to
mitigate these circumstances by issuing waivers for certain
groups, including the Burmese, to enter our country. But the
process is very slow and burdensome and does not adequately
solve the problem at hand, which is the denial of life-saving
protection to thousands of refugees. And this is evident in the
numbers resettled in the U.S. Refugee Program. Last year,
nearly 12,000 cases were not resettled because of material
support provisions, and only about 41,000 refugees were
resettled. We are expected to bring in about the same number
this year, but that is far below the Presidential determination
of some 70,000 refugees.
For asylum seekers, over 440 cases are currently on hold,
and only 9 cases have been approved. And for eligible persons
in removal proceedings, no waivers have yet been issued. In our
view, the best solution to this problem is for Congress to
reconsider the issue of material support and revise the
definitions of ``terrorist activities'' and ``terrorist
organizations,'' and this can be done without allowing
individuals that support groups that truly threaten us.
Congress should also statutorily clarify its intent on duress
and provide an exception for that circumstance.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has been a beacon of hope
for millions who have fled to this country for the protection
that our democracy and our freedom bring. If we abandon our
tradition of providing safe haven to the persecuted, we
sacrifice those principles which have made this country great
and, thus, allow our enemies a victory.
We ask you to consider our recommendations and act
accordingly, and I thank you again for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Bishop Wenski appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Bishop, thank you for your testimony.
We are going to now call our third witness on this panel.
It will be necessary for us to make a few changes here to
protect the identity of this witness, who fears for the safety
of her family if her identity is disclosed.
[Pause.]
Chairman Durbin. If the witness would please stand and take
the oath. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Mariana. I do.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you.
Our final witness today is Mariana, a pseudonym which is
being used for the protection of her identity. She is a refugee
from Colombia. Mariana was kidnapped by the FARC and forced at
gunpoint to provide medical care to guerrillas. Her asylum
claim was denied because the Department of Homeland Security
claimed that by providing nursing care for members of the FARC,
she had provided material support to terrorists.
Mariana, this Subcommittee is honored to receive your
testimony, and I want to commend you for the courage to come
today, understanding that your testimony, and particularly your
identity, could create some danger for you or your family. We
look forward to your testimony. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARIANA, COLOMBIAN REFUGEE
Mariana. Thank you for allowing me to be here today. I was
a nurse in Colombia, and my daughter and I are seeking asylum
in the United States because of my fear of the Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Both my daughter and I are
currently in removal proceedings before an immigration judge
after our asylum application was not granted because DHS said
that I had provided material support to a terrorist
organization. I am making this statement under the name
``Mariana'' because I am terrified that if the FARC learns of
my identity in the United States, and that I am seeking asylum,
they will harm my family, which still resides in Colombia.
My family members were active supporters of the Colombian
Government who raised me to value serving the Colombian people,
and I became a nurse in Colombia because of my desire to help
others. After completing my nursing degree, I worked for the
Ministry of Health, organized conferences on health promotion,
and directly served Bogota's poor communities. During my spare
time, I volunteered in the communities, giving health lectures
and distributing donated medicines, medications.
In 1997, I was giving a presentation with a doctor for a
health campaign. During the talk, an audience member collapsed,
so the doctor and I attended to him while the other attendees
left. But the fallen man suddenly began to laugh, and two other
men came over and identified themselves as members of FARC. The
guerrillas kidnapped and physically assaulted me and took me to
a FARC member who had been shot, forcing me at gunpoint to
treat him. Before returning home, the guerrillas threatened my
life and the lives of my family if I notified the authorities.
In the following months, FARC members continued abducting me,
forcing me to provide treatment and medicine to injured
guerrillas.
Eventually, I became certain that I was going to be killed
by FARC because I was left with a condolence card at my
doorstep, something which FARC did routinely before it killed
someone. I was absolutely terrified for my safety and for my
family's safety. I knew that FARC would kill me and my family
if I did not cooperate with them. The communications that they
made showed me that they were watching my every move, and it is
well known that FARC has infiltrated the Colombian Government
and that there is no one that can protect you. For instance,
shortly after the medical clinic where I worked was closed,
FARC killed my cousin by beating him to death and then setting
his taxi on fire.
I fled to the United States with my daughter and
immediately filed a request for asylum. On July 26, 2006, DHS
rejected my claim for asylum, stating that, ``There are
reasonable grounds for regarding you as a danger to the
security of the United States in that you have provided
material support to those who engage in terrorist activity.''
DHS then initiated removal proceedings against my daughter and
me. Our request for asylum is now pending before the U.S.
immigration court, and our next hearing is scheduled in early
2008.
I cannot believe that I was denied asylum based on
supporting a terrorist organization. I never acted voluntarily.
