[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  OVERSIGHT OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S 
                                MUSLIM BAN

=======================================================================

                             JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                WITH THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2019

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 116-50

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
       

               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
40-775                      WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
               MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking 
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas                Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Wisconsin
    Georgia                          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California               JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana        KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California            MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California           GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              BEN CLINE, Virginia
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

        PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
              CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director 
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

                     ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chair
                PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington, Vice-Chair

J. LUIS CORREA, California           KEN BUCK, Colorado, Ranking Member
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 TOM McCLINTOCK, California
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida      DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania

                    DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Chief Counsel
                    ANDREA LOVING, Minority Counsel
                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chair

BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking 
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York               Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California               SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts       TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island        ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California                 LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada                   ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York          BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota              JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas                  RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan                 GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia         TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland                MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas

                    JASON STEINBAUM, Staff Director
               BRENDAN SHIELDS, Republican Staff Director
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                      AMI BERA, California, Chair

ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                LEE ZELDIN, New York, Ranking 
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York              Member
TED LIEU, California                 SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           KEN BUCK, Colorado
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island        GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania

                    CHAD OBERMILLER, Staff Director
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2019

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California.......     1
The Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of Arizona..........     3
The Honorable Ami Bera, Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight 
  and Investigations from the State of California................     5
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     8
The Honorable Lee Zeldin, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Oversight and Investigations from the State of New York........    30

                                Panel 1

Edward Ramotowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, 
  Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State
  Oral Testimony.................................................    11
  Prepared Statement.............................................    13
Elizabeth Neumann, Assistant Secretary for Threat Prevention and 
  Security Policy, Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, U.S. 
  Department of Homeland Security
  Oral Testimony.................................................    17
Todd Hoffman, Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger 
  Programs, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border 
  Protection
  Oral Testimony.................................................    18
  Joint Prepared Statement for Elizabeth Neumann and Todd Hoffman    20

                                Panel 2

Abdollah Dehzangi, Baltimore, MD
  Oral Testimony.................................................   181
  Prepared Statement.............................................   184
Ismail Ahmed Hezam Alghazali, Brooklyn, New York
  Oral Testimony.................................................   189
  Prepared Statement.............................................   191
Farhana Khera, President and Executive Director, Muslim Advocates
  Oral Testimony.................................................   194
  Prepared Statement.............................................   196
Andrew R. Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law and Policy, Center for 
  Immigration Studies
  Oral Testimony.................................................   209
  Prepared Statement.............................................   211

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Public Law 114-113, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and 
  Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, submitted by the 
  Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration 
  and Citizenship from the State of California for the record....    34
A letter from former Foreign Service Officers to Members of the 
  House Judiciary Committee and the House Foreign Affairs 
  Committee, dated September 20, 2019, submitted by the Honorable 
  Ilhan Omar, a Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
  Investigations from the State of Minnesota for the record......    52
Statement of TX-29 Constituent Elizabeth Morales; Submitted by 
  the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of Texas for the 
  record.........................................................    62
A casework document from the Office of the Honorable Veronica 
  Escobar entitled, ``Congressional Response to Mr. Parsa's 
  request for a status update on his wife's application,'' 
  submitted by the Honorable Veronica Escobar, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of 
  Texas for the record...........................................    72
An article entitled ``The Latest: How Philly's Reacting to 
  Trump's Immigration Ban,'' Philly Magazine, submitted by the 
  Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of Pennsylvania for 
  the record.....................................................    80
Items submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of 
  California for the record
  A letter from 19 State Attorneys General to Members of Congress    88
  Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).........    92
  Statement of the American-Arab Anti-discrimination Committee 
    (ADC)........................................................    97
  Statement of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)..................   101
  Statement of Amnesty International.............................   105
  Statement of Asian-Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC)..........   111
  Statement of Bend the Arc Jewish Action........................   117
  Statement of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)......   119
  Statement of the Emgage Foundation.............................   130
  Statement of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.....   137
  Statement of Japanese-American Citizens League (JACL)..........   139
  Statement of Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)..............   142
  Statement of the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW).......   155
  Statement of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC)........   156
  Statement of Jews and Muslims and Allies Acting Together 
    (JMAAT)......................................................   160
  Statement of the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans 
    (PAAIA)......................................................   162
  Statement of the International Refugee Assistance Project 
    (IRAP).......................................................   165
  Statement from Senator Coon and Representative Chu regarding 
    the NO BAN Act...............................................   168
A letter from former national security officials, dated September 
  23, 2019, submitted by the Honorable Ami Bera, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations from the State of 
  California for the record......................................   174
An article entitled, ``Jordanian teen sent to Chicago for 
  detainment after being held in Texas,'' Chicago Tribune, 
  submitted by the Honorable Shelia Jackson Lee, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of 
  Texas for the record...........................................   158

                                APPENDIX

Items submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of 
  California for the record
  A letter from Faith-Based Organizations in Support of the NO 
    Ban Act, dated April 10, 2019................................   268
  Statement of HIAS..............................................   277
  Statement of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC)......   279
  A letter from Immigration Law Professors and Scholars to 
    Members of Congress, dated March 29, 2019....................   300
  A letter from Coalition of Corporations in Support of the NO 
    BAN Act, dated September 22, 2019............................   319
  An article entitled, ``National Security, Immigration, and the 
    Muslim Bans,'' Washington and Lee Law Review.................   311
  A report entitled ``More than 100 American Victims of the 
    Muslim Ban''.................................................   344
  A report entitled ``Total and Complete Shutdown,'' Muslim 
    Advocates....................................................   357
  A letter from NO BAN Act Coalition to Members of Congress, 
    dated September 22, 2019.....................................   403
  Statement by the Americans United for Separation of Church and 
    State........................................................   415
  A report entitled ``Justice for Muslims Collective's Policy and 
    Community Brief'' on the NO BAN Act..........................   419
  An article entitled, ``Article II and Antidiscrimination 
    Norms,'' Michigan Law Review.................................   424
  Statement from the American Bar Association....................   491
  Statement from Ali Vatan.......................................   494
  Statement of Farid Vatan.......................................   495
  A letter from Senator Van Hollen to Farid Vatan, dated August 
    26, 2019.....................................................   495
  A letter from Senator Van Hollen to Ali Vatan, dated August 27, 
    2019.........................................................   496
  An article entitled, ``The Trump Administration is Making a 
    Mockery of the Supreme Court,'' New York Times...............   498
  Statement from the National Association of Manufacturers.......   500
  Statement of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine   501

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Questions for the Department of State, the Department of Homeland 
  Security, and All Witnesses, submitted by the Honorable Zoe 
  Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
  Citizenship from the State of California, the Honorable Jerrold 
  Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State 
  of New York, the Honorable Ami Bera, Chair of the Subcommittee 
  on Oversight and Investigations from the State of California, 
  and the Honorable Ilhan Omar, a Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Oversight and Investigations from the State of Minnesota for 
  the record.....................................................   506
Responses to Questions from the Department of State for the 
  record.........................................................   513

 
           OVERSIGHT OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S MUSLIM BAN

                              ----------                              


                      Tuesday, September 24, 2019

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship

                                with the

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                             Washington, DC

    The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren 
[Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship] 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives Lofgren, Bera, Nadler, Jayapal, 
Omar, Espaillat, Garcia, Neguse, Malinowski, Mucarsel-Powell, 
Escobar, Jackson Lee, Scanlon, Zeldin, Biggs, McClintock, 
Reschenthaler, Lesko, and Armstrong.
    Staff Present from the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Citizenship: Joshua Breisblatt, Counsel; Rachel Calanni, 
Legislative Aide/Professional Staff Member; Andrea Loving, 
Minority Chief Counsel; and Andrea Woodward Minority 
Professional Staff Member.
    Staff Present from the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations: Nikole Burroughs, Staff Director; Ryan Uyehara, 
Professional Staff Member; Jenny Gorski, Minority 
Parliamentarian; and Sara Matar, Minority Legislative 
Assistant.
    Ms. Lofgren. The House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Citizenship and the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation will 
come to order for this joint hearing.
    Without objection, I will preside over today's hearing. In 
addition, without objection, the presiding member is authorized 
to declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on oversight 
of the Trump Administration's Muslim ban. I would like to 
welcome the Members of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations to this hearing. We are very happy to be working 
on this important issue with you all today.
    I would also like to thank all the majority and minority 
Members and staffs of both subcommittees for their coordination 
and flexibility while planning this joint hearing, particularly 
given the cancellation of yesterday's votes. I want to note 
that, because of the cancellation of votes, not every Member is 
able to be here today. I did make a point of talking to Mr. 
Collins and Mr. Buck to be assured that they were okay with 
proceeding. They assured me that they were, especially since 
Mr. Biggs and Mr. Zeldin will be here. So, we do appreciate 
that flexibility and our opportunity to learn more and to probe 
issues about this matter.
    I really do think the hearing in many ways is overdue, for 
2\1/2\ years, the Administration has been allowed to 
arbitrarily exclude from the United States individuals from 
predominantly Muslim countries, and there has been no oversight 
by the Congress. Today that oversight starts.
    As a candidate for President, Mr. Trump promised to ban 
Muslims from entering the United States suggesting, without 
evidence, that would somehow make our country safer. 
Immediately upon entering office, he followed through on his 
promise only to have his first executive order struck down by 
the courts as unlawful.
    It took the President 10 months, three attempts and the 
inclusion of a waiver process that appears to be something of a 
sham to create a version of the ban that allowed the Supreme 
Court to turn a blind eye to the religious animus that inspired 
it.
    The Administration claims that the ban is necessary to keep 
our country safe from terrorists, and yet a bipartisan 
coalition of former national security officers concluded 
otherwise.
    According to Madeline Albright, General Michael Hayden, 
former Senator Richard Lugar, and many others, overwhelming 
evidence demonstrates that the ban has failed to advance our 
national security and foreign policy interest and is, in fact, 
damaging those interests.
    Moreover, as we will discuss today, the Muslim ban keeps 
families apart, harms businesses, and supports the false notion 
that bad actors are more likely to come from certain countries. 
This is contrary to our American values and our immigration 
laws. That is why I have led the House of Representatives in 
amicus briefs in support of court cases challenging the 
legality of the ban and why I am an original cosponsor of 
Representative Judy Chu and Senator Chris Coons No Ban Act.
    This legislation would repeal all three versions of the ban 
and strengthen the Immigration and Nationality Act by 
prohibiting discrimination based on religion in the issuance of 
immigration decisions and limiting executive authority to issue 
future travel bans.
    Today we will also delve into the waiver process, and 
rightfully so since so many aspects of it remain a mystery. The 
Department of State claims that around 5 percent of waiver 
applications have been approved. Standards for granting a 
waiver appear to be applied inconsistently across consular 
posts. The lack of an established application process only 
leads to the confusion caused by the inconsistency and lack of 
transparency.
    One thing we do know is once an individual case is referred 
for waiver, chances are it will languish in administrative 
processing for months, if not longer.
    We will hear today from some individuals who have been 
stuck in limbo waiting for a decision, victims of this policy 
who, for too long, have endured the pain of separation from 
their loved ones. Some of these individuals have missed the 
birth of a child, have been unable to start a family, or have 
had to refuse job offers here in the United States. Delays of 
this magnitude where major life events are missed or must be 
placed on hold indefinitely are unacceptable.
    Discrimination based on religion is unlawful and un-
American. Until this ban is repealed, I will continue to oppose 
it every step of the way.
    I want to thank Chair Bera, of the Foreign Affairs 
Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee for his work in making 
today's joint hearing a reality, and also for his commitment to 
holding the Administration accountable for its policies, 
actions, and statements about the ban.
    I also want to thank our witnesses, especially those who 
are here today to show how the ban has so deeply impacted their 
lives.
    Now, although the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, as I 
mentioned, was unable to attend today's hearing, I would like 
to recognize Mr. Biggs for an opening statement.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the witnesses 
for being here today.
    Before I get into the substance of this, I must point out 
that the title of the hearing today seems disingenuous to me. 
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to be 
taken seriously in their oversight of the Trump 
Administration's immigration and national security-related 
policies, then the least they can do is have the titles of 
their hearings accurately reflect the issue.
    My colleagues have decided to ignore the reality 
surrounding the executive order entitled Protecting the Nation 
from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States and instead 
continues to show discord among the American people by merely 
the title of this hearing today.
    Of course, the seven countries in the original January 2017 
travel executive order were those countries specified by this 
Congress and the Obama Administration as countries of 
particular concern for terrorism pursuant to the Visa Waiver 
Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, a bill 
which the Democrats allowed to be considered on the House floor 
under suspension and which only garnered 19 votes in 
opposition.
    As the United States Supreme Court noted about the 
subsequent Presidential proclamation, quote, ``the text says 
nothing about religion,'' closed quote and, quote, ``the policy 
covers just 8 percent of the world's Muslim population,'' 
closed quote.
    So, if the point of the travel executive order was not to 
ban all persons of a particular religion from entering the 
United States, what was it? The point of it was exactly what 
the September 24, 2017, Presidential proclamation stated in its 
title: Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for 
Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists 
or Other Public Safety Threats.
    It is ironic that my Democratic colleagues are holding this 
hearing less that be 2 weeks after the 18th anniversary of the 
September 11 terrorist attacks, an attack in which foreign 
national terrorists exploited the U.S. immigration law to gain 
access to the United States for the sole purpose of killing 
thousands of our citizens.
    Maybe we need a refresher in the fact that the September 11 
terrorist submitted 23 visa applications to the United States 
Government of which 22 were approved. They were approved 
despite both blatant omissions and lies in the applications. 
They were approved after background name checks were conducted.
    It was clear after 9/11 that our vetting and screening was 
insufficient. In the years since 2001, our vetting has remained 
insufficient enough that we issued immigration benefits to a 
number of individuals who were a national security risk. For 
instance, among others, we issued a student visa to a terrorist 
who settled in Texas and a fiancee visa to a terrorist who went 
to California.
    Just late last week, the Manhattan U.S. attorney announced 
the indictment of a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from 
Lebanon on charges of being an agent of Hezbollah.
    He entered the United States in 2000 and was naturalized as 
a U.S. citizen in 2008 despite having joined Hezbollah in 1996. 
Receiving training before his entry, despite being an operative 
of Hezbollah's external operations unit and despite receiving 
explosives training from Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2004 and 2005, 
it is obvious our vetting and screening was not sufficient.
    Today we sit in a hearing in which my colleagues intend to 
lambast an Administration for putting forth a policy that, at 
its core, was meant to increase immigration-related vetting. 
This President promised the American people he would do that, 
and he has followed through.
    Of course, no vetting is perfect, a fact which this 
Administration recognizes. That is why Presidential 
Proclamation 9645 includes a requirement that, now annually, 
the Secretaries of DHS in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National 
Intelligence update the President regarding procedures related 
to immigration screening and vetting with the purpose of 
enhancing the safety and security of the United States.
    The initial executive order and subsequent proclamation 
were based on the President's power under section 212(f) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act as well as the President's 
foreign policy powers vested by the Constitution.
    The INI 212(f) states that whenever the President finds 
that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the 
United States would be detrimental to the interest of the 
United States, he may, by proclamation and for such period as 
he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any 
class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the 
entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
    Presidents of both political parties have used 212(f) many 
times. Proclamation 9645 specified eight countries subject to 
temporary travel restrictions due to inadequacy in the 
countries' cooperation with the United States identity 
management and information sharing policies as well as the 
terrorist presence within those countries.
    One of those countries, Chad, had their travel restrictions 
lifted just 7 months later after they improved their identity 
management and information sharing practices with the United 
States, proof that the restrictions are temporary in nature.
    The travel restrictions for each country range from only 
restrictions on immigrant visas to only restrictions on certain 
nonimmigrant visas to a mixture of both. The State of Hawaii 
sued to have the travel ban struck down. In June 2018, the 
United States Supreme Court reversed the 9th circuit injunction 
finding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail in their 
claim.
    Of course, I agree with those who have suggested such as 
then-Secretary of DHS, John Kelly, that the implementation of 
the initial travel executive order should have been better. It 
was not rolled out well, communication among government 
partners was lacking, and there was confusion. Given the 
importance of the issue to our national security and to those 
affected, the Administration simply should have done better.
    Only my Democrat colleagues would argue an opposition to a 
heightened security on aliens who seek to enter the United 
States. President Trump promised the American people his 
Administration would increase U.S. immigration vetting and 
screening capabilities. He issued an executive order to that 
effect, a revised executive order, and a Presidential 
proclamation aimed at doing just that.
    He has been successful in getting the majority of the 
world's countries to allow us access to better information for 
the purposes of immigration vetting. His actions have made us 
safer. For that I am grateful.
    I look forward to the witnesses' testimony today, and I 
yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    I would now turn to my colleague, the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Mr. Bera, for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Bera. I thank the Chair Lofgren and Members of both 
subcommittees, the witnesses, and public for joining us for 
today's hearing, the first on the Muslim ban and long overdue.
    You know, I have a deep love for the United States of 
America. As you think about it, schoolchildren all across this 
country every day State the Pledge of Allegiance. In that, the 
line that has always struck me as profound is one Nation under 
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
    Now, as kids we may not have known what that means. As we 
get older and we learn about the Constitution and we learn 
about our values as Americans, we learn it is about those 
freedoms, those core values. Part of that is the freedom of 
religion.
    In this great Nation of ours, we don't tell people which 
God to pray to or how to worship. That is core to what makes 
our country great. When I think about one of the first actions 
that President Trump took in his first days in office 
profoundly went against those values. That is why you saw such 
outcry all across this Nation, because it really does smack 
against who we are.
    Now, we have seen several iterations of that executive 
order. As my colleague, Mr. Biggs, pointed out, if we are to be 
objective and look at the threats and where terrorist threats 
were coming from, and if the intent here was to keep us safer, 
we didn't see this imminent threat.
    If I think about my privilege now as a Member of Congress--
I am not a lawyer. I am a doctor. As such, I won't argue the 
legal side of this one way or another. I will look for the 
facts. That is our job, and that is our constitutional duty as 
Members of Congress, to conduct oversight.
    If we think about the Supreme Court ruling when they chose 
not to dismiss the ban, and I am not going to say they upheld 
the ban, but they didn't toss the ban out, if you look at that 
dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer suggested that if there was 
a waiver process in here, that was not actually objectively 
being implemented. Well, then, in fact, this was the Muslim 
ban.
    So, in my oversight capacity as Chair, I want to know what 
that waiver process looks like. I appreciate that State 
Department has provided us some data. When I look at that data 
of the tens of thousands of waiver applications, only 5 percent 
have been granted. I want to know why 95 percent were denied. 
Were 95 percent of the folks trying to come to the United 
States for reasons of hardship or national interests? Did they 
present a national security risk?
    Again, I want to know what happens when that waiver 
application is sent into this Black box when it goes from the 
embassy to Washington, DC.
    Who makes the decision? What does that process look like? 
What authority have our consular officers been given?
    I think about this in the context of our most important job 
as Members of Congress. It is not just do oversight. but the 
people who we work for, are our constituents and the people 
that we represent. I think about one of my own constituents, 
Omnia. Omnia is a 2-year-old. Like many families in districts 
across this country got stuck in this.
    Let me share her story. Her mother is an American citizen. 
She happened to be in Libya when Omnia was born. Her father is 
a Libyan. She was 7 months pregnant. She went to the consular 
office, and she wanted to come back to the United States for 
her second child's birth.
    That 2-year-old was denied a visa. Now, Omnia's mother was 
told to return to the United States, have her child, and then 
come back to Libya, and let the process take place.
    I find it hard to fathom that that 2-year-old didn't face 
undue hardship by being separated from her mom. I find it very 
difficult to fathom that that 2-year-old presented a national 
security risk. I find it very difficult, given the values that 
we care about in this country of keeping families together, 
that it wasn't in that 2-year-old's interest, as well as our 
National interest, to keep that mother and child together.
    Well, we intervened. We were able to help and able to 
reunite that family. When I saw them in my office a few months 
ago, that child continues to have anxiety issues and 
separation. That isn't who we are as the United States of 
America.
    So, I have talked to many of my colleagues. They have 
similar stories to share about their constituents. The number 
of spouses that are being kept apart. The number of parents who 
want to see their children, even temporarily, who may be dying 
and are not able to come visit their children. The number of 
children who can't see their parents who may be dying. Again, 
that isn't who we are.
    So, I think all of us can agree that we have an obligation 
to keep our country safe. We have an obligation to have a 
thorough vetting process. Core to who we are is these values of 
humanity, these values of freedoms. When you ban entire 
countries, that really smacks against who we are as the United 
States of America.
    So, I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. I 
expect answers to the questions and data about processes, 
denials, et cetera, as well as approvals. Again, I look forward 
to working with you.
    So, thank you.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    I am now happy to recognize the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Zeldin, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Zeldin. Thank you to the chairs. Thank you for all our 
witnesses who will be testifying today.
    Today's hearing will examine Presidential Proclamation 
9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for 
Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists 
or Other Public Safety Threats.
    I want an immigration process for a country that allows 
individuals to pursue the American Dream legally while also 
having a process that prioritizes America's national security. 
We are a generous Nation that offers refuge to many seeking 
asylums or escaping persecution. We must be mindful that bad 
actors are also looking to abuse the system.
    Nearly one-third of the FBI's 1,000 domestic terrorist 
cases involve individuals admitted to the country as refugees. 
It is important that when allowing an individual to enter the 
United States that their documentation and interrogation, we 
are confident that a person is who they say they are and 
believe in what they say they believe and does not pose a 
terrorist threat to our country. This becomes an increased 
challenge in cases where sufficient documentation is less 
available, especially because of the country they are traveling 
from.
    When the Supreme Court decided Trump versus Hawaii last 
year, it found that the President has the authority to exclude 
certain aliens from the country for national security reasons 
based on the countries that they came from.
    The travel restrictions were limited to countries 
previously identified as posing a national security risk by 
Congress or prior Administrations. DHS conducted a thorough 
worldwide review and carefully identified eight countries that 
contained a high-risk profile and failed to satisfy the minimum 
information sharing standards to ensure proper vetting. This 
includes basic information sharing requests by the U.S. 
Government to verify the address or previous residence of a 
refugee or, more importantly, confirm their association with a 
known terrorist group in the region.
    Each country was treated differently based on the 
circumstances with issues that range from failure to verify 
basic identity documents to the high risk of terrorism havens 
in each country. There were exceptions and waivers granted on a 
case-by-case basis. For example, Iranians are still allowed to 
seek a nonimmigrant student visa or an exchange visitor's visa.
    Countries such as Chad and Sudan that showed improvement in 
their vetting process in cooperation with the U.S. were removed 
from the visa restriction list. These travel restrictions could 
prevent attacks against individuals expressing an affirmative 
intent to harm United States citizens.
    Mohamad Osman lawfully resettled as a refugee with five 
children during the last Administration, in Tuscon, Arizona. 
Osmond stands accused of hiding his Membership in the Al-
Shabaab terrorist group. There are other examples of terrorists 
who have lawfully gone through the system and escaped vetting. 
As was mentioned just last week, the DOJ charged Alexei Saab, a 
naturalized U.S. citizen, for conducting intelligence gathering 
in New York in pursuit of terrorist activities on behalf of 
Hezbollah. Alexei Saab came from Lebanon, a country not on the 
travel ban list. I would support examining this list on a 
regular basis to ensure we allow countries that have improved 
to come off the list and other countries, as necessary, to 
undergo a review to possibly be added.
    Since January 2017, there have been several revisions to 
this proclamation. The rollout of the plan needed more careful 
deliberation and resulted in some unintended consequences. 
However, the underlying policy was correct. It is difficult to 
measure the threats we have stopped as a result of this travel 
ban. As a matter of national security, it is better to be 
proactive than reactive.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the 
vetting procedures, why these countries were specifically 
chosen, and how we can improve the process.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    I would now like to recognize Chair and Ranking Members of 
the full committee, first the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, 
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for his opening 
statement.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    When the Trump Administration issued its first version of 
the Muslim ban in January 2017, it was immediately apparent 
that it was unconstitutional, discriminatory, and morally 
reprehensible.
    The day after the executive order was signed, I, along with 
my colleague from New York, Representative Velazquez, went to 
JFK Airport to try to make sure that those who were arriving 
would have their visas honored. The scene at the airport was 
chaotic and heartbreaking. Refugees, people with valid visas, 
and even legal permanent residents were detained for hours and 
prevented from speaking with their attorneys.
    Amidst all the confusion, I also observed America at its 
best. The incredible outpouring of compassion and support for 
individuals subject to the ban offered by volunteers from all 
walks of life was inspiring.
    Alongside these volunteers, Representative Velazquez and I 
helped to secure the release of two individuals who were 
detained by Customs and Border Protection because of the ban. 
One such individual was Hameed Khalid Darweesh, an Iraqi, who 
had been granted a special immigrant visa for risking his life 
working with American and coalition forces abroad as a 
translator for 10 years, but was now being ordered to leave the 
country.
    What I saw that day at JFK gave me great hope. I did not 
know that people all over this country would rush to the 
airports that day to unite against this outrageous policy or 
that the courts would so quickly and effectively block what 
amounted to a xenophobic Muslim ban.
    When the second version of the ban was also stopped by the 
courts, the Trump Administration went back to the drawing board 
a third time. Sadly, the inclusion of a phony waiver process, 
along with the naming of a couple of nonMuslim majority 
countries, was enough to convince the Supreme Court that this 
last version of the ban passed constitutional muster. We are 
now living with the consequences of that fateful decision.
    Since the Supreme Court's ruling, the ban has had a 
significant impact on American communities. It has severed 
support systems and kept families apart. A 2019 Cato Institute 
analysis found that the ban has prevented more than 9,000 
family Members of U.S. citizens from entering the country, 
including more than 5,500 children.
    The ban provides for a waiver on a case-by-case basis if 
the Department of State, consular officer, or Customs and 
Border Protection official determines that: One, denying entry 
would cause undue hardship to the individual; two, admission of 
the individual would not pose a threat to national security or 
public safety; and three, admission of the individual would be 
in the national interest.
    While this sounds straightforward enough, it is anything 
but. In his dissent in Trump versus Hawaii, which upheld the 
third version of the Muslim ban, Justice Breyer noted that, 
quote, ``waivers are not being processed in an ordinary way,'' 
unquote and quote, ``there is reason to suspect that the 
proclamation's waiver program is nothing more than a sham,'' 
closed quote.
    This skepticism is warranted. Only 5 percent of adjudicated 
claims have been approved for a waiver. Moreover, reports from 
inside the Department of State indicate that the department's 
internal guidance on the waiver process is inconsistent with 
its public representations.
    As we consistently see in media reports and as we will hear 
from some of the witnesses today, the cases of far too many 
individuals languish for months, and some for more than a year 
in the Black hole known as administrative processing.
    In that time, U.S. citizens, including children, remains 
separated from their families with no recourse. The Muslim ban 
has not made us safer. It has weakened our standing in the 
world and runs contrary to our country's moral and 
philosophical foundation. The United States has always been and 
must continue to be a place that welcomes and embraces people 
of all religions and nationalities.
    Our country's reputation is the beacon of hope, tolerance, 
and inclusion for those fleeing persecution, reuniting with 
their families, or simply seeking a better life has been 
tarnished by the acts of this Administration and by the ongoing 
implementation of the Muslim ban.
    It is incumbent upon us here in Congress to call the 
Administration to task and to hold it accountable for its 
discriminatory policies until they are finally and effectively 
repealed.
    I thank our two chairs, Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Bera, for 
holding this hearing today. I look forward to hearing from the 
witnesses.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    Because of our change in schedule, Ranking Member McCaul, 
Ranking Member Collins, and Chair Engel were unable to be here. 
They will be invited to submit their statements for the record.
    I would also like to note that Congressman Rose and 
Congresswoman Judy Chu have joined us here in the audience, and 
we thank them for their attendance.
    There will be two panels of witnesses for today's hearing. 
The first panel includes two government witnesses from the U.S. 
Custom and Border Protection and State Department. This panel 
will be followed by a panel of nongovernmental witnesses 
including a policy expert on the Muslim ban and two individuals 
who were personally impacted by this policy.
    I will now introduce the first panel of witnesses.
    Mr. Edward Ramotowski serves as deputy assistant secretary 
for Visa Services with the State Department's Bureau of 
Consular Affairs.
    As deputy assistant secretary, he oversees the visa office 
in Washington, DC, two domestic processing centers and 
operations at over 200 U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. He 
has previously worked as special assistant to the assistant 
secretary of State for Consular Affairs and held leadership 
posts at the U.S. Embassy in the Bahamas, and the consular 
offices in Mexico, Jamaica, and Columbia. He has also served as 
an officer in the Office of Andean Affairs, a watch officer in 
the State Department operations center, and on the White House 
situation room staff.
    Elizabeth Neumann is assistant Secretary of State for 
threat prevention and security policy at the Department of 
Homeland Security's Office of Strategy, Policy and Plans. Prior 
to that, she served as deputy chief of staff to the Department 
of Homeland Security, Secretaries John Kelly, and Kirstjen 
Nielsen.
    She also served under the George W. Bush Administration as 
a domestic counter terrorism and Homeland Security staffer in 
the White House and worked for the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development and the Department of Education. Between her 
positions with the executive branch, she spent many years 
consulting during which she focused on homeland and national 
security issues.
    Finally, we have Mr. Todd Hoffman who is the executive 
director of admissibility and passenger programs and U.S. and 
Customs and Border Protections office of field operations.
    Mr. Hoffman has worked for the CBP since 1991 and has 
served in various capacities including area port director at 
Los Angeles International Airport and of the Los Angeles Long 
Beach Seaport. He has also served as office field operation 
headquarters as director for the nonintrusive inspection 
division and program manager for the anti-smuggling division.
    We welcome all our distinguished witnesses, and we thank 
them for participating in today's hearing.
    Now, if you will please rise, I will begin by swearing you 
in.
    Please raise your right hand.
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the 
affirmative, and you have been seated.
    Please note that your full written statements will be made 
part of the record. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your 
testimony in about 5 minutes.
    To help you stay on time, we have a lighting system. When 
you have just 1 minute left, the light will turn from green to 
yellow. When it's red, your 5 minutes are up. We would ask you 
to please wrap it up.
    So, we will begin. Mr. Ramotowski you may begin with your 
statement.