I only provided medical support because I was threatened at
gunpoint and told that if I did not help the FARC soldiers both
me and my family would be killed. I sincerely felt that I had
no other option because I would have been killed if I had not
done what they wanted. The asylum application has been pending
for almost 7 years, and I am still overwhelmed with the fear
that I will be sent back home to Colombia or that FARC will
take action against my family. I have no sense of security, and
it has been very difficult to raise my young daughter here with
such uncertainty. Deportation back to Colombia would literally
be a death sentence for us.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mariana appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you for your testimony. I think that
it was difficult for you to say these words, and it was
courageous of you to come here today and speak not just for
yourself but for thousands of others who are caught in this
material support loophole. You have experienced firsthand what
it is like to be branded as ``engaged in terrorist activity,''
which is the reason for the denial of your request.
Do you think that your home country will welcome you back
after you have been designated as involved in terrorist
activities by the United States Government?
Mariana. No. No, they will never, and like I said in my
statement, the FARC has infiltrated all our government, and if
they know that I came here, seek asylum, and I say what I said
today here, they will kill me and my family.
Chairman Durbin. You have a special situation here that
Senator Coburn can address better than I can, being a medical
doctor, in that you are a medical professional with a
humanitarian duty to provide emergency care.
Mariana. Yes.
Chairman Durbin. You have explained how you were
intimidated and kidnapped and forced into this situation. I
wonder how you feel that when you used your skills as a nurse
for medical purposes, that that has been branded as ``terrorist
activity'' by our Government.
Mariana. I only did that because I was at gunpoint. They
forced me. They told me, ``If you don't do this, I will kill
your daughter.'' They said her name, my father's name. ``If you
don't do this, if you don't tell me what the next activity,
what the campaign, what political activities you are going to
do next, we will kill you.'' It is the only way I will do it. I
will do it--I have--I never did it because I wanted to. Because
I was forced to.
Chairman Durbin. And as you testified here, it was your
cousin who was beaten to death and killed by this same
organization.
Mariana. Yes. He was with my father and my family members--
sisters and cousins, we were together working on this. He was
an accountant, and he was part of the group, and he was with
us, and--with the group.
Chairman Durbin. So you are really in a position now
without a country.
Mariana. Exactly. I cannot come back because they killed
him, and we are in the same group, so I say, ``I have to leave.
I have to.''
Chairman Durbin. They will not give you refugee status in
the United States. It is too dangerous for you to go back to
Colombia.
Mariana. Yes, it is.
Chairman Durbin. And you are caught in our court system now
while they make this final determination.
Mariana. Exactly. I have been caught for 7 years. I don't
know what to do at this moment. That is why I am here. I
decided to come, like you said, to speak for me and speak up
for the other people that are in the same situation. We were
forced. You never do that because you wanted, especially in my
case. My father is still--you serve your country and you are
going to be the rights, the human rights be protected, and your
life is going to be taken care of, but they don't care about
anything. They don't respect any human life. They don't care.
They just kill some people because they only want power. It
doesn't matter why or how.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you.
Bishop Wenski, you have heard this testimony, which is as
convincing as anything I have heard about the terror that this
young woman has faced with her daughter because of this
abduction and the kind of support that she was forced to give
to these guerrillas. Have you run into similar cases that you
have dealt with?
Bishop Wenski. Yes, Colombians and also other people. I
lived most of my life in South Florida, and South Florida is a
gateway for people that come from troubled countries. But a few
years ago, as part of the Bishops Conference, I went to Ecuador
and visited the frontier town of Lagos Agrios, where there are
many Colombian refugees that have been forced because of
paramilitary action or FARC action to cross the border. And
many of these Colombians are also seeking a permanent solution
to their situation in a third country, which could very well be
the United States, and because of the material support bars,
they are being also caught in that situation.
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Hughes, as I hear Mariana's testimony,
it appears she is going to have an appeals hearing sometime
perhaps next year. And what happens if that fails? Where does
she turn next?
Ms. Hughes. Well, her case is currently before the
immigration court, and so if it were denied at that level, it
would go to the Board of Immigration Appeals. One of the
difficult things for people in her situation, as Mr. Rosenzweig
was stating earlier, is that DHS has, in fact, agreed in
principle to consider now duress waivers of the material
support bar for people who provided support involuntarily to
the FARC, which is her situation. But there is still no process
in place. There is the willingness in principle, but there is
still no process in place to do that, for her or for anyone
else whose case is in immigration court.
Chairman Durbin. Senator Coburn.
Senator Coburn. Ms. Hughes, let me follow up. How does
somebody know that they are eligible for a waiver right now?
For example, in principle, our witness over here is eligible
for a waiver.