                 TESTIMONY OF EDWARD RAMOTOWSKI

    Mr. Ramotowski. Thank you. Good morning, Chairw Lofgren, 
Chair Bera, Chair Nadler, Vice-Chair Jayapal, and Ranking 
Members Biggs, and Ranking Member Zeldin, and other 
distinguished Members of the Committee.
    I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today 
about the Department of State's role in implementing 
Presidential Proclamation 9645 including vigorous diplomatic 
engagement with foreign governments to improve the U.S. 
national security as well as administering exceptions and 
waivers to the proclamation's travel restrictions.
    The proclamation and the strides we made in information 
sharing and border security with many foreign counterparts have 
been important factors in strengthening the United States 
immigration system. The Department of Homeland Security leads 
this process, and the Department of State has worked closely 
with DHS and other interagency partners and with our embassies 
and consulates overseas, to implement the proclamation in a 
consistent manner allowing us to enhance the security of our 
borders, while still facilitating legitimate travel permitted 
by the proclamation's exceptions and waivers.
    Our first priority, when adjudicating all visa 
applications, including those covered by the proclamation, is 
to ensure that applicants pose no security risk to the United 
States.
    Our second priority is to ensure that consular officers 
apply the proclamation in a consistent manner and that 
applicants who may be subject to the proclamation are informed 
about its requirements.
    Our third priority has been to improve the waiver process 
to reduce the often-lengthy security vetting delays by 
replacing a time and resource-intensive interagency manual 
review process with an automated system.
    If an applicant does not fall into an exception category 
but is otherwise eligible for a visa apart from the 
proclamation, a consular officer will automatically consider 
that applicant for a waiver based upon the criteria set forth 
in the proclamation. These criteria are: Issuance of the visa 
is in the national interest; denial of the visa would cause the 
applicant undue hardship; and the applicant poses no national 
security or public safety threat to the United States.
    The applicant need not prepare any separate application for 
a waiver or pay any additional fee. The necessary information 
is gathered by the consular officer at the time of the visa 
application.
    The Department worked closely with the White House and 
other agencies on the creation of exceptions and waivers of the 
proclamation's entry restrictions. We sought authority for the 
consular officers to make these decisions, because they are in 
direct contact with the applicants, and are best placed to 
assess each applicant's personal circumstances, and purpose of 
travel under the proclamation.
    The required security interagency security review is, out 
of necessity, conducted back in Washington, with the assistance 
of vetting partners from other agencies who have access to 
relevant national security and intelligence information. The 
results of that are then provided back to the consular officers 
for final action.
    As noted, the security vetting requirement has been the 
longest part of the waiver process. In July 2019, the 
Department and partner agencies initiated a pre-interview 
enhanced automated screening and vetting process for 
proclamation cases after first ensuring that the new process 
was just as secure as the manual system it replaced.
    As a result of this vetting refinement, as of September 14 
of 2019, the Department has issued more than 7,600 visas 
pursuant to a waiver of the proclamation. In addition, more 
than 5,000 visas were issued to nationals of the proclamation 
countries under exceptions, and 8,830 were not covered by the 
proclamation. We anticipate completing a majority of the waiver 
clearances that are still ongoing, but which still require some 
degree of manual review over the next 6 months.
    This new system is intended to significantly increase the 
speed and efficiency of the vetting process for both currently 
pending and future proclamation subject applications, while 
also enhancing the quality of our security reviews.
    Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to invite you 
to visit one of our consular sections overseas to see how our 
dedicated professional team works to keep America safe and 
secure while facilitating legitimate travel.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Ramotowski follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    We will now recognize Ms. Neumann for her 5-minute 
statement.

                 STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH NEUMANN

    Ms. Neumann. Madam Chair Lofgren, Chair Bera, Ranking 
Member Biggs, Ranking Member Zeldin, and full Committee Chair, 
Chair Nadler, distinguished Members of the Subcommittees, thank 
you for having us here today.
    This month, we observed the 18th anniversary of the attacks 
of 9/11. Since its inception, DHS has been focused on combating 
terrorist travel.
    In those early years after 9/11, I served on the domestic 
counterterrorism directorate at the White House and worked on 
the policies we needed to prevent acts of terrorism, including 
breaking down the wall between law enforcement and intelligence 
information, and establishing the foundational policies of our 
information sharing arrangements used today.
    Currently, I serve, at DHS headquarters, as the Assistant 
Secretary for Threat Prevention and Security. I oversee eight 
offices of dedicated men and women that address screening and 
vetting with a particular emphasis on combating terrorist 
travel. Countering terrorists, hostile Nation States, and 
transnational criminal organizations, the visa waiver program, 
the REAL ID program, countering unmanned aerial systems, and 
the office of targeted violence and terrorism prevention.
    Last Friday, we released the Department's first strategic 
framework for countering terrorism and targeted violence. It 
states that foreign-based terrorism remains a priority for DHS 
and describes how the Department, along with our Federal agency 
partners, has used a multitiered approach to protection. This 
approach pushes our borders outward and creates multilayered 
sets of defenses.
    The U.S. Government has, by the grace of God, been 
successful in preventing another 9/11. You only need look at 
the FBI's caseload of recent arrests to know we still have more 
to do to strengthen our screening and vetting capabilities.
    Goal two of this strategic framework is to prevent 
terrorists and other hostile actors from entering the United 
States and deny them the opportunity to exploit the Nation's 
trade, immigration, and domestic and international travel 
systems.
    Foreign partner information is critical to accomplishing 
this goal. Our screening and vetting program start with 
information provided by foreign governments in the form of a 
passport, as well as other data provided by the traveler 
throughout the travel continuum.
    Our responsibilities under Executive Order 13780 and 
Proclamation 9645 are to establish identity management and 
information sharing criteria, regularly review every country's 
performance against this criteria, and ensure risks stemming 
from the deficiencies identified during the review are 
mitigated. DHS's implementation of this responsibility is 
similar to the improvements it has made to the visa waiver 
program. The Visa Waiver Program Improvement Act of 2015 
expressly required DHS to look at the quality of foreign 
government information sharing and border security. Earlier, 
VWP legislation required modernize e-passports and lost and 
stolen passport reporting.
    The identity management and threat information sharing 
criteria DHS developed, pursuant to the executive order, are 
also widely seen as international norms and are reflected in 
U.N. Security Council resolutions, like 2396 and ICAO 
standards, and best practices.
    The USG explained the criteria and its expectations for how 
they are implemented through our official diplomatic channels. 
Today, countries from every continent are complying with the 
criteria.
    DHS uses interagency-approved processes, the regular review 
has also helped. DHS uses an interagency approved process to 
review every foreign government's performance on implementing 
the criteria. This process leverages authoritative data, the 
practical experience of USG personnel who work with the 
government, and intelligence data to get a comprehensive 
perspective on what the country is sharing and the relative 
risk its citizens pose to the United States.
    Through this routine review, DHS and State have seen 
improved cooperation with foreign governments. For example, one 
country reinstituted a dormant program to help identify 
convicted criminals. Another country helped the U.S. revoke the 
visas of its most notorious criminals including one that was en 
route to the United States, and a third convicted seven 
individuals committing fraud in their visa applications.
    The regular review has also helped the U.S. promote better 
compliance within international standards and best practices. 
Three countries have adopted more secure e-passports. Two 
countries obtained access to INTERPOL databases for the first 
time, and eight countries began reporting lost and stolen 
passports to INTERPOL for the first time or improved the 
regularity of that reporting.
    These steps improved U.S. and international security, and 
the travel restrictions that remain in place under Proclamation 
9645 are there to mitigate the risks posed by foreign 
governments that have proven unwilling or unable to adhere to 
the criteria.
    Nonetheless, travel restrictions under 212F of the INA are 
conditional and will remain in place only as long as necessary 
to reduce national security risk. When a foreign government 
addresses these identified deficiencies, the Secretary may 
recommend rescinding or adjusting the travel restrictions. For 
example, the country of Chad made improvements, and the U.S. 
resumed normal visa issuance in April 2018.
    By establishing identity management and information sharing 
criteria and holding foreign governments accountable for 
adhering to them, DHS is modernizing the international travel 
system from one that relies solely on analog passport data to 
one that takes a more dynamic view of identity and risk.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    We'll turn to our final witness, Mr. Hoffman, for your 
testimony.

                  STATEMENT OF TODD A. HOFFMAN

    Mr. Hoffman. Thank you. Chair Nadler, Chair Lofgren, Chair 
Bera, Ranking Member Zeldin, and Member Biggs, and 
distinguished Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity 
to testify before you today.
    The focus of my testimony will be on the actions CBP took 
for a 1-week period, 2\1/2\ years ago to comply with Executive 
Order 13769.
    Upon receiving the executive order on January 27, 2017, CBP 
took immediate steps to prepare policy guidance that complied 
with the order. CBP worked very closely with the Department of 
State and communicated with the air carrier and travel industry 
on multiple occasions to advise them of the actions we took to 
comply with the order.
    At our ports of entry, in-scope travelers from the subject 
countries were allowed to withdraw their applications for 
admission while other travelers who qualified for exemptions 
were processed for national interest waivers.
    CBP took immediate action as necessary to modify our 
policies to comply with the various court orders affecting 
implementation of the order.
    CBP field leadership and front-line officers performed 
admirably to implement the order, and ensure all affected 
travels were treated with dignity and respect.
    Although CBP played a prominent role to comply with the 
executive order for a 1-week period 2\1/2\ years ago, the 
proclamation currently in effect is focused on the time 
travelers apply for a visa which eliminated impact at our ports 
of entry.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The joint statement of Ms. Neumann and Mr. Hoffman 
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    We will now proceed to questions by Members of the 
committees who will have the opportunity to question these 
witnesses for 5 minutes, and I will begin with myself.
    Mr. Ramotowski, we know that the Department of State is 
able to post a number of waivers that have been approved and 
denied as part of the ban. In looking at those numbers, around 
5 percent are approved for a waiver, as you say.
    The data we received, being the Judiciary and Foreign 
Affairs Committee, in July, said that the State Department 
can't track and doesn't know the number of individuals 
currently under review for a waiver under the ban. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Madame Chair, let me first correct the 
record in terms of the number of waivers that have been issued. 
As I said in my testimony, we have issued more than 7,600 
waivers, which is considerably more than just 2 months ago. 
That is due to the change in the security vetting process which 
makes a significant difference from the time it takes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I appreciate that updating. Can you tell us 
about--is it true that you can't track or know how many are 
pending?
    Mr. Ramotowski. We definitely do know how many waivers 
are--waiver cases are pending through the system. That number 
is changing daily.
    Ms. Lofgren. Okay. So, the report to the committees was 
inaccurate in July?
    Mr. Ramotowski. No. It reflected what we knew at the time.
    Ms. Lofgren. All right. So, it's changed since then.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes, it has.
    Ms. Lofgren. It's my understanding, really from feedback 
we've received from constituents, that there's really no formal 
process to apply for a waiver. You're saying they're all 
referred.
    But it looks like some consular officers accept 
supplementary materials, others do not. There doesn't appear to 
be a consistent and coherent policy. Is that currently the 
case?
    Mr. Ramotowski. No, that's not correct, Madam Chair. The 
process had to be created rapidly when the initial executive 
orders were issued. At that point, instructions had to be sent 
to the field, officers who did not have familiarity with the 
process, had to be briefed on what the provisions of the 
proclamation were, and all of the different requirements that 
they should look for.
    Ms. Lofgren. Can I just interrupt because you just said 
what the provisions of the application were. Is there an 
application process, because that's news to me?
    Mr. Ramotowski. No. What I said was the provision of the 
Proclamation 9645.
    Ms. Lofgren. I misheard you, then.
    Okay. We have a gentleman here I met earlier this morning 
who met his fiance getting their Ph.D. at UCLA. She was born in 
Iran, but she's a permanent resident of Norway, right? This is 
his fiance. They've waited for several years. There's no 
application. They can't get any information.
    Is there a way to apply for this person who's now a 
resident of Norway and wants to come find her fiance and have 
their wedding here?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes, of course. As I mentioned in the 
testimony, the consular officer will consider a waiver 
application with every visa application. It's an automatic 
process. There would be no sense--
    Ms. Lofgren. So, there's no application, though?
    Mr. Ramotowski. The consular officer gathers the needed 
information for the waiver review at the time of the visa 
application. Our visa application asks about such things as 
purpose of travel, the type of visa that the individual is 
seeking, and so forth.
    If the consular officer needs additional information, they 
have the applicant right there to ask for that additional 
information. If that information isn't available at that time, 
the consular officer can allow the applicant to obtain whatever 
information they're seeking.
    Ms. Lofgren. This is all discretionary.
    I'll just say this: All of us want our country to be safe. 
There's no exception. Every single member of this Committee and 
this audience wants our country to be safe.
    However, some of the examples that have been given here 
today with terrorists from Lebanon--well, Lebanon isn't on the 
list. The people who attacked us on 9/11, they were from Saudi 
Arabia. They're not on this list.
    So, I'm just struck how this is essentially an irrational 
process. Venezuela is on the list, but only for government 
officials. No one has been subject to the ban from Venezuela.
    North Korea, there have been some 57 waivers granted from 
North Korea. Russia has attacked us in the last election. 
They're not on the list. So, it seems to me singling out these 
countries whose residents are primarily Muslims as a basis for 
assessing threat is essentially irrational. What we want to do 
is to make sure that anybody who's coming from any country 
doesn't pose a threat, and not really make that based on where 
you were born or what your religion is. How a 2-year-old would 
pose a threat is a mystery to us. It's very difficult to find 
these out.
    I'm wondering if we can't come up with a process that keeps 
us safe without causing so much harm to American citizens who 
have family Members who are born in one of the countries on 
these lists.
    I see my time is expired. I want to set a good example for 
the rest of the hearing.
    So, I will now recognize Mr. Biggs for his questions.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Ramotowski, the way I understand it is, when someone 
applies for a visa from one of these countries, they're 
automatically reviewed to determine whether they qualify for a 
waiver. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes. That's correct, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. So, nobody's going without--they don't need a 
new application, because they're all getting reviewed already.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes, that's correct. It would make no sense 
to apply for a visa and then say you don't want a waiver.
    Mr. Biggs. Right.
    So, I'm looking back to the 2015 law that some on this 
committee, certainly on the other side of the aisle, voted for. 
It listed in there two Nations, Iraq and Syria, would 
effectively have a travel ban on them, right? Mr. Ramotowski, 
you're familiar with that?
    Mr. Ramotowski. From the--
    Mr. Biggs. The 2015 INA--
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes, that's correct.
    Mr. Biggs. Then DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson came in and added 
several countries to the list, right? So, you ended up with, on 
that list that was under the Obama Administration, was Iraq, 
Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan, right?
    Mr. Ramotowski. That's correct.
    Mr. Biggs. Yeah. Somehow, when President Trump issued his, 
it suddenly became outrageous policy, xenophobic Muslim ban 
with a phony waiver process. Contrary to our moral and 
philosophical foundation, that's what I heard from Chair of the 
Judiciary Committee earlier today. Yet, the Trump 
Administration didn't just pull these names--these Nations out 
of his hat. It was using the same countries, basically, as the 
previous Administration with the addition of North Korea and 
Venezuela. So, it's interesting to me to hear this kind of 
inflammatory language being used.
    So, does the immigrant visa application change for any of 
these countries' vis-a-vis any other country in the world? Mr. 
Ramotowski.
    Mr. Ramotowski. The basic immigrant visa application has 
not changed, no, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. Does it ask about religion on that application?
    Mr. Ramotowski. It does not.
    Mr. Biggs. Does the nonimmigrant visa application ask 
about--in any way, about the religion? So, does the interviewer 
ask about religion?
    Mr. Ramotowski. No, they don't.
    Mr. Biggs. Does religion play a role in determinations made 
during the adjudication process?
    Mr. Ramotowski. No, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. Ms. Neumann, is it Neumann or Neumann.
    Ms. Neumann. Neumann.
    Mr. Biggs. Okay. There's this famous microphone spelled 
just like that and we pronounce Neumann.
    Anyway, have there been countries that provide information, 
such as, that is requested, but from which the U.S. cannot 
trust the information, so the U.S. has asked for informational 
from some of these nations but we just can't rely on it?
    Ms. Neumann. Sure.
    I think we face this challenge in a variety of contexts, 
not just in this effort, but in all our screening and vetting 
efforts. We seek the best information possible, but, for 
example, when we're sharing terrorist watchlist data, we're not 
going to accept certain country's watchlists because we know 
that they put political dissidents on that list. So, you have 
to evaluate country by country to determine the efficacy of 
their information.
    Mr. Biggs. Can you give us maybe some of the countries and 
expand on the reasons that you don't accept their information?
    Ms. Neumann. I would give as one example, North Korea, 
who's currently not participating or cooperating with us on any 
of the criteria, the information sharing or identity management 
criteria. One of those criteria is to share your passport 
exemplars. That means you're giving us a sample of your 
passport. We need that to be able to detect fraud so that you 
have experts in labs that can figure out how somebody might 
tamper with it, what's the real thing versus a fraudulent 
passport.
    If we don't have that, it becomes very difficult for our 
officers to determine whether a passport is real or not. North 
Korea does not share their exemplars with us. They have chosen 
not to cooperate with any of the requests associated with our 
identity management and information sharing criteria.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Mr. Hoffman, how is the mission of the U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security benefited by the executive orders and 
subsequent proclamation, in particular, CBP?
    Mr. Hoffman. From my point of view, sir, essentially the 
work done on the second Executive Order 13780, a lot of the 
work done under section 5 made significant improvements to the 
vetting process.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Now, back to Mr. Ramotowski.
    Are there individuals who are denied visas based on 
national security concerns using the new enhanced automated 
security screening who would not have been denied under the 
previous manual screening process, to your knowledge?
    Mr. Ramotowski. I'm sorry, Congresswoman. Could you repeat 
your question? You're saying under the new process that we've 
just introduced versus the old manual screening process?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Those two are identical. We don't believe 
there's any delta between the two, and so the new system is 
just as secure and much faster.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    I turn now to Chair Bera for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Ramotowski, you're the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
visa services at State Department. If there were one person at 
State Department who would know how the waiver process for the 
proclamation operates, and how State interfaces with DHS to vet 
policy, that would be you. Is that correct?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bera. Great. So, a couple questions. I have had the 
opportunity to visit our consular officers abroad in multiple 
countries, as well as going to FSI so see them trained. You see 
these young men and women who represent and serve our country 
every day. The training they go through, the language training, 
the simulations, et cetera. I know these are men and women who 
are doing the best job possible to protect our country but also 
represent the values of our country, both here and abroad. So, 
this is not a reflection of the work that they're doing.
    The proclamation states that consular officers have the 
discretion to grant waivers. Is that correct?
    Mr. Ramotowski. That's correct, sir.
    Mr. Bera. Do you believe they have had the sole discretion 
since the proclamation was issued?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Bera. Who makes the final yes-no decision about whether 
or not someone receives a waiver?
    Mr. Ramotowski. The waiver process, Mr. Chair, is based on 
three review prongs, so to speak. The consular officer makes 
the decision on the first two, which is national interest and 
undue hardship. The consular officer is unable to make 
independently the third decision without referring the case 
back to Washington, because the security review has to take 
place back here.
    Mr. Bera. Who in Washington makes that final determination?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Well, the final determination is not made 
in Washington on that case. What Washington does with partner 
agencies and so forth is conduct a deep dive intensive review 
of each case, and then any results, derogatory results, from 
that review will be provided back to the consular officer.
    Mr. Bera. Again, I would imagine that for any visa 
applicant for, let's say, coming from India or any other 
country, we would have a security vetting process, would we 
not?
    Mr. Ramotowski. That's correct, sir.
    Mr. Bera. Does that vetting process and does that consular 
agent in the nontravel ban countries have the ability to clear 
that security clearance?
    Mr. Ramotowski. No. All the clearances are sent back to 
Washington. It's called a security advisory opinion. If our 
initial automated checks at the time of the visa application 
reflect any potential derogatory, a red light, so to speak, the 
case is sent back to Washington for a detailed interagency 
review.
    Now, up until this new modernized system was introduced, 
the proclamation cases got an extra deep dive intensive manual 
review that other cases from other countries did not require. 
That accounts for the lengthy delays at the beginning in the 
waiver process.
    Mr. Bera. With the new automated process, is it your sense 
that delay, and you'll close the gap between the seven 
countries that are part of the Muslim ban versus the nontravel 
ban countries?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes. It is making a very significant 
difference. The information that the committees cited earlier 
from our earlier letters, about 5 percent, the number is 
considerably higher than that now.
    Mr. Bera. Would you be able to provide Chair Lofgren and 
myself and the two committees the latest updated numbers?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes. I gave them in my testimony, but we 
can certainly provide a chart to the committee.
    Mr. Bera. Great. On an ongoing basis.
    In addition, when we're thinking about this, and, again, in 
no way--we want to have a thorough vetting process; we want to 
keep the bad guys out of the country. Those folks meaning us 
harm don't just come from seven countries. They could come from 
anywhere. So, we want an objective process. We want to make 
sure our consular agents have thorough guidance and, so forth, 
have that ability to make those decisions.
    When it goes to the visa office to--again, in that process, 
who makes the final decision to grant the waiver or not, or is 
it now all automated and there's no--
    Mr. Ramotowski. No, it's not all automated. So, again, Mr. 
Chair, an applicant will apply for the visa. Step 1 is for the 
consular officer to evaluate all other aspects of immigration 
law. Is that individual qualified for the visa or immigration 
benefit they're seeking? If they're not, then the waiver and 
proclamation is not considered. If they are, then the consular 
officer begins the process that I outlined.
    First, they review to see is this case one of the 
exceptions that the President permitted in his proclamation. If 
it's not an exception, then the consular officer considers the 
waiver grounds. We'll look at national interests and undue 
hardship, which, quite frankly, the consular officer is in the 
best position to decide that.
    Mr. Bera. I'm out of time. If I could just ask for one 
piece of information as well. Of the denials, is it possible to 
provide us information for why these visa waivers were denied?
    Mr. Ramotowski. We have general information on that, Mr. 
Chair. Unfortunately, our visa system was not designed with 
this waiver process in mind. We are operating on legacy systems 
that were designed many years ago. So, most of the consular 
officer information is included in narratives in the database. 
So, it's somewhat difficult to--
    Mr. Bera. To the extent possible, could you provide us the 
best information.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Certainly. We'll provide whatever we 
possibly have.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
    We now turn to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Zeldin.
    Mr. Zeldin. Thank you to the chairs.
    As Mr. Biggs pointed out, the list of countries is a list 
borne out of the past, past Administrations. The last 
Administration, when they were coming before Congress talking 
about security concerns that they had with these nations, we 
all, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, were all 
working together with the Administration with their national 
security concerns that they wanted help with addressing, 
identifying predominantly these nations.
    We have currently seven countries on the list. Two aren't 
even majority Muslim countries. Ninty-two percent of the 
world's Muslim population is not included on this list. Of the 
top 10 majority Muslim nations in the world, top 10, only two 
of them are included on this list.
    There are concerns with these individual countries that 
leads to the current Administration coming before Congress, 
just like the last Administration did, because the countries 
still have issues. Syria is still in a very bad place. Syria, 
you can argue, is in a worse place than it was during the last 
Administration. Totally destabilized.
    Our great employees working hard to execute vetting for our 
country don't have a partner on the other side to contact your 
partner in the Syrian Government or the Yemenis Government to 
have an applicant--I have some documentation I want to verify. 
I want to make sure it's accurate. Or I have a question, can 
you assist. There are a lot of countries all around the world 
where we have that ability.
    The documentation is verifiable, but we have applicants 
coming from certain countries where the country has been 
completely destabilized to the point where we don't have that 
willing partner, and the documentation can't make up for that 
extra vetting that's now required.
    Yemen was overthrown by the Houthis. As I mentioned, with 
attacking this current list, North Korea and Venezuela aren't 
even majority Muslim.
    So, I think it is really important that this hearing takes 
place. I really think it's important that you're here for the 
discussion to be had for Americans to understand that vetting 
component, and these countries that are on the list are 
countries that have been significantly destabilized by factors 
that impact our ability to vet the applicants.
    So, if you can walk us through that vetting component as it 
relates to documentation, as it relates to interrogation, and 
how do you make up for a lack of documentation? How do you make 
up for a lack of having a willing partner from that country to 
ensure that someone is safe? Can someone speak to that vetting 
piece as far as making up for a lack of documentation to 
properly vet someone?
    Ms. Neumann. I'll be happy to take that, sir. In the 
security realm, we deal in shades of risk. Some of the Members 
have spoken to the fact that we have individuals that have made 
it into the country and carried out terrorist attacks that were 
not from those seven countries. We are very cognizant of that, 
and the Administration has taken steps, building on steps 
that--groundwork that had been laid by the Obama Administration 
to strengthen our vetting system. We've made a lot of progress.
    The vetting apparatus, as my colleagues have testified to, 
focuses on being able to identify the individual, and we do 
that biographically. We try to do that biometrically and making 
sure that the person presenting is who they say they are, and 
then comparing that against any information we can get, whether 
that's our information or a foreign government's information.
    The challenge with these seven countries which we have been 
reviewing, and while initially, yes, those seven countries were 
based on a 2015 law and a recognition that we were concerned 
about those countries' stability in government, we have since 
implemented a very robust process of identifying the criteria 
we're looking for countries to adhere to ensure that we are 
comfortable that they practice good identity management and 
they share information with us that will help us detect whether 
that individual trying to come here is a child sexual predator 
or a terrorist.
    There is no bulletproof solution. We are inviting risk any 
time we allow somebody into our country. That's a risk that we, 
as a country, have said is one that we're willing to bear 
because that is the nature, and the foundation of our country 
is to invite others to join us. We want to do it with risk in 
mind. We know that terrorists have intent to attack our 
country, and we believe that this effort under Proclamation 
9645 has enhanced our security because we're now talking about 
what otherwise is boring: Identity management standards and 
information-sharing protocols. Nobody or diplomat gets excited 
about going to talk to their counterparts like, hey, you really 
need to do better in checking your Interpol database. Because 
we paid attention to this and focused on it and said no, we've 
got to get the basics right, we're now enhancing standards 
across the globe.
    Mr. Zeldin. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I would note that there's been several references to the 
Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention 
Act of 2015. For the record, that did not deny visas. It just 
required those who could be subject to the Visa Waiver Program 
to apply in person instead. It included, not just nationals, 
but people who had traveled to an area where ISIS was an active 
military.
    I would ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the Visa 
Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act 
of 2015, noting that it included Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Syria, 
which is different than the list on the order at question here 
today.
    Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair, may I?
    Ms. Lofgren. Of course. Do you object to including the copy 
of the Act?
    Mr. Biggs. Well, here's the thing. I don't object to--I 
object to the comments surrounding the Act. So, you've issued--
you've made comments. No problem with the Act coming in as part 
of the record, and your comments are certainly going to be part 
of the record, but there's not an appropriate way, quite 
frankly, for me to respond to those, and I think that's 
unfortunate.
    Ms. Lofgren. Noted for the record.
    With unanimous consent, the Act is made a part of the 
record.
    [The information follows:]   