Ms. Hughes. In principle, she certainly is, Senator,
although there is no way for her to get one right now.
Senator Coburn. But the point is she is. So let's take the
people that are eligible for a waiver and can get one. How do
they notify them? What is the process? How do they communicate
that?
Ms. Hughes. They do not communicate that.
Senator Coburn. That is why I asked the question.
Ms. Hughes. Right. My understanding of the way that USCIS
is implementing this process is that they are considering for
waivers those cases that they know of that are within their
jurisdiction currently that fall within the waiver exemptions
that have currently been announced.
The problem with this, though, is that somebody in
Mariana's situation has--or let us say somebody in Mariana's
situation's case is pending before the asylum office, to take
an example that actually would be implementable currently. That
person has no way of knowing that that process is happening,
that their file actually is going through that process. And if
it is rejected, they also do not know why. If it is granted, as
far as I know, people are not actually getting a notice: Oh, by
the way, we reviewed your case for a waiver, and we are making
an exemption. They would simply get a grant of their case.
So the system is as opaque as it is sounding.
Senator Coburn. So that is one of the reasons why you think
that DHS ought to have a system where they know who is in
court, in terms of asylum adjudication, who is actually in
immigration court, who is actually in Federal court. They ought
to have a network to track those.
Ms. Hughes. Exactly.
Senator Coburn. And that was your point. And we do not have
the DHS here, but I think we need to submit that question to
DHS: What is your process to know who is out there, who can
benefit from this, who is undergoing adjudication now, because,
in fact, they could issue a waiver which would stop all that
process and solve the problem before we continue on the legal
side. Correct?
Ms. Hughes. They could, indeed. They could also do
something even more efficient, which would be to alter their
position that the kind of support that this woman and others
provided constitutes material support in the first place.
Medical care has historically enjoyed a special role, and this
case and others like it are legally anomalous in that sense.
Senator Coburn. I can agree partially with that, but I can
also see how someone could get into this country under that
auspices as well. But I think the more important thing is that
there is no question in this case, this is duress. I mean, it
is slam-dunk, open-shut.
Ms. Hughes. I would agree with that.
Senator Coburn. So if, in fact, it is duress, how do we
execute that to where we have a resolution of the problem
rather than continue to keep something in court? It certainly
is not cheap for her, both in terms of emotional costs,
financial costs. Even though she may have pro bono work being
done for her, there is a significant cost to her in terms of
continuing her life and that of her child.
I think we will submit that question for the record to DHS
and find out, and we also will ask in an additional question in
terms of offering medical support. You know, there is a good
question. If you are a trained medical professional, and no
matter what somebody has done or what their belief system is or
where they are, we have an obligation to help them if they are,
in fact, in need. And so that ought to be looked at, and we
will ask that question of DHS as well.
Ms. Hughes. Thank you.
Senator Coburn. I thank both of you for your testimony. I
have another hearing I have to go to.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Coburn, for
inspiring me to have this hearing and for being here today
during the course of the testimony. It is unusual when you can
see results before we even adjourn, but we were just sent by
the miracle of BlackBerry a notice from the Department of
Homeland Security that, Mariana, they are going to personally
review your case based on the testimony today, and we are
hopeful that the outcome will be the best for you and your
daughter.
Mariana. Thank you very much.
Chairman Durbin. So your courage in coming here is going to
be rewarded by at least an additional day in court, which we
hope will end well.
I want to thank you, Ms. Hughes, for joining us again,
Bishop Wenski, for your personal sacrifice in coming here today
to join us. The faith community has played a big, big role in
dealing with refugees, and I am proud that the Catholic
Conference of Bishops has been part of that faith community
that has done so much.
Let me mention just a number of the other organizations
that have asked to place written statements in the record about
this issue: the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty; the Center
for Victims of Torture; Richard Cizik, Vice President of the
National Association of Evangelicals; the Episcopal Migration
Ministries; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; Human Rights Watch;
Immigrant and Refugee Appellate Center; Dr. Richard Land,
President of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and
Religious Liberty Commission; the Lutheran Immigration and
Refugee Service; Heartland Alliance's; National Immigrant
Justice Center, based in Chicago; Physicians for Human Rights;
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees; and World Relief USA. And without
objection, these statements will be placed in the record.
The hearing record will remain open for a week for
additional materials. Written questions may be directed to the
witnesses, which we hope they will respond to in a timely
fashion.
I thank my colleagues for participating. I thank the
witnesses for their testimony. Mariana, thank you again for the
risk that you took to speak out.
Mariana. Thank you very much.
Chairman Durbin. I only hope that your good fortune is
shared by thousands of others who are waiting with the same
fear and the same concern that you have for your family.
This hearing stands adjourned.
Mariana. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]