                       MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. We will now turn to Chair of the Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. Nadler, for his 5 minutes.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Neumann, you stated that countries are on the band 
because we cannot trust the information on their nationals, and 
I don't really understand something about that. Do we trust the 
information from Russia?
    Ms. Neumann. I believe what I said, respectfully, is that 
the way in which they manage their identity management and the 
types of information they share or they, in many cases, don't 
share with us brings a certain amount of risk to us--
    Chair Nadler. Is that true of Russia also? Do they share 
everything with us?
    Ms. Neumann. With respect to specific countries, I would 
have to move into a closed session, probably a classified 
session because--
    Chair Nadler. You cannot say yes to that question?
    Ms. Neumann. As it pertains to Proclamation 9645, I'm not 
at liberty in an open hearing to talk about that particular 
country.
    Chair Nadler. How about China? How about China? Do we trust 
the information from China?
    Ms. Neumann. With respect to Proclamation 9645--
    Chair Nadler. Now, China and Russia are not predominantly 
Muslim countries, are they?
    Ms. Neumann. The Department of Homeland Security does not 
assess that, but--
    Chair Nadler. Oh, come on.
    Ms. Neumann. I would refer to--
    Chair Nadler. China and Russia are not predominantly Muslim 
countries. I'll take notice of that fact.
    Ms. Neumann. Fair.
    Chair Nadler. You can look it up in the Encyclopedia 
Britannica or Wikipedia or anyplace else. Now, I think I 
understand.
    Mr. Hoffman, I wanted to discuss the initial announcement 
of the Trump Administration's Muslim ban and the chaos that 
ensued at our airports. You were the leadership of CBP in 
January of 2017, correct?
    Mr. Hoffman. That's correct, sir.
    Chair Nadler. Were you or anyone else in CBP shown a draft 
of the first Muslim ban, Executive Order 13769, before it was 
issued on January 27, 2017?
    Mr. Hoffman. No, sir.
    Chair Nadler. Were you a part of any discussions around an 
executive order that would bar Muslims from entering the United 
States?
    Mr. Hoffman. I was not.
    Chair Nadler. In fact, it sounds like next to no one was 
consulted. According to the inspector general, quote, ``DHS and 
its components had no opportunity to provide expert input in 
drafting the EO,'' unquote. Even worse, the IG report revealed 
that 2 days before the ban was signed, then Acting CBP 
Commissioner McAleenan actually received a detailed summary 
from congressional staff of what would be in the executive 
order rather than receiving this information from the White 
House.
    Was any of this information, either the summary shown to 
the commissioner, drafts of the executive order shared with DHS 
leadership, or the extensive media reporting that an order was 
coming, shared with frontline CBP staff?
    Mr. Hoffman. Can you clarify your question, sir?
    Chair Nadler. Was any of this information that I just 
listed, either the summary shown to the commissioner, drafts of 
the executive order that was shared with DHS leadership, or the 
extensive media reporting that an order was coming, was any of 
this shared with frontline CBP staff?
    Mr. Hoffman. Not to my knowledge, sir. I'll defer to the 
Inspector General's report.
    Chair Nadler. The CBP was unable to make any preparations 
for an eventual executive order. Is that correct?
    Mr. Hoffman. To my knowledge, that's correct.
    Chair Nadler. Now, the executive order was signed on 
Friday, January 27, at 4:43 p.m. in the afternoon. Was anyone 
at CBP leadership given any advance warning that the order 
would be signed that day or that it would need to be 
implemented immediately?
    Mr. Hoffman. Not to my knowledge.
    Chair Nadler. When a major policy change that implicates 
CPB operations like this is announced out, is it unusual for 
CBP to be kept in the dark in this way?
    Mr. Hoffman. It's atypical, usually, when something is 
going to be formulated policy that we would give some feedback 
regarding the scope and intent.
    Chair Nadler. So, it's unusual. What usually happens when a 
new policy is announced that impacts CBP operations? Are the 
components consulted? Do they have an opportunity to provide 
feedback?
    Mr. Hoffman. What I can tell you, sir, is 1 month later, 
when the second Executive Order 13780, we had a comprehensive 
rollout strategy. We worked closely with the department.
    Chair Nadler. That's the normal--and prior to that when you 
had new strategies, that would be the normal procedure?
    Mr. Hoffman. What I can say, sir, is we were poised for an 
orderly rollout on the second executive order.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Now, with how little input your 
agency had in the first iteration of the ban and the fact that 
the executive order went into place immediately, is it 
surprising, given those two facts, that its implementation 
caused mass confusion and chaos at ports of entry?
    Mr. Hoffman. I wouldn't say it caused chaos. It was a 
challenging implementation because it was in a real-time 
environment. It applied to real travelers as they were actually 
in their travel cycle, but I don't believe there was any chaos 
within our facilities.
    Chair Nadler. There was confusion?
    Mr. Hoffman. I wouldn't say there was confusion either.
    Chair Nadler. Then you wouldn't say the obvious.
    Given the lack of interagency consultation and planning, 
was there any way this chaos could have been avoided?
    Mr. Hoffman. Again, sir, I would not call it chaos. Within 
our facilities, there was no chaos. You have to remember; we 
get 1.1 million travelers a day. This applied to 2 to 300 on 
any given day, although this was significant work for us at the 
time, again, in our entire mission, this was a small sample.
    Chair Nadler. As my time is expiring, I'll simply say that 
I personally observed the chaos at JFK.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlelady from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I'm perplexed by the title of this hearing. The title is 
Oversight of the Trump Administration's Muslim Ban. It's been 
said a couple of times here the people that come from the 
countries that are on this travel ban only make up 8 percent of 
the Muslim population in the world. So, if the intent of the 
Trump Administration, as my Democrat colleagues contend, is to 
ban Muslims, they're doing a pretty darn poor job of it because 
92 percent are not in the ban.
    So, all I can think of is that we are here again, once 
again, week after week, multiple times a week, bashing the 
Trump Administration to try to influence the 2020 election. 
This is all that is happening here in this Committee day after 
day, week after week from the party of impeachment. They want 
to impeach President Trump. They want to impeach Kavanaugh. 
They want to impeach anybody and everybody that seems to be 
conservative, in my opinion.
    So, I have a question for Ms. Neumann. Ms. Neumann, how is 
the mission of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, how 
has it benefited by the executive orders and subsequent 
proclamation?
    Ms. Neumann. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman. I 
noted in my oral testimony that the Secretary highlighted in 
his DHS' recently released Strategic Framework for Countering 
Terrorism and Targeted Violence that foreign partnerships, 
including our information-sharing relationships, are really 
critical to countering terrorists. However, the USG regularly 
prioritizes its diplomatic engagement on information sharing 
against other priorities. This is a good thing to have a little 
competition among the U.S. agencies, but this effort has 
allowed the Department of Homeland Security to bring 
highlighting to our colleagues at the State Department, 
embassies, and foreign partners that sharing information for 
purposes of border security, if you will, is very critical to 
ensuring all of our safety, and it has allowed us within the 
Department to better prioritize our technical assistance.
    I think one of the things that might be getting lost, as 
we're talking about the program, we're able to use this tool, 
the assessment, to identify the deficiencies and then follow 
along with engagement. We spend most of our effort on engaging 
countries and encouraging them to strengthen their 
capabilities, to make those connections to Interpol, to report 
lost and stolen passports, in some cases, it's a long-term 
investment in advancing some of their systems.
    So, by having this systematic, routine, deliberative, 
objective review process, we're better able to prioritize our 
own technical assistance and then work with the Department of 
State on foreign assistance.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
    Does any of the other witnesses want to comment how you 
think this proclamation and executive order has actually 
improved our national security?
    Mr. Hoffman. Thank you. Yes. As I mentioned earlier, I 
would add it's my understanding that a lot of the work 
performed under the second Executive Order 13780, section 5 
work, in particular, made significant enhancements to our 
overall vetting and having access to real-time classification, 
classified data, and having real-time access for SD 
applications. Also, it's my understanding that the work led to 
the creation of a national vetting center as well, again, 
providing a clearinghouse for real-time classified information 
to ensure all the adjudicators have access to that information 
so they can make informed decisions when they do this critical 
vetting work.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. I'll yield back my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I do just want to say, in reference to the chaos at the 
airports, even while it may not have felt that way to CBP, I 
can tell you at our airport, I was one of the first Members to 
go to the Sea-Tac Airport, and it was absolute chaos, including 
partly because we had hundreds of people who were so distressed 
by what they were seeing in people who were being turned away. 
We were able to--with the port commission's help, with the ACLU 
and pro bono attorneys, we were able to stop a plane that had 
some people that were being incorrectly turned away. We were 
also able to get some people back, but it was absolute chaos. 
The human impact was devastating for green card holders and 
refugees, and others with lawful status.
    I wanted to just go to this question. My colleague from 
Arizona said 92 percent of Muslims are not in the ban. 
Therefore, it's essentially not discriminatory. I want to make 
it clear to everyone that not everyone in the discriminated 
class has to be discriminated against in order for something to 
be discriminatory.
    So, let's just talk about the eight original countries. I 
understand that Chad is not there anymore, but the eight 
original countries, six of the eight are Muslim majority 
countries, and the two that are not, Venezuela and North Korea, 
have very different waiver rates. This is the point I want to 
go to. The Supreme Court upheld Trump's third iteration of the 
Muslim ban largely dependent on the waiver position that was 
supposedly going to keep the ban from being a blanket ban on 
Muslims.
    So, Mr. Ramotowski, there are three factors that you use to 
evaluate someone for a waiver, correct? The applicant would 
suffer undue hardship if denied, admission to the U.S. would 
not pose a national security threat, and their admission to the 
U.S. would be in the national interest, correct?
    Mr. Ramotowski. That's correct.
    Ms. Jayapal. There isn't a process for an individual to 
affirmatively apply for a waiver and provide documentation on 
these three factors, correct?
    Mr. Hoffman. That's part of the visa application process.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, the answer is no, there isn't an 
affirmative way for an individual to address these.
    According to the most recent State Department reporting on 
the Muslim ban, the State Department has ruled on nearly 38,000 
applications between December 8, 2017 and October 31, 2018, 
correct? That's from your report.
    Mr. Ramotowski. That's correct.
    Ms. Jayapal. Okay. According to that same report, the State 
Department has granted waivers in 5.1 percent of cases, 
correct?
    Mr. Ramotowski. At that time, that's correct.
    Ms. Jayapal. Okay. That's on page 3 of the State 
Department's report.
    Among Iranians, the approval rate for a waiver is 1.3 
percent, correct?
    Mr. Ramotowski. At that time.
    Ms. Jayapal. Okay. As of March 2019, the approval rate for 
North Koreans was 72 percent, correct?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Jayapal. In terms of Venezuelans, zero Venezuelans have 
been subjected to the ban period, so they wouldn't have to be 
considered for a waiver, correct?
    Mr. Ramotowski. That's right. It's only selected government 
officials that are covered.
    Ms. Jayapal. Okay. So overall, the State Department has 
granted just 5.1 percent of waivers, according to the 
statistics posted on your website. Yet, among the only two non-
Muslim majority countries subject to the ban, the waiver 
approval rate is 72 percent or not applicable because no 
Venezuelan has been subject to the ban.
    Meanwhile, the waiver grant rate for someone from Iran is 
1.3 percent; Syria, 5.4 percent; Libya, 7 percent. So, by 
definition, Muslim majority countries are being discriminated 
against, unless you believe that all of the people in those 
countries somehow deserve that kind of a very, very low waiver 
approval rating.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Congresswoman, as I mentioned in my 
testimony, we have significantly updated data on this. The 
report that you're quoting from is almost a year old, if I'm 
understanding.
    Ms. Jayapal. Well, if I can just interrupt you, I would 
love to see that data. It is supposed to have been posted 
already. We went to what was the most recent data that we have, 
which is December 8, 2017, to March 31, 2019. So, it's not a 
year old, but it is old, and we should have an updated report. 
It is not on the website. I would love it if you would provide 
me with statistics that are different.
    Are you saying that the statistics in the recent report are 
significantly different than what I've quoted you?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes, they are. As I mentioned, 7,600--more 
than 7,600 waivers have been granted, which is more than double 
what the total was at that time.
    Ms. Jayapal. What's the total number?
    Mr. Ramotowski. The total number of waivers? Over 7,600.
    Ms. Jayapal. The total number of applicants from these 
countries. You can't look at just the number of waivers; you 
have to look at how many people applied from those countries.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Right.
    Ms. Jayapal. Just saying it's doubled doesn't make any 
sense if you've also doubled or tripled the number of total 
applications.
    Mr. Ramotowski. So, I have some data on that. There are 
approximately 31,334 refusals up to September 14, 2019. We have 
data by country, if you want to go down through that, and we 
have information on the number of waivers issued per country, 
if you'd like to go through that. For example, waiver issuances 
for Yemeni citizens amount to 4,031. There were 7,011 cases--
    Ms. Jayapal. It's impossible for me to look at--I would 
love to have those numbers in hand because, as of this morning, 
that report was not posted. So, I would love to receive that 
information so I can calculate the percentages myself and 
really be aware of exactly how this works and make sure that 
this is not targeting Muslim Americans and their families.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. We'll ask 
the witness to provide this information to the committee.
    Mr. Ramotowski. We will.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Reschenthaler, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would yield to 
my friend and colleague from Arizona.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman yielding 
some time.
    So, I can't let this go too much, but as we've tried to 
adhere to the 5-minute rule, this is almost inconsequential in 
some respects, I guess, except for that it is a rule. There's 
not been one member across the aisle who has stopped their 5 
minutes on time.
    It isn't just that they're not asking questions, and we're 
going over time to allow a witness to respond; it's that 
actually they're actually making comments, sometimes as much as 
a minute, minute and 15 seconds beyond the time. That's 
interesting to me. I'm just pointing it out for effect because 
that's the way this has been.
    So, I want to ask about, someone said, well, how about 
China? Why aren't they on this list? That was the implication. 
So, my question to you, Ms. Neumann, sorry, is when we start 
talking about China and Russia, can you tell us--maybe you 
can't in this nonclassified setting, but can you tell us what 
do they provide you in response to your information-sharing 
request as you vet?
    Ms. Neumann. Thank you for the question. I cannot talk 
about specifics, but if you'll allow me to explain the process 
that we go through, I think that might help answer in a 
roundabout way.
    We are required to continually monitor countries' 
capabilities. So, on a 180-day cycle, we are working with our 
partners at State to request information from all countries 
across the globe about their handling or their meeting of the 
criteria, and we've talked about those already, that we have a 
set of information-sharing criteria, a set of identity 
management criteria, and then a national security risk picture 
that comes from the intelligence community. Those are all 
identified public information in the proclamation.
    When we go through the process of updating how people are 
doing, we're asking questions like, did we see people reporting 
or see the country reporting lost and stolen passport data to 
Interpol. So, we have that post at embassy is reporting back to 
us on the status of that, their country's adherence to those 
criteria. Then we're collecting information from operators, 
from Interpol itself, or how our Customs and Border Protection 
officials are seeing certain trends, perhaps fraudulent 
passport trends or other crime trends. We take all of that and 
we assess against a pretty rigorous rubric, and we'd be happy 
in a closed setting to brief on that rubric.
    Then on the other side of that, you have scores of how a 
country is doing in meeting those criteria. To talk about an 
individual country, we would need to be in a classified 
setting.
    Mr. Biggs. Well, it leads one to ask, so under the Obama 
Administration, the DHS Secretary, pursuant to the statute 
that's now been brought into the record, gave a list of 
countries, and did not mention Russia or China. It makes one 
wonder, so did they adhering to the processes that the Obama 
Administration felt were appropriate 5 years ago under the 
Obama Administration vis-a-vis where they are today? I mean, 
has there been any significant change or any necessity for 
Russia or China to be added since the Obama Administration 
didn't see fit to include them on the list?
    Ms. Neumann. Again, I'm going to make my comments agnostic 
to a particular country.
    Mr. Biggs. Make them generic, yeah.
    Ms. Neumann. At the end of our process, we report to the 
President, and the Secretary makes recommendations whether any 
of the countries that are currently facing travel restrictions 
have so improved that they can be removed from the travel 
restriction or if their status has changed in some way. We also 
report if we've determined that a country poses a significant 
risk to the United States because of a deficiency, and it is 
then at that time that the President decides about whether to 
exercise his 212(f) capabilities.
    So, we walk through that process every 6 months, and you 
haven't seen those countries nominated, so I think you can 
assume that they are not that deficient.
    Mr. Biggs. You can make some assumptions.
    Ms. Neumann. Now, here's what I will tell you. It's 200 
countries. Everybody has room to improve. We are working very 
hard through a variety of mechanisms, including the Visa Waiver 
Program, where we are very concerned about foreign terrorist 
fighter flows coming out of Syria into our European partners, 
which is why this body passed the 2015 Visa Waiver Improvement 
Act to make sure all of the tools in our toolkit are applied to 
this potential challenge. So, everybody has room to improve is 
how I would answer your question.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back with 21 minutes over 
the 5 minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. But just--
    Ms. Lofgren. Just a little lightheartedness here.
    Mr. Biggs. For a point of privilege, that was in response 
to a question asked during my time, and actually, I asked about 
a minute and a half time before my time was up.
    Ms. Lofgren. We are trying to be on time but without a 
heavy gavel during this hearing.
    The gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar, is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chair.
    Mr. Ramotowski, you've been with the State Department for 
33 years, right?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Over 33 years, yes.
    Ms. Omar. Wonderful. Has it been typical for more than 100 
people to sign dissent memos on a given policy?
    Mr. Ramotowski. That would be atypical, I think.
    Ms. Omar. Atypical. Has it been typical for policy to drive 
several FSOs to publicly resign in protest?
    Mr. Ramotowski. There have been foreign service officers 
who've resigned in the past over various policies, that's true.
    Ms. Omar. In June of 2017, between the second and the third 
version of the Muslim ban, more than 100 diplomats signed a 
dissent memo that said, quote, ``banning travelers from these 
seven countries calls back to some of the worst times in our 
history.'' Former consular officer Christopher Richards, who 
resigned in protest of the Muslim ban, said in an op-ed that 
the consular officers were not able to issue waivers on their 
own, that they had to get approval from the State Department. 
Would that be you? Do you give that approval?
    Mr. Ramotowski. No, that's not correct. The consular 
officers make the decision on the first two prongs of the 
waiver, national interest, undue hardship, and then the 
interagency security review provides the guidance on the 
security prong.
    Ms. Omar. So, that's not a decision you get to make, or is 
the White House involved in that decision?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Not at all.
    Ms. Omar. Okay. Sarah Gartner, another former FSO who 
resigned in protest over the Muslim ban, told CNN that fellow 
officers, quote, ``felt pressure to approve as few folks as 
possible for the waiver.'' She also said that the Muslim ban 
had been, quote, ``reworked and sanitized by layers of 
bureaucracy. With people distracted by the next terrible thing, 
it can be easy to forget it's even happening.''
    Well, it looks like Congress hasn't forgotten. Madam Chair, 
I have signed testimony from four former FSOs that I would like 
to enter into record.
    Ms. Lofgren. It's put into the record by unanimous consent.
    [The information follows:]

                        MS. OMAR FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Omar. Thank you.
    Ambassador John Feeley, who quit his post as Ambassador to 
Panama in 2018, said he could no longer represent President 
Trump and still hold true to the value that make this country 
great. Among the policies he listed was the Muslim ban.
    In the end, how many diplomats and consular officers signed 
the dissent memo protesting the ban?
    Mr. Ramotowski. I don't have an exact number for you, 
Congresswoman. I know that some did.
    Ms. Omar. Will you be able to get us that number?
    Mr. Ramotowski. I can't guess that number, no.
    Ms. Omar. How do you respond to his claim that the consular 
officers have to get clear waivers with your office?
    Mr. Ramotowski. I would say, as I said before, that's not 
correct. The consular officers make the determination on the 
first-two prongs of the waiver, national interest and undue 
hardship, and the security check, as I testified, is conducted 
back here in Washington. Now, if a consular officer is--
    Ms. Omar. So, you're saying his claim is false?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Which claim, that Washington is making the 
decisions?
    Ms. Omar. Yes.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes. That's not correct.
    Ms. Omar. How do you respond to Ms. Gartner's claim that 
the officers are implicitly or explicitly pressured to deny 
waivers?
    Mr. Ramotowski. We are not implicitly or explicitly 
pressuring anyone to Act in any way contrary to the law.
    Ms. Omar. Okay. How do you respond to Ambassador Feeley's 
claim shared by all the people who signed the memo that the ban 
is a betrayal of American values?
    Mr. Ramotowski. The ambassador is certainly entitled to his 
opinion on that. There are many--obviously, it's very clear 
that this policy has many opponents, but fundamentally, it's 
designed to try to keep the United States safe.
    Ms. Omar. To our other two panelists, what's Stephen 
Miller's role in formulating the three iterations of the Muslim 
ban? What was his role?
    Mr. Hoffman. I'm not aware of any role played by Stephen 
Miller.
    Ms. Omar. Ms. Neumann?
    Ms. Neumann. I was not at the Department in January. I did 
not start until late February.
    Ms. Omar. Okay. What instructions were DHS and State given 
from the White House as how to implement the Muslim ban?
    Mr. Hoffman. I wasn't given any instruction from the White 
House.
    Ms. Neumann. Again, ma'am, I was not at the Department in 
January 2017.
    Mr. Ramotowski. The Department was not consulted about the 
first executive order.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    We turn now to the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. 
Armstrong.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Ramotowski, we were talking earlier, and I understand 
this a little bit. We have three car accidents in a week in 
North Dakota, and we jump to the highest percentage in the 
country because we have 750,000 people. So, when we're talking 
about percentages, I guess my first question is how many people 
from North Korea actually apply?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Very few. The total that we have here is 
115.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, when we're talking about a 72 percent 
waiver rate, we're talking--I'm just going to go to 100 because 
I do math that well, so it would be like 72 people.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Something like that.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, all the countries that have granted--or 
that have gotten granted, who has the fewest that have gotten--
what country has the fewest number of waivers granted?
    Mr. Ramotowski. According to the data I have from September 
14 of this month, North Korea has 5 waivers and 78 visas issued 
under an exception to the proclamation. That's the smallest 
number.
    Mr. Armstrong. You're absolutely correct. An entire group 
does not have to be discriminated against for discrimination to 
occur. I agree with that, but I also agree with correlation. 
Correlation and causation are not the same thing. I mean, we 
are talking about this. We refer to--it's being referred to 
constantly as the Muslim ban, but by putting any one of the 
countries--Indonesia, India, and Pakistan are 13 percent, 11 
percent, and 11 percent, in total, of our worldwide Muslim 
population.
    So, if you were dealing with this in that manner, wouldn't 
it make more--if that was your ultimate goal, wouldn't it make 
more sense to have them on the ban or have them on the list?
    Mr. Ramotowski. I would defer to Homeland Security 
regarding the security.
    Mr. Armstrong. That's okay. I know you can't speak, Ms. 
Neumann, to specifics about any country, but these are supposed 
to be temporary, correct?
    Ms. Neumann. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. As we're evolving and more sharing of 
information, we know Chad came off the list, but what do 
countries have to do to work to get off the list?
    Ms. Neumann. We have a rubric, and again, in closed 
session, I'd be happy to brief you on some aspects of that but 
assesses across a variety of criteria in the broad categories 
of identity management and information sharing. We would need 
to see improvements, and we're not looking for a gold standard, 
which is maybe you look at the standards we use for the Visa 
Waiver Program as the gold standard. These are kind of minimal 
capabilities that we're looking for a country to have so that--
again, the purpose is not because of anything other than we 
need to know that the passport being presented is the 
individual that it says it is, and we need to know if that 
individual in their home country has a criminal record or is a 
known or suspected terrorist.
    That's kind of what this comes down to is we need you to 
tell us more about this person. We need to have a relationship 
with you to be able to have that conversation, and you have to 
have a certain basic infrastructure to be able to do those 
tasks.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, would it be fair to say countries who 
are bad actors in other ways--this is a very specific thing. 
So, even if countries are bad actors in other ways, they can be 
complying here, correct?
    Ms. Neumann. Correct. This is a tailored tool to prevent 
terrorists and serious criminals from being able to gain entry 
into our country.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, like when we talk about Iraq, I think 
one of the things we forget is that we have a relationship with 
Iraq. For good, bad, or indifferent, we have been in the 
country for well over a decade, and that's one of the reasons 
we're so outside of their government interacting, we actually 
have knowledge base in which to deal with individuals who are 
applying.
    Ms. Neumann. That's correct. We take into account, as we're 
doing this assessment, that kind of relationship that may get 
us access to information to be able to do those identity 
checks.
    Mr. Armstrong. I would contrast that with something--
somebody like Syria. Everybody's favorite former FBI Director 
actually testified in front of this Committee in 2015, and he 
said we can only query against that which we have collected.
    So, if someone has not made a ripple in the pond in Syria 
on a way that would get their identity or their interest 
reflected in our databases, we can query our databases until 
the cows come home--that was his saying, not mine--but nothing 
will show up because we have no record of that person. You can 
only query on what you have collected.
    With respect to Iraq, this is where it goes into the Iraqi 
refugees. They have a relationship. So, if you don't have any 
information, we're talking about moving to the Washington--the 
third prong. If you don't have any information at all, you 
cannot have any identifying marks on somebody who's going 
through this process, what happens next?
    Mr. Ramotowski. For the third prong of the waiver process, 
the case is brought back to Washington electronically and given 
an intensive screening by various partner agencies in the law 
enforcement and intelligence communities. We could brief in 
more detail in a classified setting, but that's exactly what 
their responsibility is, to try to see is there anything under 
U.S. Government holdings that might be derogatory that might 
represent a threat.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from New York, Mr. Espaillat, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to go back to January 2017, as stated by colleague 
Chair Nadler. He was at JFK Airport. I also was at JFK Airport. 
Unlike the Chair who was there with another Member of Congress, 
I deployed to a terminal within JFK where I was the only Member 
of Congress. There were three folks, three people coming from 
the Muslim ban countries who were being detained. There was a 
student from NYU which was being received by one of her 
professors that did life-saving research at that university 
that was being detained. There were two other family Members of 
the Armed Forces that were there waiting for them, a mother and 
a wife. One of the Members of the Armed Forces that was meeting 
their relatives there refused to speak to the press or any of 
us until he spoke to one of his superiors. He wanted some 
guidance as to what the protocol of a member of the Armed 
Forces was before he spoke to the press or any of us. I think 
that underscores the kind of allegiance he has to our Nation.
    We were assisted by New York City--the Office of Immigrant 
Affairs of New York City, and eventually, these cases were 
resolved.
    I entered the facility, Mr. Hoffman, and I say facility 
because it had all the characteristics of a jailhouse. I was 
approached by Members of your department and surrounded by them 
and accosted them. There was about seven of them around me on 
my face as I advocated for these three individuals.
    What is your protocol within your department? I know that 
you were not briefed on the implementation of this new Muslim 
ban, and you may have been in disarray. I was accosted and 
surrounded by Members of your department. Do you have a policy 
when addressing someone that's advocating for--not just a 
Member of Congress, an attorney, a community organization? Is 
there a policy, Mr. Hoffman, to humanely deal with people that 
are advocating for folks that are being detained and are 
related to Members of our Armed Forces? Do you have a policy 
for that?
    Mr. Hoffman. Sir, we do have a policy for congressional 
engagement. Essentially, all Members of Congress are to advise 
congressional affairs at headquarters and make arrangements or 
give the courtesy to make arrangements for visiting a port of 
entry.
    Mr. Espaillat. Are we entitled to ask to speak to one of 
the superiors of those Members of Customs and Border Patrol 
that are deployed to these airports?
    Mr. Hoffman. Well, for Customs and Border Protection, if 
you do arrive at one of our facilities and we know that you're 
there, we should give you the courtesy to come out and speak 
with you.
    Mr. Espaillat. Is there a way in which I can communicate 
with one of the superiors? Because I was denied that 
opportunity.
    Mr. Hoffman. Well, sir, like I mentioned, typically there's 
a protocol in place whereby you'll contact Congressional 
Affairs here in Washington, DC, at a national level, and they 
will make arrangements with the local port to advise you that 
they're coming and ensure we have the right representatives 
there and so forth.
    Ms. Escobar. Now, Mr. Hoffman, I'm 5'9''. I was surrounded 
by folks that were from your department that I suspect were 
over 6 feet tall, about seven of them over 200 pounds. I don't 
never carry a permit of a weapon or have I ever held a weapon 
in my hand. Do you perceive me to be a threat to them?
    Mr. Hoffman. Sir, I can't speak to that specific instance. 
I understand your frustration and I don't know what happened, 
so I can't speak to it.
    Mr. Espaillat. Well, let me just State for the record, 
Madam Chair, that in my efforts to advocate for three folks, 
including a student at NYU high school--at NYU college and two 
relatives of Members of our Armed Forces, I entered what looked 
to be a holding facility in a jail. I was surrounded and 
accosted by Members of Custom and Border Patrol, denied my 
right to contact one of their superiors. I felt that that was a 
very threatening moment, not just for me, but for any American.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, and 
thanks to our witnesses for coming today to testify.
    The Muslim ban is yet, in my view, another tactic in this 
Administration's use of anti-immigrant policies. This ban has 
impacted several of our districts, including my very own in 
Texas.
    For the record, let me State that maybe the witness doesn't 
think it was chaos, but certainly the inspector general thought 
it was pandemonium. The International Airport in Houston was, 
in my view, complete chaos. There were news reports, all of 
those stations beginning of ban from all around the country and 
the world showing the chaos. So, it is so hard for me to 
believe that we have a witness today that is denying that.
    In my district, some of this confusion, some of the fear, 
and some of the frustration still exists. I have a constituent 
who reached out to my office pleading for help in her K-1 visa. 
She states, and these are direct votes, I am the petitioner for 
my Iranian fiancee Behrouz Sharifi. More than two and a half 
years ago, my life changed when I met my now fiancee. We 
decided to apply for the K-1 visa shortly after becoming 
engaged in Turkey. Much to our dismay, a month after we applied 
for the visa, the Muslim ban was expanded to include K-1 
applicants. Since then, I've not been able to be with my 
fiancee.
    The Abu Dhabi embassy where he had his interview more than 
14 months ago does not seem to have a response as to whenever 
his petition will be approved. The petition is still in 
administrative processing with no change or update since July 
of 2018.
    I've tried reaching out to our U.S. Senators but have had 
no luck. I received a message from Senator Cornyn, that's our 
State Texas Senator, applauding President Trump's cause and not 
offering any help for my case. Metaphorically, it was just 
another door shut straight on my face. These past 2 years have 
taken a toll on my dreams, yet my faith keeps me strong to 
continue fighting. I implore you: If there's anything you can 
do to help my case move toward appeal and approval, I would be 
grateful.
    That's signed by a constituent.
    Madam Chair, I would like her entire statement, which is a 
full page, to be entered for the record.
    Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                       MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Garcia. So, it seems to me that there's still a lot of 
backlog and there's still a lot of distress on so many people 
still waiting. I ask each one of you, and just very quickly, 
because I am only going to ask one question. Why is it just 
taking so long? As briefly as you can because I am going to 
move on.
    Mr. Ramotowski. The longest source of the delay was the 
intensive security clearance checks that had to be done in all 
waiver cases. Again, starting in July of this year, we have 
dramatically improved the speed of that process.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, and we look forward to those stats.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes.
    Ms. Garcia. Ma'am, you're next.
    Mr. Ramotowski. I would just like to say that one case that 
you mentioned, if you would let our team know, we will look 
into it.
    Ms. Garcia. I need to move on sir. We have let everybody 
through the constitutional liaison office, et cetera, do, but 
nothing's happened yet. I just wanted to use an example.
    Ma'am.
    Ms. Neumann. Yes, ma'am. I share your concern that the 
security checks take so long. I would like to point out--and 
again, we can go to a closed session and maybe discuss this 
further, but for a lot of our vetting populations, not just 
these seven countries, the process takes a long time. We've 
been working for several years to try--
    Ms. Garcia. So, you can't add anymore to his. Sir.
    Mr. Hoffman. Ma'am, I'll defer to the Department of State. 
The waiver process, for all practical purposes rests with them.
    Ms. Garcia. All right. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I yield the rest of my time to my colleague, 
Ms. Omar.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields to the lady from 
Minnesota.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you.
    I just wanted to follow-up on a question. Who at the State 
or DHS is working on the 180-day review report? How do we know 
that you're doing the review of the countries placed on the 
ban? If you can.
    Ms. Neumann. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Omar. We're very short on time--
    Ms. Neumann. Yes. The process that I was describing 
earlier, we conduct that every 180 days. We submit a report to 
the President at the end of that process.
    Ms. Omar. Earlier you said that the State was not consulted 
in regards to the formulation of the Muslim ban.
    How did you know how to implement it and what challenges 
existed because of it?
    Mr. Ramotowski. It was definitely very challenging, 
Congresswoman. We did not have any advanced notice or 
consultation about it.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I first just want to echo the words of my colleagues and 
associate with their remarks. The policy we're examining today 
certainly runs counter, in my view, to our American values, 
counter to our Nation's founding, and counter to our morality 
and humanity.
    From its inception, our Nation has been a beacon of hope 
for the huddled masses who yearn to be free the world over. 
Since its founding, this land has been a safe haven for 
immigrants seeking a home, those fleeing persecution, those 
desiring freedom to worship, and those placing their hope in 
the American Dream and the belief that you can make it here if 
you try. We are all immigrants, and that certainly is true in 
my own instance as the son of African refugees.
    Yet, since the moment President Trump was sworn into 
office, he and his Administration have countered these ideals 
with anti-immigrant policies like the one we are addressing 
here today. The Muslim ban's most assured effect is to keep 
families apart. Indeed, this ban is one of the Administration's 
first-family separation policies in a litany of policies that 
followed.
    I would like to, as my colleague from Texas did, highlight 
a story of two constituents. Zachary Einerson and his wife 
Shadi, whose visa application has been held in administrative 
processing since June of 2018. Shadi established and 
successfully ran her own business in Iran which she closed to 
move and live with her husband. She is currently living in the 
United Kingdom as a dependent on Zachary's student visa while 
he completes a Ph.D. program there.
    Luckily, the United Kingdom has allowed the two of them to 
remain together while they await the outcome of the U.S. 
immigration process. However, their temporary visa status in 
the U.K. is about to expire which would force them to separate, 
Shadi back to Iran and Zachary back to the United States. This 
would cause them much undue hardship and, in fact, put both of 
their individual lives in physical danger. As a U.S. citizen, 
it's not safe for Zachary to live in Iran. To be married to a 
U.S. citizen, Shadi is in danger if she returns there as well.
    With the completion of Zachary's degree drawing near and 
his father suffering from a critical illness in Colorado, 
Zachary and Shadi are being forced to undergo life and death 
decisions about the well-being of their family and the safety 
of one another with no definitive resolution in sight.
    So, I just cannot phrase it more straightforwardly than 
Zachary did. After submitting multiple documents demonstrating 
that Shadi has no criminal history, no assumption of threat or 
risk should be projected on Shadi simply because of her 
national origin or religion at birth. It is simply un-American 
to discriminate against immigrants solely because of where they 
come from for their religious beliefs.
    I share that story because I think individual stories can 
get lost in some of the debate that we're having today about 
the technical intricacies of immigration law and the way in 
which this Presidential proclamation has been implemented. I 
hope that each of you will take these stories back to your 
colleagues, because these are people who are struggling under 
what I believe to be, as I said, an anti-immigrant border.
    I will ask just a few questions, and then I want to yield 
the balance of my time, because I know we have a number of 
colleagues who would like to get questions in as well.
    Following up on Representative Omar's point, as you all 
know, and I think it's been adduced in this hearing already, 
the proclamation requires DHS to produce a report every 180 
days to the President. It sounds as though, in the prior 
exchange, that that has happened; is that correct?
    Ms. Neumann. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Neguse. Has that happened every 100 days?
    Ms. Neumann. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Neguse. Are those reports public?
    Ms. Neumann. No, sir.
    Mr. Neguse. You can understand the difficulty we would have 
as Members of Congress from an oversight perspective when there 
is a representation that this is being done for security 
reasons, and apparently those reasons, I suspect, you are 
articulating that those would be within the substance of the 
reports that are being prepared for the President and yet none 
of us have access to that document.
    So, to be able to apprise as to whether or not, in fact, 
the Department of Homeland Security is working to ascertain the 
security procedures from this country so that countries can be 
lifted off of the order, it's a hard argument for us to take 
seriously.
    We're not the only ones who have that skepticism. Justice 
Sotomayor my expressed this, as I'm sure you're aware, in a 
recent Federal case in which she noted that the results of the 
Administration's review process had not been fully disclosed to 
the public and that the few conclusions disclosed appeared not 
to have justified the ban. Pointing to documents filed in 
another Federal lawsuit, she expressed doubt that a review of 
hundreds of countries vetting practices, which, as you said in 
your view, takes a long time, would result in an agency report 
of a mere 17 pages.
    So, you can understand why this Committee is very skeptical 
and why we will continue the vigorous oversight that we're 
engaged in today.
    With that, I thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Malinowski, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    We've heard a lot about national security here, and I think 
it bears repeating that there has not been a single terrorist 
attack committed on U.S. soil by any national of any of the 
Muslim ban countries. What we have had are attacks by Saudis, 
Pakistanis, and Lebanese. Every single case my colleagues have 
mentioned from a country that is not on the list.
    So, the notion that we can trust these other governments to 
work with us to vet people coming to the United States is 
obviously preposterous.
    We've heard a lot about a list that the Obama 
Administration produced a few years ago. Actually, Iraq was on 
that list. Iraq is not now on the travel ban list for one 
reason, because influential Iraqis and the Pentagon frantically 
lobbied the White House at the last minute to take them off. 
It's not because they are able to work with us to vet travelers 
somehow better than these other countries.
    Now, let's talk about a country that is on the list. Iran. 
We don't like the government of Iran. It is an odious 
dictatorship. We constantly say that we love the people on 
Iran. That we are on their side. That we support their human 
rights.
    We know that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. They are 
actually a sworn enemy of ISIS. Yet it is our national policy 
to say to the Iranian people, even as we claim to be on their 
side, that none of them are trustworthy enough to come to the 
United States unless they can go through this added hoop of 
proving that denial would cause them undue hardship.
    I'm trying to understand this. What I hear from the State 
Department and from DHS is that we are looking for partners in 
these governments to help us figure out who can safely come to 
the United States; that we're working closely with a number of 
other countries to address our security and information sharing 
deficiencies, as you said, Mr. Ramotowski.
    Let me ask you both this question. Are we waiting for a 
partner in the Iranian Government before we allow an Iranian 
grandmother to come visit her granddaughter in the United 
States? Is that what we're waiting for?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Congressman, no, we're not. That's why the 
waiver process and exception process exist in the proclamation, 
because--
    Mr. Malinowski. Well, the Iranians have one of the lowest 
rates of approval in the waiver process even when counselor 
officers say they should be allowed in.
    Let me give you a specific case. Laila Alikarami, a human 
rights lawyer, Iranian human rights lawyer, director of the 
Center for Supporters of Human Rights in Iran. She bravely 
defended Iranian dissidents before the revolutionary courts in 
that country and was forced into exile. She lives in the United 
Kingdom. She is subject to the travel ban. She cannot come to 
New York to lobby the United Nations to pass resolutions 
condemning Iran.
    Are we waiting for an Iranian partner, Iranian Government 
partner, to allow her to come to the United States? It's been 
over a year.
    Mr. Ramotowski. I'll defer to DHS on the requirements. If 
her case is pending a security review, we can look into it. I 
don't have any details on the particular case you raised.
    Mr. Malinowski. Let me ask you this. What specific security 
checks are conducted on Iranians, Libyans, and Syrians, people 
subject to the travel ban, that we do not conduct on 
Pakistanis, Saudis, and Lebanese, on citizens of countries that 
actually are responsible for 100 percent of the terrorist 
attacks that have been committed in this country? What checks 
are we conducting on these folks that we're not conducting on 
nationals of those countries. Can anybody answer that?
    Mr. Ramotowski. I can partly answer it, sir.
    First, under the additional executive orders that the 
President issued requiring enhanced vetting, visa applicants 
will be checked more closely at the embassy or consulate when 
they first apply. It might be a further anti-fraud review, or 
some sort of extra analysis done in post. Then if the 
individual qualified for a waiver, the waiver would be sent in 
for the interagency review back here. That, up until July of 
2019, was a very manual labor intensive, time intensive process 
with partner agencies. We've automated that now, and that 
process is also being used for other visa applicants. It makes 
us significantly--
    Mr. Malinowski. We're subjecting these people from 
countries that have committed no terrorist attacks in the 
United States to more onerous vetting and security checks. On 
top of that, they have to prove undue hardship to get a waiver.
    If you're from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Lebanon, none of 
that, explain to me the national security justification for 
that distinction.
    Ms. Neumann. If I can, sir, the security checks that have 
been referred to are also done on nationals from other 
countries. It's the same process. We would need to go into a 
classified setting to discuss how that process works.
    Mr. Malinowski. If it's the same process, why have this?
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Ms. Neumann. It's the difference between a waiver 
situation, which I will defer to my colleague from State to 
explain, and visa process checking.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired.
    We will go to the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Mucarsel-
Powell.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Chair Lofgren. Thank you 
all for coming here this morning.
    Now, I want to take just one second and put partisanship 
aside. You hear from the minority party many times that the 
Democrats don't care about the safety of our communities. I 
want to make something very clear, like the Chair stated 
earlier. I wake up every morning making sure and thinking of 
ways of keeping this country safe, of keeping our communities 
safe. It is why I have been advocating for gun reform since I 
got into Congress in January.
    Using a Muslim ban as a basis for national security I think 
is just completely false. It's a sham. Many people have agreed 
on that issue. I just want to talk a little bit about how this 
Muslim ban affects American citizens who may not look like any 
of the witnesses in on panel today, but who are American 
citizens and who are paying the consequences of this 
ineffective ban.
    I want to talk a little bit about the Charaf family who is 
Syrian, and they live in Miami. They live in my community.
    Raji came to the United States 7 years ago and lives in 
Miami. He's proudly worked his way through the immigration 
process. He was so proud when he became a U.S. citizen in 2017, 
a privilege that I myself have, and several of my colleagues 
share that same privilege. We are U.S. citizens. We're also 
immigrants.
    In May of this year, Raji's parents applied for visas to 
come to this country with Raji. The President's Muslim ban's 
restrictions on Syria quickly stalled the process. Raji's 
parents were stuck in limbo waiting with no answers. They're 
hardworking people. They are not criminals. They are not 
terrorists. They were very confused.
    After months of waiting, Raji's mother finally was able to 
make it to the United States using her Lebanese passport. 
Raji's father did not have the same luck. Raji's father remains 
in Syria today while his family is in the United States 
waiting.
    Because of this ban, a good family has been ripped apart. 
Raji does not know when he's going to be able to see his father 
again, and the possibility of reuniting the family grows 
slimmer every single day. As we know, the story of the Charafs 
is not unique. The ban has impacted hundreds of thousands of 
people based on unfair criteria.
    I think that what is clear is that the ban is not simply 
about stopping people from the Muslim faith. It's a 
proclamation that is based on fear, it is not right, and it 
goes against our American values.
    Now, with each iteration of the Muslim ban, a bipartisan 
coalition of dozens of former national security officials who 
have worked in both Democratic and Republican Administrations 
have rejected the basis that this ban was used based on 
national security threats.
    The Trump Administration's own Department of Homeland 
Security, DHS, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis disputed 
the national security benefits of the ban which have remained 
the primary justification for this ban. A report of the office 
indicated that citizenship is an unreliable indicator of a 
terrorist threat to the United States and that nationals of the 
countries started in the first iteration of the ban are rarely 
implicated in U.S.-based terrorism.
    So, I want to ask you my first question. Do you disagree 
with this report? If so, on what grounds? Ms. Neumann.
    Ms. Neumann. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis--can 
you remind me the date of that?
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I think it was back in 2017. I don't 
have the exact date in front of me.
    Ms. Neumann. I have a vague recollection of it. I 
apologize. I did not review that in preparation for the 
hearing.
    They are independent as an intelligence community member. 
Provide their assessment. I think my testimony and my focus has 
been on the work that's occurred since Proclamation 9645, which 
I believe that was written.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I'm just asking if you agree or not 
with that report.
    Ms. Neumann. I think it's focusing on the false premise, 
right? It's not about the citizenship being a determinant of 
whether somebody's a terrorist. What we're looking at is 
whether the identity credentialing or the information sharing 
that that individual is associated with is sufficient for us to 
know that they are who they say they are and that they don't 
pose a risk to the United States.
    So, without the absenting the full report, it's hard for me 
to comment specifically. From what you read, it seems like it's 
drawing a different conclusion.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I mean, it's very clear. It's 
basically that it's not a reliable indicator depending on the 
nationality of where you're--
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this very 
important hearing. Thanks to all of you for being here. I 
really appreciate it.
    It's hard to believe that we're just now getting to the 
Muslim ban. When you all of us think back on the last 2\1/2\, 
almost 3 years, all of the anti-immigrant policies that have 
been rolled out under this Administration, it's hard to keep 
track, in fact, of how the erosion of our values--just how 
rapidly it has happened.
    These hearings are really important because they help shed 
light on the human toll that policies take. There is a real 
human toll.
    I would like to just very briefly ask for unanimous consent 
to allow a testimony.
    Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                       MS. ESCOBAR FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
    A story from one of my constituents. We've been listening 
to the human toll and the human impact. I have a constituent 
whose fiancee is in Iran and who has been waiting for this 
waiver, waiting for her visa. During that year and a half that 
they've been apart, they have suffered financial and emotional 
hardship. They have grown despondent, very depressed, and lots 
of anxiety. The impact to them has been really devastating.
    So, I have a couple of questions about that. I do want to 
also say that we don't have to sacrifice our values to obtain 
and attain and retain security. It is possible, absolutely 
possible, to be a secure Nation and to celebrate and uphold our 
values all at once.
    So, my first question is--my constituent has been waiting 
for almost a year and a half. Why is the process taking so 
long? Can someone give me a succinct answer?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes, Congresswoman. It took time to set up 
a waiver process at the beginning. The security checks require 
the intense manual interagency security checks required to 
issue the waiver were the largest source of delay.
    Let me just say that we are very cognizant of the impact on 
human beings by this delay, and we're working as hard as we can 
to minimize it.
    Ms. Escobar. I understand that there's this idea that, in 
response to inquiries and lawsuits, that the State Department 
says that each applicant has to wait in line. Obviously, we 
know that's a very long line considering the wait time that 
some of our constituents have had to live through.
    How do you keep track of the order of people in line?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Let me just say, Congresswoman, that we do 
expedite cases of really urgent humanitarian concern, emergency 
medical, and things of that sort. We regularly contact 
embassies and consulates and ask them if you are aware of a 
particularly urgent case, particularly in the first year of the 
process when the security vetting was much slower, we wanted 
them to signal to us that this was an emergency case, and we 
would do our best to process that.
    Ms. Escobar. For the nonemergencies, though, is it a 
question of resources?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes.
    Ms. Escobar. So, it's question of resources.
    Mr. Ramotowski. It's a question of resources and 
capabilities at partner agencies that have manual deep dive 
research.
    As I mentioned, beginning in July, a large part of that is 
now automated. So, just in the past 2 months, we've doubled the 
number of waivers issued. There will be more and more going 
forward from this time. I'm sure some are being issued today. 
So, we expect that there will be a significant decrease in 
processing time for everybody.
    Ms. Escobar. I have a question about those folks who were 
not offered a waiver during the first two iterations. Now under 
the third iteration, are they being reconsidered for a waiver?
    Mr. Ramotowski. We'll reconsider any case at any time, 
Congresswoman, even if the initial decision is a denial. If an 
applicant chooses to reapply again because their circumstances 
are different, we will reconsider that case any time.
    Ms. Escobar. Are we able to have copies of the various 
rules that have changed via each iteration? Could Congress get 
a copy of that, these two committees?
    Mr. Ramotowski. You mean the Presidential proclamations and 
all?
    Ms. Escobar. The processes and policies that you all are 
using to evaluate.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes. We did provide a variety of guidance 
information and other directives to the Committee in response 
to a written request from the Chair. We've already done that. 
We can brief on the security clearance process in closed 
session if you would like? If there is a particular case or 
more of concern to you, our team is happy to look into that and 
let you know what is going on with it.
    Ms. Escobar. Unfortunately, my time has expired.
    Thank you so much.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair for this hearing. I 
thank the witnesses as well. Many of us have had the State 
Department and the Department of Homeland Security before us on 
many occasions. As I would, let me thank all of you as public 
servants for the work that you do even though the policies 
which you are here for have and I believe have no grounding in 
reality and opposing a difficult posture.
    Let me just quickly indicate the first order, January 27, 
2017, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria. Then we 
move on to March 6, 2017, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, 
and Yemen. Move on to September 24, Chad, Iran, Libya, North 
Korea, Somalia, Syria, and Venezuela.
    Let me try to ask the State Department. Were you involved 
in the iterations of these executive orders?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Not for the first version, Congresswoman. 
Subsequently there was an interagency process that reviewed the 
executive orders and the proclamation.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, in the rush to do the first one, you 
were not engaged?
    Mr. Ramotowski. We had no advanced consultation.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. As noted by the inspector general of DHS, 
there was widespread confusion at the Nation's airport, 
pandemonium within the Administration noting that the agencies 
charged with implementing the ban were largely caught by 
surprise.
    To Customs and Border Protection, did you know anything as 
the first ban was issued?
    Mr. Hoffman. No, ma'am. I became aware after a signature.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, there were your officers at the 
Nation's airports, there were international airports that were 
confronted with travelers who have already left their place of 
departure coming into the United States who left their place of 
departure and had no knowledge of a change in policy?
    Mr. Hoffman. Correct. We had people in real-time travel.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You had people who had heretofore 
legitimate documents, such as a tourist visa, who were coming 
into the United States that would be detrimentally impacted by 
the Muslim ban?
    Mr. Hoffman. Potentially, yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. With that in mind, I know how orderly CBP 
is. You want to follow the law.
    Did that put your officers in jeopardy as they dealt with 
individuals who likewise would have felt they were in jeopardy 
and might have been impacted in such a way that inappropriate 
behavior on both parts might have occurred, both groups not 
knowing what was going on? Fear, for example.
    Mr. Hoffman. No, I don't think the officers--it didn't put 
the officers in jeopardy. As I mentioned earlier, since it was 
effective immediately and we were notified after signature, it 
was a challenging implementation to get the policy.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You think it might have put the visitors 
in fear who had legitimate documents?
    Mr. Hoffman. I wouldn't say put them in fear, no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me beg to differ with you. I beg 
to differ with you for Mohammad Abu Khadra, a 16-year-old 
Jordanian who had lived in the United States with his brother 
who had a green card. He was a Katy High School student.
    I was called to the airport, Bush Intercontinental. Airport 
who I have great respect for those individuals that work there 
for your agency. This individual had gotten off the airplane. 
Innocent child that he was, he had gone home to renew his 
documents, which he did renew, which were a tourist visa. He 
was coming, an unaccompanied child. It was an innocent child, 
brought home to renew his documents because they had expired. 
Of course, they hadn't expired when he got home. So, he 
appropriately got them back from Jordan, an ally to the United 
States, but he was a Muslim.
    The teenager looked every bit a part of the diverse 
American youth that we train. He was here improving his 
English.
    When he was questioned, it looked as if he was going to 
school here, and he was detained. His family could not access 
him. No one could access him. He had a slim fitting shirt, 
button-up collar, rolled-up jeans, big blue watch, just like 
any of our teenagers. He was immediately, after maybe staying 
in a detention cell, that he was probably fearful for his life 
because he is coming here unknown to what is going on, was sent 
to a children's center in Chicago.
    It was my office, along with his lawyer's, that worked 
diligently to turn that into a short stay versus the ones that 
we see the children in the HH centers today that are in there 
for a year, 6 months, and 4 months.
    Do you believe that he was afraid?
    Mr. Hoffman. Maybe under the circumstances, probably he 
could have very well been afraid. Again, we treat everyone with 
dignity and respect. We let them know what's going on 
throughout the process. I trust our officers treated that 
individual with dignity and respect.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time--
    Mr. Hoffman. Understanding the sensitivity of the case.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The ban caused his fear.
    Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Scanlon. I just wanted to speak for a minute to the 
immediate impact of the Muslim ban. At that time, I was not in 
Congress. I was pro bono counsel at a national law firm, and I 
ended up spending that long weekend, I know it was a long 
weekend for you, organizing lawyers to go out to various 
airports. So, I had lawyers at JFK. I had lawyers in Atlanta, 
in LA, and in Philadelphia.
    Just as an example of the chaos, I'd ask unanimous consent 
to introduce into the record this article from the Philadelphia 
Inquire from January 30, 2017, how Philly's Reacting to Trump's 
Immigration Ban.
    Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                       MS. SCANLON FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. It described how the first people to 
land in Philly who were subject to the Muslim ban were two 
Syrian Christian families who had visas and green cards, and 
they were sent back because Customs and Border Patrol didn't 
know how to deal with it. They weren't allowed access to their 
attorneys. Of course, we had a large number of protesters 
outside.
    Several of the other Members have spoken to their 
experiences on that day. I know John Lewis went to the airport 
in Georgia and was also denied access to folks who were 
entering. As is his custom, he had a sit-in.
    So, just moving to Mr. Ramotowski. You have told us several 
times that 7,600 visa waivers have been granted as of this 
month, correct?
    Mr. Ramotowski. September 14, yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. That's since the inception of the ban?
    Mr. Ramotowski. That's correct.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, over 60,000 people subject to this 
ban have applied during that time, right?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Approximately that number, yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Can you give me a more specific number? 
I know the 60,000 number was as of March.
    Mr. Ramotowski. The number that I have here in terms of 
totals is about 72,000.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, 72,000 people have applied, and 
you've managed to put out 7,600 waivers.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Right.
    Ms. Scanlon. Roughly half of them in the last 6 months.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Roughly half of them in the last 2 months.
    Ms. Scanlon. In the last 2 months.
    Okay. So, again, looking at those total numbers that we've 
got, how many? 72,000?
    Mr. Ramotowski. That was the grand total of applications, 
yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, 72,000 applications minus 7,600 
waivers granted. Then you also said that there have been 31,334 
refusals?
    Mr. Ramotowski. Approximately, yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Approximately 15,000 cases are still 
ongoing through the security process.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, we've got over 33,000 people who 
haven't had an answer yet, right?
    Mr. Ramotowski. About 15,000 of them.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, 15,000 haven't gotten any answer. 
What happened to the other 18,000?
    Mr. Ramotowski. They were denied. They didn't qualify for a 
waiver.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Or they were denied. You know, the figures 
I have, Congresswoman, I can quote for you. Out of the grand 
total 12,912 were denied for other aspects of immigration law.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
    Mr. Ramotowski. There was 7,679 waivers, 5,137 visas issued 
as exceptions. Then of the 46,334 remaining, we estimate that 
approximately 15,000 of the totals is awaiting the security 
review.
    Ms. Scanlon. The--so 46,000--
    Mr. Ramotowski. The remainder of that would have been 
denied because they did not fit one of the waiver criteria 
permitted under the proclamation.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. That's helpful, because the numbers were 
not adding up, and the percentages were not adding up.
    You've said a couple times if people are having trouble 
with this. I have a staff member who has an 86-year-old 
grandmother from Iran who used to regularly visit the country 
to visit her family. She applied over a year ago. We have done 
congressional casework on this. No response.
    So, who should Members of Congress or who should the folks 
waiting for a decision on these outstanding applications--who 
should they be contacting?
    Mr. Ramotowski. You should still contact the Department of 
State for an update.
    Ms. Scanlon. We've done that repeatedly.
    Mr. Ramotowski. Yes, because the waiver security screening 
process has significantly improved, and so we are seeing a lot 
more movement in cases that have been delayed for a long time.
    Ms. Scanlon. Who is operating the waiver security process? 
Who's the final say on that?
    Mr. Ramotowski. The Department of State is the implementing 
agent.
    Ms. Scanlon. Whose desk is it on? Is it yours?
    Mr. Ramotowski. It's not on any of our desks. It goes to 
partner agencies in law enforcement and intelligence 
communities.
    Ms. Scanlon. So, it's just like this giant computer that 
you put it in? Who has the final say for these people?
    Mr. Ramotowski. We survey a lot of databases.
    Ms. Scanlon. Who's ``we''?
    Mr. Ramotowski. The Department of State. We're the 
executive agent of this process.
    Ms. Scanlon. Particular agency?
    Mr. Ramotowski. To bring the case back, I have to brief in 
closed session on the specific agencies and what they exactly 
do, but they are a part of the law enforcement--
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentleman could answer by saying it is the Department 
of State that finally issues.
    Mr. Ramotowski. That's right, because it comes back to us, 
and we send it.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    I have asked unanimous consent that the following 
statements be included in the record. A statement by 19 State 
attorneys general, statements from the American Civil Liberties 
Union, the American Arab Antidiscrimination Committee, the 
Antidefamation League, Amnesty International, the Asian-
American Advancing Justice and the Arc, Church World Services, 
Council on American-Islamic Relations, Engage Foundation, 
Friends Committee on National Legislation, Japanese-American 
Citizens League, Muslim Public Affairs council, National 
Council of Jewish Women, National Immigration Law Center, Jews 
and Muslims and Allies Acting together, Public Affairs Alliance 
of Iranian Americans, International Refugee Assistance Project, 
and a statement from Senator Coons and Representative Chu on 
their legislation called the No Ban Act.
    Without objection, those statements will be made part of 
the record.
    [The information follows:]

                       MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Bera.
    Mr. Bera. Madam Chair, I also would ask--we have a letter 
dated September 23, 2019, from a variety of national security 
experts, Democrats and Republicans, who have had the highest 
security clearance commenting on the nature of the ban and how 
it doesn't make sense.
    Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, that is included.
    [The information follows:]

                        MR. BERA FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. We will be in recess for 5 minutes waiting for 
our other panel. Before you leave, I'll just note that the 
record will be open for 5 days during which Members may ask 
additional questions of the witnesses. We would ask that you 
respond promptly.
    One of those questions will be how we got from 15,000 
Syrian refugees in 2016 to 11 this year, only 11, and whether 
that was part of this process or some other process.
    With that, we will be in recess for 5 minutes, and then we 
will have our second panel.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Lofgren. The subcommittees will resume from our recess.
    I want to thank the witnesses for coming today. I want to 
introduce the second panel and apologize. I'm looking for the 
biographies of the panel.
    Here we have Dr. Abdollah Dehzangi--I'm mispronouncing your 
word--Dehzangi is an Assistant Professor of Computer Science 
and Director of the Master of Science in Bioinformatics program 
at Morgan State University. He was born in Iran and is now a 
legal permanent resident living in Baltimore, Maryland. He 
holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Griffith University in 
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
    Because of the ban, his wife, Ghazaheh Taherzadeh, who he 
married in Australia in 2015 and who has filed for an immigrant 
visa to come to the United States, has been unable to come to 
the U.S. and to live with him, her husband. She also has a 
Ph.D. and received a post doc job offer at the University of 
Maryland, College Park, with work funded by the National 
Institute of Health.
    However, because of the ban, she has yet to obtain a visa 
to come and join her husband as well as to do this 
distinguished work in the United States.
    Mr. Ismail Alghazali is a U.S. citizen who was born in 
Yemen and currently lives in Brooklyn, New York. He and his 
family have also been impacted by the ban. Today, he remains 
separated from his wife, sister, 5-month old daughter, and 1\1/
2\-year-old son. His wife has attempted to obtain a visa to 
return home with Ismail, until recently, the ban prevented her 
from doing so. She was in processing for almost 3 years before 
being approved for a waiver earlier this month. We thank Mr. 
Alghazali for taking the time to share his story with us today.
    Farhana Khera is the cofounder, president, and executive 
director of Muslim Advocates, a national legal advocacy and 
educational organization. Previously, she served as counsel on 
the Senate Judiciary Committee and worked under the 
Constitution Subcommittee Chair Senator Russell Feingold. Prior 
to working for the United States Senate, she worked as a 
litigation associate with several law firms.
    In her current role with Muslim Advocates, she testified 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on 
Oversight, Agency Actions, Federal Rights and Federal Courts on 
the topic of anti-Muslim rhetoric and its connections to law 
enforcement. She received her bachelor's degree from Wellesley 
College and her juris doctorate from Cornell Law School.
    Finally, we have Arthur Andrew, the honorable Art Arthur is 
a resident fellow in law and policy for the Center of 
Immigration Studies and the former immigration judge at the 
York Immigration Court in Pennsylvania. Mr. Arthur has also 
served at the former immigration and naturalization service as 
general counsel's office and worked Capitol Hill as counsel to 
the House Judiciary Committee and House Oversight Committee. He 
received a bachelor's degree from the University of Virginia 
and a juris doctorate from George Washington University School 
of Law.
    We welcome all our distinguished witnesses and thank them 
for participating in today's hearing. We are particularly 
honored to hear from the two witnesses personally impacted by 
these policies and commend them for their courage and strength 
in sharing their personal painful stories with us today.
    Now, if you will please rise, I will begin by swearing each 
of you in.
    If you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm 
under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to 
give is true and correct, to the best of your knowledge, 
information, and belief, so help you God?
    The record will record that each of the witnesses answered 
in the affirmative.
    Thank you. Please be seated.
    As with the prior panel, each of your written statements 
will be made part of the record, and so we do ask that your 
testimony consume about 5 minutes. We have a light system. So, 
when the yellow goes on, it means you've got just a minute 
left. When the red turns on, it means that your 5 minutes have 
expired. We do ask that you try and wrap it up at this point.
    So, Dr. Dehzangi, you will begin.

                 TESTIMONY OF ABDOLLAH DEHZANGI

    Mr. Dehzangi. Dear respected Members of the U.S. House of 
Representatives. Thank you for your service and for giving me 
the opportunity to share my case and story regarding the Muslim 
ban and how it affects me and my wife, Dr. Ghazaleh Taherzadeh. 
I'm one of the thousands that have been affected by the Muslim 
ban and represented most heavily impacted community, which is 
Iranians.
    While at the saddest stories of separation and heartbreak, 
people who came to the United States to start a new life in 
this wonderful country, and like many others, have strived to 
help make their new home a better place. Yet we have been 
banned for no reason other than where we were born and what 
religion we practice.
    It is our story that I would like to share with you. I'm 
Dr. Abdollah Dehzangi, assistant professor at the department of 
computer science, Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland. 
I'm also program director of the Master of Science in 
Bioinformatics at this institute.
    I met my wife, Dr. Ghazaleh Taherzadeh, in Malaysia back in 
2008 while we both were students at Multimedia University. 
After I moved to United States, we decided to enshrine our love 
in marriage. We realized that that after 8 years we no longer 
can be apart and long to spend the rest of our life together. 
We were happily married in September 2016, and I filled out an 
I-130 petition for her to join me by October 2016. We knew this 
process was going to take up to 2 years so she could join me 
after she complete her Ph.D. in Australia at Griffith 
University.
    However, our dream and hopes were all shattered after 
announcement of the Muslim ban and nationals in several 
countries, including Iran. This cruel policy threw our lives in 
disarray.
    By April 2018, Ghazaleh received an offer to serve as a 
post-doctoral research scholar at the University of Maryland. 
Her aim is to conduct high impact research in the field of 
bioinformatics, drug design, and drug discovery, so it would 
have been a wonderful opportunity for her.
    However, despite the effort from the UMD, she was not able 
to apply for H1B visa out of United States because of travel 
ban. She finally was invited for her interview in February 2019 
during which her visa application was denied. We were gravely 
dismayed despite knowingly this was a possibility as a result 
of Muslim ban.
    So, we completed a waiver request with a supporting letter 
from Senator Van Hollen of Maryland. Again, with the help of 
Senator Van Hollen, we followed up after 6 months in August as 
having been advised but was told the process would take even 
longer than that. Unfortunately, there is no timeline.
    She has lost a job offer that was extended to her as there 
is no end in sight today's ban. Denial of her visa and entry 
has caused us and our family undue hardship because we need the 
support and companionship that we desperately seek.
    My wife is alone in Australia, and I am without her here. 
I'm separated from the person closest to me in life, and I 
don't know when we will get together again forced to go through 
the celebrations and hardships in our life apart.
    Denial of her request for a waiver or further delaying this 
process would force me to quit my service at Morgan State 
University to reunite with my wife in Australia. Such an Act 
will be a loss to my university, Baltimore City, State of 
Maryland, and the United States in general. I would also have 
to leave behind my mom and two brothers who live in the United 
States.
    It is a very hard and heartbreaking decision to make. Our 
hope was to move to United States, pursue our careers and 
dreams, build a family, and contribute to the well-being of our 
society and community. I also feel uncomfortable, that as a 
program director and supervisor, I have to leave my students 
behind.
    There is no alternative for me. I must be with my beloved 
wife, and I'm being denied my love and future because I'm 
Iranian.
    As I finish this testimony, I finish to leave you with the 
knowledge this unfair and xenophobic ban is destroying our 
lives and bond. We do not know what's going to happen and how 
long we have to wait for all the reason above. We would like to 
raise our voice to the House of Representatives, a stronghold 
of law and order based on the U.S. Constitution, to please help 
us to build our lives and stop this injustice.
    There are more than several thousand that have that have 
been affected by the Muslim ban. Many more have a similar 
story, similar hardship, and similar sorrow and sadness, those 
that hope to one day call this land of free and home of the 
brave their home and serve this country under the same flag as 
those can be for them. Yet, they have been banned because of 
their nationality and religion. This is discrimination.
    Thank you very much for your time.
    [The statement of Mr. Dehzangi follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    We now will turn to Ismail Alghazali.

                 TESTIMONY OF ISMAIL ALGHAZALI

    Mr. Alghazali. Thanks. Good afternoon, Congress Member. 
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share this with you.
    My name is Ismail Alghazali. I live in New York City, one 
of the greatest cities in the world. I work at a Bodega, a 
small neighborhood market, in Brooklyn. This work doesn't make 
me rich, but I love it because I get to meet so many people of 
our race and all religions. I know all my regular customers by 
name. When they come to my store, I want to take care of them.
    Today I'm here to tell you the story of my family. My 
wonderful wife, Hend, and our two children, Khaled, who is a 
year old, and my newborn daughter, who is 5 months old.
    In fact, I never even met my daughter yet. I never hold her 
in my arms. I've only seen her through photos and videos. I do 
not have words to describe the love that I carry in my heart 
for my wife and my kids. It hurts me so much that it has been 
now more than a year since I've seen my family. Hend, Khaled, 
Rahf, and I were separated by thousands of miles because of the 
Muslim ban.
    I know I wanted to marry my wife, Hend, right away after I 
met her. We fell in love and got married in 2013 before our 
family and friends. Hend has the best heart. She wants to take 
care of people. In fact, her dream is to become a nurse. She 
can't do this in Yemen, but she can pursue her dream in 
America.
    We had just been married, but I had to leave Hend behind 
and go back to America. I had to feed my family. My job was 
back in Brooklyn. I needed to be in the United States to apply 
for my family to join me.
    In my heart, I feel that we will be together in America 
soon. I am a U.S. citizen, and she is my wife. We were married 
what could go wrong? After the first visa interview in New 
York, I returned to Yemen to be with Hend. After two long years 
of waiting, the date for our immigration interview had finally 
arrived.
    My friends and coworkers loaned me the money that I needed 
for this trip. Together, we traveled to Djibouti for the 
interview. When we arrived, my wife was 8 months pregnant with 
our son, Khaled. Her pregnancy had been difficult. Doctors had 
discovered she had a heart condition.
    We know that the Muslim ban stopped Yemenis from entering 
the U.S., but we also know they allow family Members of U.S. 
citizens. Hend should have been eligible for a waiver. I'm a 
U.S. citizen, and she's my wife. She needed medical care for a 
serious health condition. The interview did not go as we 
expected. It didn't even last 5 minutes. They returned Hend's 
passport and said that her visa is being denied because of the 
Muslim ban.
    Even though Hend was my wife, we were not eligible for a 
waiver. We were stuck in Djibouti. I wasn't able to work there. 
The money that I borrowed was running out. I wasn't sure what 
to do next.
    Hend went into labor late one night. For most couples, this 
is a happy occasion. For us, it was the most scariest 
experience in my life. It took me 30 minutes to find a cab 
while my wife was in pain. Hend contractions were coming faster 
and faster, and we were 5 minutes away from the hospital. There 
was no time left. My wife gave birth to our son, Khaled, in the 
back of a cab.
    I will never forget this night and how hopeless I felt. I 
stayed as long as I could. I had 10 months to be with my 
family, but I had to go back to New York and provide for them. 
Hend was expecting our second child. Leaving them again behind, 
it was more painful than I could imagine.
    In April of this year, my wife gave birth to our daughter 
Rahf back in Yemen, and it broke my heart that I wasn't there 
for her.
    Now, I have been asked to come back and re-interview for 
the waiver. I still have hope that we will be together again as 
a family here. Hend will become a nurse. My son and daughter 
will go to school and pursue their own dreams. I pray that you 
will find it in your heart to allow families like mine to be 
together. Please end this ban.
    Thanks for listening.
    [The statement of Mr. Alghazali follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    Farhana Khera, we'll hear from you now.

                   TESTIMONY OF FARHANA KHERA

    Ms. Khera. Good afternoon. My name is Farhana Khera. I'm 
the executive director of Muslim Advocates, a national civil 
rights organization. Since early 2017, we've been fighting the 
Muslim ban in the courts and working with Congress to right 
this wrong.
    Chairs Lofgren, Bera, Members of the committee, thank you 
for holding this historic hearing, the first congressional 
hearing on the Muslim ban. Your presence here signals your 
commitment to protecting civil rights for all.
    Ismail and Abdollah, thank you so much for your courage. 
You speak for thousands of Americans who are hurting today 
because of the ban.
    So, how did we get here and what can Congress do?
    In January 2017, just 7 days after his inauguration, 
President Trump issued an executive order banning people from 
seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. 
Thousands of Americans flocked to airports across the country 
in protest. As court after court ruled that the Muslim ban was 
unlawful, the President issued two revised versions of the ban, 
versions that claim to include exceptions and a waiver process.
    Immediately after the third ban went into effect, thousands 
of blanket denials for visas were issued before individuals 
even had a chance to apply for a waiver or demonstrate that 
they were eligible for one. According to recent data from the 
State Department, of roughly 60,000 visa applications received 
during a 16-month period, only 5.1 percent of the waiver 
requests were granted. To date, there is no waiver process 
available to the public. As we feared, the so-called waiver 
process has been a sham.
    We believe that the vast majority of the waivers sought 
involve Americans like Abdollah and Ismail seeking to be 
reunited with their family or individuals seeking urgent 
medical treatment. There are people like Maral Tabrizi, a green 
cardholder, married to a U.S. citizen who recently gave birth 
and desperately wants her parents to visit from Iran so they 
can hold their grandchild.
    Afkab Hussein, a Somali refuge and green card holder who 
arrived in 2015 with the promise that his wife and newborn son 
would soon join him. Even though they were approved for 
resettlement nearly 3 years ago, they have not yet been allowed 
to join him here in America.
    People like Hossein Barati, desperately waiting for a 
visitors' visa so he can undergo specialized treatment for 
Stage 3 cancer, treatment he could not otherwise receive in 
Iran.
    The Muslim ban demonizes and dehumanizes Muslims, evoking 
dark chapters of our Nation's history. The story of immigrant 
Jews, Irish, and Italians. The stain of Japanese American 
internment camps. Each of these groups was shunned and isolated 
for their otherness.
    America prevailed when these groups stopped being seen as 
outsiders and started being seen as neighbors. That's who 
American Muslims are, your neighbors. We are your dentists and 
patients, teachers, and students. We are Baristas and barbers, 
politicians, and even stand-up comedians. Most importantly, we 
are husbands and wives, parents and children, and brothers and 
sisters. Therefore the Muslim ban hurts us on a deeply, deeply 
personal level, because we know it is contrary to the welcoming 
country we aspire to be.
    Here's the good news. The President and the Supreme Court 
do not have the final say, Congress does. Earlier this year 
Congress, Congresswoman Judy Chu and Senator Chris Coons 
introduced the No Ban Act, a bill that would terminate the 
current Muslim ban and would amend the law to ensure that no 
President can enact a similar discriminatory ban again in the 
future. Most importantly, it would bring immediate relief to 
thousands of Americans who are separated from their loved ones 
today.
    We urge Congress to pass the No Ban Act and remove 
religious bigotry from our Nation's immigration system for 
good. In the meantime, we urge the Administration to make good 
on its promise to issue family-based and humanitarian waivers 
immediately and without further delay.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward 
to your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Khera follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    Our final, but not least, witness, Mr. Arthur, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

                 TESTIMONY OF ANDREW R. ARTHUR

    Mr. Arthur. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chair Lofgren, Chair Bera, Ranking Members, Members of the 
joint Subcommittees, I thank you for inviting me here today to 
discuss this important but often misunderstood issue.
    Protecting, safety, institutions and well-being of the 
American people, citizens, nationals, and lawful immigrants, is 
the primary duty of the United States Government. For decades, 
individuals, both foreign and domestic, have posed risk to our 
people and our institutions the U.S. Government must 
constantly. Domestically, it is the role of our Federal law 
enforcement agencies and their State and local partners to 
investigate and prevent such harm.
    With respect to threats from abroad, the State Department, 
DHS, and our intelligence agencies must be constantly vigilant 
to ensure that individuals who pose a security or public safety 
risk are unable to reach our shores.
    State Department consular officials, and CBP officers play 
critical roles in that effort. Millions of foreign nationals 
seek visas to enter our country each year, and it's their job 
to screen each of them. State and CBP must ensure that those 
individuals are who they claim to be are coming for the reasons 
they assert and will remain only as long as permitted. 
Presidential Proclamation 9645 and the review that led to that 
issuance assists them in that effort.
    In that review, DHS, with the assistance of State and the 
DNI, developed a baseline for the information needed to 
identify these applicants and assess whether they pose security 
or public safety risks. This begins with travel documents. The 
documents presented are not reliable or can't be verified, 
they're worthless for identification purposes.
    Next, our officers rely on information provided by foreign 
governments to assess the risk posed by visa applicants. 
Vetting is only as good as the information U.S. officials have 
at their disposal.
    Finally, in assessing country conditions and, in 
particular, whether terrorists' groups operate in those 
countries and whether those countries themselves are hostile to 
the United States are critical facts in assessing the 
intentions of any individual visa applicant.
    Terrorists have and will attempt to exploit our generous 
immigration laws to attack this country and to use this country 
as a base for operational planning and fundraising. The same is 
true of criminals. Those efforts undermine our domestic 
security and our foreign policy goals. By restricting the entry 
of specified classes of individuals from a limited number of 
countries, PP9645 makes it easier for our officers to subvert 
those efforts and avoid those risks.
    Respectfully, I question this hearing's characterization of 
PP9645. It is not a ban, because although it restricts the 
entry of foreign nationals in certain visa categories, those 
restrictions are subject to exceptions, limitations, and 
waivers as we've heard.
    Our government agencies are constantly improving their 
practices to ensure that those waivers in particular are 
adjudicated in a timely fashion consistent with security 
concerns. Nor is it a Muslim ban because, as the Supreme Court 
has noted and has been stated many times here, it makes no 
reference to religion. It covers just 8 percent of the world's 
population and is limited to countries that were previously 
designated by Congress or prior Administrations is posing 
national security risks.
    Any Muslim ban would be contrary to the religious freedoms 
upon which this country was founded and from which the strength 
of this Nation arises. Believers of all faiths and adherence to 
no faith at all contribute to our institutional and economic 
strength.
    From a national security standpoint, such a ban would be 
counterproductive. It would gain for us the enmity of 1.8 
billion people and would substitute in a rational bias and our 
visa screening system for a logical policy focused on 
responding to real-world threats.
    As the Supreme Court held, PP9645, quote, ``is expressly 
premised on legitimate purposes.'' Preventing entry of 
nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other 
Nations to improve their practices.
    As an individual who has advised attorneys general of both 
parties and Congress on national security issues relating to 
immigration, I concur in that judgment.
    Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Arthur follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    Now, is the time when Members of the committees will have 
an opportunity to question witnesses for 5 minutes each.
    I will turn now to the Chair of the Oversight Committee in 
Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bera, for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the 
witnesses for being here, and particularly, Dr. Dehzangi and 
Mr. Alghazali, for sharing your stories.
    The purpose of this hearing really is to put a human face 
on this. Before I launch into my questions, I think it's not a 
binary choice. We can both hold onto our values as a Nation of 
immigrants, a welcoming country, but also guarantee, to the 
best of our ability, to protect our national security. Those 
are not givens. When I listened to the two stories here, but 
also when I think about the cases of my own constituents you've 
provided quite a bit of documentation that could be vetted, 
that could be looked at, that would suggest that neither one of 
your spouses or kids are security risks. So, there's plenty of 
documents to say, well, we don't have this information to do 
the vetting process, just smacks of insincerity right now.
    In my own district, we currently have 39 open cases that, 
as far as we can tell, have not moved anywhere in the last 6 
months. It's only when we've intervened through the media and 
others that we've been able to get the process unstuck. My hope 
is based on this new automated system, that that backlog will 
get cleared up, that we will be able to move folks through 
here. Again, I hear far too often of folks that are being kept 
from their families.
    The best estimates that I can get from the Brennan Center 
is that the Muslim ban's kept over 3,800 partners from their 
American spouses, over 1,500 children from their American 
parents, and over 3,400 parents from their American sons and 
daughters. Now, we can do better than that, and we must do 
better than that and the NO BAN Act will help us do better than 
that.
    Ismail, let me ask you some questions, if I might? We 
understand from the State Department that they don't consider 
being in a conflict zone an undue hardship, and your wife is in 
Yemen, which has been subject to years of wars and conflicts. 
Would you consider the conditions in Yemen to be undue 
hardship?
    Mr. Alghazali. Yes. Yemen is really in hardship right now. 
You're talking about a country where people live in darkness. 
Matter of fact, after I was separated with my family when they 
returned to Yemen, I called my wife like 2 weeks later after 
they arrived in Yemen, and there was no baby food or no milk or 
any supermarket. It's a country in war. That's what had me--
    Mr. Bera. That sounds like the definition of undue 
hardship.
    Ms. Khera, in your advocacy work, there doesn't seem to be 
a real valid definition for undue hardship in national interest 
requirements received the waiver. Fom your experience, what is 
that definition? How is that definition being applied?
    Ms. Khera. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. Let 
me first say that we as Muslim Advocates have had some insight 
into what the State Department has been doing and how it's been 
treating applicants who are potentially eligible for waivers in 
part through our litigation that was brought with our 
colleagues at Lotfi Legal. It's a class action lawsuit brought 
on applicants who are seeking waivers in Federal court. As a 
result of that litigation, the court has ordered the government 
to produce information to try to get an understanding of what 
guidance has been given internally to consular officers.
    Also, as a result of that litigation, we've been speaking 
with consular officers, including some of the folks that 
Congresswoman Omar referenced earlier, and they paint a very 
different picture from what we've heard earlier today. 
Specifically, there isn't clarity, especially to the public, 
about what these standards mean.
    You refer to undue hardship. There's a reference to a 
national security check, also that the admission of the 
applicant is in the national interest of the United States. 
Internally within the Department, there's been numerous 
guidance, sometimes conflicting at times, and not a whole lot 
that's been shared publicly. So, we have, basically, the public 
operating in the blind, people just trying to do their best to 
make the case for why their spouses, children, and grandmothers 
should be allowed to enter the United States.
    So, we have a really broken system. The State Department 
officials' representation earlier today that, well, things are 
now starting to move. Since July, the last couple of months, 
things are really starting to move. From our perspective and 
what we've seen and from what we hear from families, from 
immigration practitioners, that is just a drop in the bucket in 
terms of the number of applicants that are waiting. They've 
been waiting for years now to really see progress and to get 
these applications approved. These are U.S. citizens, green 
card holders, who in the normal course, can have their family 
Members come and attend births, weddings, and join their family 
Members here in the United States.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
    We now will turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Biggs.
    Ms. Khera. Great.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate all the 
witnesses coming and telling your story and what's gone on in 
your life.
    I will say that it is unfortunate continuing to refer to 
this as a Muslim ban. I thought we might have put that to bed 
in the last hearing. I am interested in how at least one of you 
testified that the ban, which is not really a ban, it's a 
limitation, it's a review, said that this applies to seven 
predominantly Muslim nations and then quoted ``old data.'' You 
quoted ``old data,'' data that we heard earlier specifically 
stating that refuted that old data, which I thought was 
interesting. Yet the same witness just pooh-poohed the entire 
hearing that we just had. I think that's unfortunate.
    Then that same witness said there's no waiver process 
available to the public, and yet that seems to be an astounding 
misunderstanding of the process to obtain a waiver.
    We had an expert come in and talk about everyone who's 
applying for a visa in this category has a review to determine 
whether they qualify for a waiver. There's not a second 
affirmative requirement because, as the State Department 
official said, look, we figure if you're going to apply for the 
visa, you must want the waiver, so we're not going to put them 
through the second process.
    Now, does it take some time? Absolutely. Because the 
testimony is pretty clear, in my experience in following this 
and other immigration issues, is you're trying to develop 
communication with certain nations so that you have veracity in 
the documents that you're reviewing, you're having veracity in 
the testimony that you're hearing, so you know who the 
individual is and what they're saying to be true or accurate.
    So, I'll give you a rather homely example, but we have the 
three Northern Triangle States. We could not send people back 
who had received due process in the United States because there 
were no travel papers. They required travel papers, so you 
couldn't send somebody back. So, we ended up detaining them 
much longer than we should have and wanted to. Now, all three 
of those nations have complied and have a more open, more 
transparent process, and now they don't require those travel 
papers. So, they can be removed after they've had their due 
process, if they're removable.
    The same thing goes on here, and it's not necessary that an 
individual may not--they may be a wonderful person, but the 
requirement that we place on our Customs officials and our 
Homeland Security officials is to determine whether they're who 
they say and if they're a threat to the country. That may 
require--in fact, in all cases, requires some kind of 
communication with the other country. If you can't get that 
communication for whatever reason, then they err on the side of 
safety for the country.
    So, I'm going to go to Mr. Arthur. You have stated in your 
written testimony 10 different reasons, 10 different ways to 
get a waiver. I was wondering if you would expand on some of 
those ways for us and also on the relationship necessary and 
the communication necessary between officials in this country 
and officials of the applicant.
    Mr. Arthur. Yeah. If you don't mind, Mr. Biggs, I'm going 
to answer the second question first. The first one is well 
covered in the proclamation.
    I know this from personal experience, having been at the 
INS. I was chief of the of the National Security Law Division 
there for a period of time. We deal with our foreign partners, 
and when I say foreign partners, that includes countries that 
we don't consider partners at all, including Russia and China, 
with respect to information about individuals who are traveling 
to the United States. They want their nationals to get visas to 
come to the United States, so they comply with our request with 
respect to the criminal information about them.
    Now, am I telling you that someone who is a member of the 
Chinese security service is going to be revealed as such? No. 
For that, we rely upon our foreign partners, the five Is, other 
intelligence agencies, our own intelligence agencies, to 
identify those individuals so that we can exclude them from the 
United States.
    Again, going back to what Director Comey testified back in 
2015, I think it was, the vetting is only as good as the 
information that's available. I go to the witness from Iran. If 
the Iranian Government were forthcoming with more information, 
if we could trust the information that the Iranian Government 
provided us, we wouldn't have to go through this process. We 
would know right away who those individuals are, but they 
don't, and they won't, and that's the reason why we have this 
problem.
    Again, with respect to the specific limitations, I refer 
back to that, I'm happy to do it during a second round of 
questioning, or I can put it in a written statement.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlelady from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes, 
Ms. Jayapal.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I wanted to start just by saying that it's entirely 
appropriate that a witness would quote statistics that are on 
the website of the State Department. The State Department is 
required by law under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2019 to provide quarterly reporting on implementation of the 
Muslim ban. The last report that was publicly provided was 
March of 2019. It is impossible for the public to know what is 
happening if the State Department is two quarters behind on 
their reporting. So, I thank the witness for using the publicly 
available documentation that is there.
    I want to start just by thanking Dr. Dehzangi and Mr. 
Alghazali for your testimony and for being here. We so deeply 
appreciate it. Your stories, in fact, are the human face, as my 
colleague Mr. Bera said, that is reflected, frankly, in 
thousands of people across the country, certainly constituents 
in my district who are suffering, whose families are suffering 
from Donald Trump's Muslim ban to constituents.
    Just as an example, in my district, Rod Cyrus is an Iranian 
man who's been working as a business intelligence product 
manager, and he and his wife have waited now for 4 years for 
the U.S. Government to allow her to join him here.
    Another is Shuray Kobanani, also from Seattle, and she 
works two minimum wage jobs to care for her father who has a 
disability, and she's been separated from her Iranian husband 
for 2 years.
    I think the real travesty of this is that U.S. citizens 
shouldn't have to worry about being reunited with people that 
they love, with their family Members. Green card holders 
shouldn't have to worry about this. Refugees who are here 
legally and have applied legally for their spouses and children 
to come to this country shouldn't have to worry about not being 
able to be there as a spouse delivers a child, as we have 
heard.
    So, let me start with you, Mr. Dehzangi. Could you tell me 
why you came to the United States and what made you decide to 
stay here in this country?
    Mr. Dehzangi. Well, I moved to United States in 2015 to 
start to work as a postdoctoral research scholar at the 
University of Iowa working on the impact of viruses on 
psychiatric diseases. I decided to move to United States, well, 
to join my family, my mother and two brothers. I obtained my 
green card in December 29, 2016, and since then, I continued my 
work at the University of Iowa. My aim was always to join the 
family and build my career in high-impact research in United 
States as frontiers of research and advancement in technology 
in the world. It was always my dream to conduct high-impact 
research and contribute to the well-being of my community and 
research.
    So, in this way, I joined my mother. She's a senior 
citizen, in fact, and also my brothers. It was the aim of our 
family, my brother--I have two brothers. One is a professor at 
Northwestern University and living in Chicago, and the other 
one is a professor at West Virginia University living in West 
Virginia. Our aim was always to be able to just conduct high-
impact research and explore our own potentials and be together 
with the family. The reason being we decided to stay here is 
because all the possibilities that we had to contribute to the 
high-impact research.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. Thank you so much. So really, you 
have this very educated family. You came here to join your 
family, but you contributed your skills to this field, your 
doctorate degree to this field of high-impact research helping 
us, the United States, to really advance our research and 
technology. Your wife, I understand, also holds a Ph.D. and 
received a postdoc job offer at the University of Maryland 
where her work would have been funded by the National Institute 
of Health. Is that correct?
    Mr. Dehzangi. Yes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Which sounds like a very prestigious position, 
and I think the United States would be lucky to have someone 
like your wife contributing to health research that would 
benefit so many people here.
    What options are you considering--and I'm going to ask you 
to just keep this very brief, if you would. What options are 
you considering to be with your family again?
    Mr. Dehzangi. Well, as I mentioned, it's a heartbreaking 
and hard decision, but I'm actually putting my leave of absence 
for the university. In the option that I wouldn't be able to 
join my wife and she wouldn't be able to come to United States 
and start her career, I will leave United States.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, we would lose you and your wife.
    In my last 10 seconds, Ms. Khera, tell us, what is the harm 
to the United States? We've talked about the harm to people, 
but what is the harm to the United States, very briefly?
    Ms. Khera. Yeah. Just significantly there's already been 
harm to our economy. Tourism is down. It hurts businesses when 
people can't enter the United States. Conferences are being 
held outside. Different data have shown that we've already lost 
billions of dollars, and that hurts big and small businesses.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all the 
witnesses for being here. Especially being able to hear the 
stories of people who are impacted by today's hearing is always 
helpful for any hearing that we have here in Congress.
    Mr. Alghazali from New York, I'm a fellow New Yorker. 
Giving you the assumption that you're a great guy. You have a 
great wife. You have two beautiful, amazing kids. The goal is 
to be able to pursue, live out the American dream, to be able 
to escape conditions in Yemen, which we know here, I mean, here 
in America, we may not know, obviously, to the extent that your 
family does back in Yemen. It's a really bad situation back 
there. We do know that here in the U.S.
    The one thing that you might not take comfort in, because 
the ultimate goal here is for you to be with your family. 
That's what you want. That would make you happy. Nothing short 
of that you'll be able to take comfort in. It was something 
interesting as I hear your story and as the Ranking Member of 
the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee with Chair Bera, 
and we have a great working relationship on a bipartisan basis, 
something that we should talk further about all across the 
entire world.
    I have stories in my office where someone is an American. 
They were born in the United States. They have multiple 
generations here in the United States. They have a clean 
record. One case comes to mind of someone who is retired law 
enforcement in New York with a crystal clean record who met a 
woman abroad and is not from any of the countries we're 
discussing today. It's actually a country in South America. In 
vetting the case, I'm not aware of anything at all in her 
background that would prevent her from coming. He has applied 
repeatedly to try to get a visa, just actually to have his wife 
be able to meet his family. Not even requesting permission to 
stay; just to come for a couple weeks, and that visa and that 
request continues to get denied.
    Something that sparked the story, too, when you said you 
went to the meeting, the meeting only lasted 5 minutes and then 
it ended. That was exactly the story from a couple of weeks 
ago, because he and his wife were really excited for this 
meeting, and it lasted about 5 minutes. They never got really 
the opportunity to make their case. That piece of it is very 
interesting to me because--Chair Bera, hopefully this is 
something that we can discuss, is the issue that I have with 
certain countries that are greatly destabilized by the 
government is the lack of documentation that's provided by many 
people applying, and then as a tactic, the United States 
government tries to make up for that through interrogation.
    I think that it's greatly unfortunate as far as best 
practices and visa approvals. If you're applying for a waiver 
to present yourself to the United States Government, to take 
all the time and travel to present yourself and your wife to 
the United States Government, and for the United States 
Government to take 5 minutes and not ask you a lot of questions 
I think is malpractice on the part of whoever is asking you the 
questions because you're presenting yourself. You can ask a lot 
of questions that you were there prepared to answer. I think 
that's something that, from a policy standpoint and oversight 
standpoint, it was something productive for this Committee to 
hear.
    I'm someone too who believes that this particular ban was 
discriminating against countries, not discriminating based off 
of someone's religion, and it's caused a lot of debate and 
controversy and friction in Congress and out of Congress, 
debate in the media, and amongst the American public. If you 
are from Iran, and I know a lot of people who are Iranians, 
amazing people who are contributing massively to our country. 
Actually, some of my best friends are Iranians, a great nation. 
If you're from Iraq or Turkey or Afghanistan or Egypt or from 
Lebanon, then the ban wouldn't have been applying to you, the 
issue with your wife in Australia specifically, the country of 
where your wife is from and not the religion.
    Again, I don't know both of the witnesses. This is the 
first time we're meeting, the first time I'm hearing your 
story, but I want to say thank you. I think especially as we 
hear your personal stories, there's stuff that Chair Bera and 
our committees can work together on moving forward on the 
policy standpoint. So, thank you for being here.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Minnesota.
    Ms. Khera. Madam Chair, might I have just 30 seconds to 
just comment on the Congressman's remarks?
    Ms. Lofgren. Actually, that's not in order.
    Ms. Khera. Okay. Sorry.
    Ms. Lofgren. We will turn to the gentlelady from Minnesota.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chair.
    Judge Arthur, Stephen Miller has repeatedly cited the 
Center for Immigration Studies to defend his policies. Is it 
fair to say that you and your organization have influence over 
the Administration's immigration policies?
    Mr. Arthur. We are a think tank, so I like to think that we 
have influence over all policies, including policies of the 
United States Government. Whether anything I write is anything 
that influences Stephen Miller, I can't tell you.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you. You said that all three iterations of 
the Muslim ban are legally justifiable. Various courts have 
disagreed usually based on the White House intent. When Donald 
Trump was running for President, he called for a complete 
shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. Surely, we have 
to take the ban in that context. Surely, adding North Korea and 
Venezuela was cynical attempt to get around the plain truth 
that this was intended to be a Muslim ban.
    In my view, Trump's campaign promise to ban Muslims wasn't 
just empty words. There is a connection between that promise 
and the subsequent ban. Would you like to see a complete ban of 
Muslims entering this country?
    Mr. Arthur. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you.
    Mr. Arthur. I concur with Thomas Jefferson when he said 
that--
    Ms. Omar. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Arthur. Okay.
    Ms. Omar. I have comments.
    Stephen Miller is quoted as saying that ``he'd be happy if 
not one more refugee stepped foot on American soil.'' He's been 
the architect of the family separation, gutting the asylum 
laws, and the increased militarization of ICE and the Border 
Patrol. He's also attacked our system of highly skilled 
immigration. Donald Trump has called countries, like the 
country I come from, Somalia, shit-hole countries, and has 
wondered out loud why we don't get fewer more people from 
places like Africa and Haiti and why we shouldn't get more 
people from places like Norway.
    We can conclude that anything besides an ethno nationalist 
project from what the White House is doing. They've told us 
what they want to see, which is for people from White countries 
to immigrate to the United States.
    Your organization, the Center for Immigration Studies, has 
recently published an article asking whether we as a country 
have forgotten 9/11. There are two Members of Congress 
mentioned as part of evidence in that article, Rashida Tlaib 
and myself. The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated your 
organization as a hate group, citing your repeated circulation 
of White supremist and anti-Semitic writers. The Washington 
Post has rebuked the research from your organization on 
terrorism and immigration and CIS' defense of the Muslim ban.
    So, I don't know how we should take your views and the 
views of your organization seriously, sir, understanding--
instead of understanding them as a point of view of fundamental 
anti-immigrant ideologies.
    When you were asked by my colleague, Hank Johnson, in 
March, you denied that John Tanton was the founder of CIS and 
said, quote, ``if there is a founder of CIS, it was Otis 
Graham.'' In an obituary for Dr. Graham, James Banner credited 
him for making the environmental case for restricting 
immigration in two of his later books.
    There was a manifesto from the man who killed 22 people in 
El Paso last month. In the manifesto, he said that because of 
the looming environment--environmental catastrophes, I quote, 
``the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in 
America who are using resources.'' This was his justification 
for the Act of mass murder apparently inspired by the ideas 
such as those espoused by Otis.
    I am appalled by that. Everyone here should be appalled by 
that. I hope that you and the founder of your organization are 
appalled by the fact that you inspire people who engage in such 
acts.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady leads back.
    Mr. Arthur. Madam Chair, may I respond in any way to that?
    Ms. Lofgren. Actually, that's not in order either the same 
as with Ms. Khera.
    Mr. Arthur. Very good.
    Mr. Zeldin. A point of order. So, what's the rules of the 
Committee if a member chooses to utilize their 5 minutes to 
destroy a witness? Are you saying the rules of the Committee 
attempt to just slander someone who's in front of us?
    Ms. Omar. Going on the record of the words that he used is 
not destruction of a witness.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady will withhold.
    The point of order has been raised. Ordinarily, this is a 
time where Members may ask 5 minutes of the witnesses. There's 
not a time for the witnesses to give speeches.
    We will now recognize--
    Mr. Zeldin. What's the ruling? So, I just want to know. 
What's the rules of the committee? If a member chooses to spend 
their 5 minutes slandering a witness and their organization, 
what is the rules of the Committee as to whether or not the 
person who gets slandered is allowed to respond?
    Ms. Omar. If the facts are on the record--
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady will suspend, and Mr. Zeldin 
will suspend as well.
    The rules of the Committee provide that under the 5-minute 
rule, Members may question or make statements. It is not a time 
for witnesses to make speeches.
    We will now recognize--
    Mr. Biggs. Point of order/parliamentary inquiry.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Biggs, you're recognized.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    In the past in this committee, it's been my observation 
that on occasion when someone has--not to engage in debate with 
the witness, per se, but actually has maligned their character 
and accused them and accosted them or their organization, we've 
had the courtesy to let them briefly respond to that. I know 
because I've seen it actually happen. I'm wondering--I guess my 
parliamentary inquiry is, since that has become, if you will, 
the established practice, if someone has been maligned or their 
organization, is it not the practice and precedent of this 
committee, which is consistent with the Rules of House, to 
allow the person to briefly respond?
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, actually not, but to avoid a prolonged 
discussion on this point, I will ask Mr. Arthur in under 30 
seconds, if you may, to please make a concise statement, and we 
will then hear from the next member who wishes to speak.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Arthur. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I don't attach myself to any of those statements. I 
certainly don't. I decry any individual who is misled, any 
misguided individual who takes action for any reason. I write 
about the rules that have been passed by the Congress of the 
United States and ask that those be enforced. I always note the 
fact that Congress is free to change the laws of the United 
States. I swore to uphold those laws, and I will continue to do 
so. I'm a father, I'm a member of the community, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to respond to those statements.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
    We will now turn to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I too want to thank Dr. Dehzangi and Mr. Alghazali. See, I 
did that right. Sometimes I'm still called Garza instead of 
Garcia, so I know the feeling.
    I just want to say that how they reached this out of the 
Ninth Circuit, I mean, they called this ban, and I'm going to 
call it a ban because I think we should call it what it is, was 
ill-conceived, poorly implemented, and ill-explained. I don't 
think I've heard anything differently today that convinces me 
otherwise, and I want to thank you both for commenting and 
having the courage to come share your stories. Your story is 
the same as many that we saw all over the country, all over the 
world during that time period.
    While I do, Madam Chair, have another question, I want to 
yield about a minute of my time to my colleague from Minnesota, 
Ms. Omar, for a brief response, and then she will yield back.
    Ms. Omar. I object to any notion that my stating of facts 
is a malignment of the character of the witness.
    Thank you for distancing yourself from the actions of the 
person who committed that atrocity, which is what I also said. 
I want to make sure that people understand I did not make a 
single statement that was not factual in my remarks. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
    I wanted to ask both of our testimonial witnesses, what do 
you think an American looks like? If somebody just said what 
does an American look like, what would you say? Doctor?
    Mr. Dehzangi. Well, at this moment, prior to just being 
subjected to the Muslim ban, my dream was always just like a 
place that you can explore your potential, be with your family, 
a country that appreciate any contribution to it. After the 
Muslim ban and the condition for my wife, the situation became 
darker for me. At this stage, I'm not quite sure if I am 
welcome or I'm not welcome, if my skills are needed or not 
needed, if it is important that I would be with my wife or not, 
if I'm distressed or not, if my wife got the opportunity to 
explore her potential or not, any of them are important or not. 
At this stage, these are the things that actually distress me, 
make me sad.
    Ms. Garcia. Okay. Mr. Alghazali.
    Mr. Alghazali. Yes. America is a country that gives human 
being rights that's taken away from you. It's a country that 
protect you. If you have a vision, you dream, this is where you 
could pursue your dreams. Your doors are open, chest is open, 
like a position where I mentioned about my wife of her dream. 
She can't do that in Yemen or anywhere else. This is the 
country, and this is my country. When I was with my wife, 
before the Supreme Court upholds the Trump Administration, she 
always ask me about this country. I told her I grow up in 
United States. I know how America are. They won't throw us--we 
won't be separated. When I went home that night, I won't forget 
it, and she was in front of TV listening to the news and saw 
that the Supreme Court upholds, and she just started crying and 
looking at me and saying, I thought you told me that America is 
this and that, and I still believe the value of this country 
that it's going to give me justice and bring us together. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Garcia. Ms. Khera, I know that earlier you wanted to 
respond to a question from one of my colleagues. Do you want to 
take some time now to respond?
    Ms. Khera. Thank you for that opportunity, Congresswoman. I 
appreciate it.
    I was actually taken by Congressman Zeldin's comments in 
talking about his own experience with constituents who've gone 
through the system, and I think it underscores that there's a 
commonality here, which is that we can all agree that we don't 
want to ban babies and grandmothers. That doesn't make it 
safer. We need a policy that is smarter and that actually is 
not doing harm to our own friends and neighbors.
    Fortunately, there's a solution for that. It's the NO BAN 
Act. So, I encourage the Congressmen to work with Congresswoman 
Judy Chu. Take a look at that bill. It basically amends section 
212(f) authority, the authority the President was invoking 
here, to more closely track the way that Republican and 
Democratic Administrations have used this authority over the 
last 40-plus years where there hasn't been a blanket ban. 
There's been very tailored, circumscribed bans that deal with 
the specific diplomatic dispute or dealing with human rights 
atrocities and trying to address that.
    So, I am hoping that there could be some commonality coming 
out of this hearing that underscores that.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    Ms. Khera. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    We turn now to the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Mucarsel-
Powell.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you 
again for coming in front of us this afternoon.
    Earlier, I shared the story of one of my constituents who 
has not been able to bring his father from Syria and the 
consequences of that.
    Once again, I just want to remind everyone that we're 
Americans, whether we were born in a different country or not. 
You are Americans. I am an American. I had the privilege of 
becoming a U.S. citizen. I was welcomed under the Reagan 
Administration, who understood the importance of opening our 
doors to immigrants, because that's who we are in this country. 
Unless you're a Native American, we are all immigrants in this 
country.
    So, I wanted to just ask from the two of you to elaborate a 
little bit on what does it mean to each of you to be separated 
from your families, and what does your day-to-day look like?
    Mr. Dehzangi. Well, it's just like living in two different 
countries, but, burden of life and all the complexity without 
having the assurance and companionship and support, being able 
to communicate just on phone, being able to just talk on Skype, 
not being able to have a hug, to be able to just like coming 
home, have a cup of tea, or just sitting or watching a movie 
and just, like, relaxing. Missing all those important moments 
in the life separate is just like--when she graduated, 
completion of her Ph.D., I wasn't there. When I got my job as a 
professor, she wasn't here. All of the things are just, like, 
big dramas. Our anniversary, our marriage anniversary was 10th 
of September, and her birthday was 7th of September. I couldn't 
be at any of them.
    So, these are all dramas. We actually need extra energy, 
extra, extra energy to just be able to cope with all the 
situation, and at the same time, be productive, because we have 
responsibility. I am responsible for 60 students. I'm 
responsible for a program. I have to work, and this is my duty. 
I would like to do it in the best possible way, but at the same 
time, I need to put extra, extra time and energy to just cope 
with all those dramas. It is harder for my wife. At least I'm 
here. She is struggling with all the things, and I feel that 
the sacrifice that she's doing is just 10 times more than me.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I can imagine. I'm so sorry to hear 
that.
    Mr. Alghazali.
    Mr. Alghazali. Yeah. The question to be without your family 
is--I don't know how to explain it, but I got to shortcut 
explain it. It's just like I live in darkness, and they're the 
only light. I feel like I'm a bird without wings without my 
family. I think about that feeling if I get off work and go 
home. I want to see my son run up to me when I get into the 
house and hug me every day. That will leave all the stress and 
all the stuff that I've been through in the past. Like I said, 
I still have hope and we will be together again. Thank you.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
    Ms. Khera, I'm supporting the NO BAN Act.
    Ms. Khera. Thank you.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I agree with you. What other things 
would you recommend that we can do to help individuals like Mr. 
Alghazali and Dr. Dehzangi to be reunited with their family 
Members? Because we don't get answers from the State 
Department, from the USCIS offices. We, as Congress Members, 
continue to ask questions. We're not getting enough answers. 
What do you suggest we can do to help?
    Ms. Khera. I would say a couple of things. First, thank you 
so much for supporting the NO BAN Act, Congresswoman. We now 
have 177 co-sponsors in the House, and so your support in 
moving this bill through the Judiciary Committee and eventually 
the full House as soon as possible would be greatly 
appreciated. So, that's the first thing.
    The second thing is that what we have found is that 
sometimes when there is congressional attention and media 
attention, sometimes that helps get action on a waiver faster. 
So, to the extent you do have constituents who are raising 
these issues, please continue to make your voice heard with the 
State Department.
    Finally, continue to have oversight like this that took 
place earlier today. It's absolutely crucial. I firmly believe 
that the reason we're starting to get movement, we're starting 
to get some more information from the State Department is a 
result of, not only litigation by groups like ours, but the 
pressure from Congress as well. So, continue to do your job 
because this is, fundamentally, the province of Congress is 
regulating our immigration and ensuring that families can be 
together. So, thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I'd like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record 
the ``Jordanian teen sent to Chicago for detainment after being 
held in Texas.'' This is Mohammad, who was a 16-year-old 
student at Katy High School.
    Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                     MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Jackson Lee. That story evidence where we are today. 
More powerfully, the testimony of the two witnesses adds to the 
overwhelming danger and the overwhelming disaster that has been 
created by a blanket Muslim ban.
    The latest iteration of this ban, I note, it seems that it 
says that it is indefinite. That means that my understanding is 
that people from those particular countries remain in limbo. It 
seems, if I'm reading it correctly, that Yemen is off the list 
at this point, and you can correct that. I'm looking at some 
document that says it is still on. It may be that they're 
building on each moment, so let me just pose my questions 
accordingly.
    Let me ask in particular, Mr. Alghazali, or I'll just say 
Ismail. Is that correct? Your first name, if you don't mind. I 
have been to Yemen, and I know that there are wonderful people 
there. I'm enormously saddened by the tragic war that is being 
foisted upon the Yemenis people in terms of their trials and 
tribulations. Let me ask how long you were working to get a 
visa for your wife in the--she was not pregnant at the time you 
started, or was she pregnant?
    Mr. Alghazali. No, she wasn't pregnant.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you started and tried to follow the 
rules.
    Mr. Alghazali. The first time I applied for her was in 
2016.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you followed the rules to apply, and 
you were a U.S. citizen.
    Mr. Alghazali. Yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. What was their initial denial, or did they 
give you any response?
    Mr. Alghazali. A deny letter. They said her visa is being 
denied because under section 212(f) because of President 
proclamation, and that's it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you applied in 2016, but you got 
caught up in the Muslim ban?
    Mr. Alghazali. Yeah.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. How frightened were you? How frightened 
were you when your wife rushed to the hospital, knowing that 
she could have been in the United States to have your baby?
    Mr. Alghazali. Oh, I don't know how to explain that time. I 
will never forget that time until I die. That's honestly--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you think your wife might die?
    Mr. Alghazali. Well, the way I saw her and the way she was 
screaming in the back of the cab, and I'm just looking out 
where is the hospital going to be showing up and looking at 
her, it was--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Because you were not in Yemen. You were in 
Djibouti.
    Mr. Alghazali. We were in Djibouti. We were not in Yemen. 
We were in Djibouti, and--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you think you might lose your baby?
    Mr. Alghazali. I was thinking--I was expecting that I was 
going to lose the baby.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The Muslim ban has separated families.
    Mr. Alghazali. Yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. In potential--put a young woman, a married 
woman to a U.S. citizen in the eye of potential death and your 
young baby at that time in potential death?
    Mr. Alghazali. Yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. What kind of fear ran over you?
    Mr. Alghazali. I was just thrown--I feel like I was just 
thrown away, but I felt--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No help.
    Mr. Alghazali. No help.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Arthur, what is your response to a 
policy that has no mercy and is ineffective in its structure? 
Do you think that is the role of immigration laws, to rule out 
the opportunity for innocent persons to create a potential of a 
baby dying, a mother dying when the U.S. citizen appropriately 
applied for the visa in question? Is that what you're 
advocating here today?
    Mr. Arthur. The purpose of the Presidential proclamation, 
Ms. Jackson Lee, is to encourage information sharing by 
countries and encourage and to promote the foreign policy of 
the United States.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate that, sir. That's a blanket 
response that you're giving.
    If we were to, in the next 10 days, indicate that we were 
getting the adequate information from countries, you then could 
see the wrongness of the Muslim ban?
    Mr. Arthur. If we were to get the proper information 
sharing from those countries, if we could ensure that 
individuals who are applying to enter the United States now 
pose a danger to the national security--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. We don't have proof that we're not getting 
the right information, but do you see the wrongness or the 
deterrent effect? When I say deterrent effect, the destructive 
impact on human beings through this Muslim ban?
    Mr. Arthur. All immigration laws of the United States, and 
I would note that Congress writes the immigration laws of the 
United States, so to the degree that they keep anybody out of 
United States, or anybody likes--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yeah, the Congress didn't write the Muslim 
ban.
    So, let me move to the representative of Muslim Advocates. 
In particular, on the Hawaii v. Trump, part of its decision 
rested on the assurance that the waiver process would function. 
In practice, does that waiver process fall short of the Supreme 
Court's expectations? Why--and also, do you see any merit in 
Mr. Arthur's point about getting information from other 
countries when we have the most powerful Nation in the world, 
and we can get information on an individual like a pregnant 
wife of Ismail?
    Ms. Khera. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that 
question. On the first part of the question, absolutely. The 
dissent, Justice Breyer was very correct, but unfortunately, 
the waiver process has been a sham. It's been now almost 2 
years since the supposed waiver process went into effect, and 
there's still no publicly accessible information to people who 
are trying to apply and prove their eligibility for a waiver, 
and there's other deficiencies as well.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired, so if you 
could wrap up and finish.
    Ms. Khera. Yeah. On the second point around information, 
I'm going to refer to the 50-plus former national security 
officials from prior Republican and Democratic Administrations 
who have spoken out and have said that in their expert opinion, 
there is no evidence of a growing or a particularized threat 
from nationals of these countries that would justify a blanket 
overbroad ban that is in the policy.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for coming here today. 
Apologize to you, Dr. Dehzangi, and to you--I may say Ismail 
because I'm not pronouncing your last name very well--for the 
hardships that you have undergone. Unfortunately, Members of 
Congress have run into similar hardships from our own 
constituencies.
    For example, in my district, Mr. Ferris Ahmady, who is a 
U.S. citizen, has a wife who is originally from Iran. He has a 
serious medical condition. He had a kidney transplant in 2016. 
He requires chronic immunosuppressive drugs to prevent the 
rejection of that transplant. According to his nephrologist at 
Stanford University, his kidney function is approximately 50 
percent of normal. He's got all kinds of risk factors, but his 
wife has been waiting for more than 2 years for the waiver. 
She's stuck in Turkey, and he's going to see her periodically, 
even though his doctors are telling him not to do it. It's 
putting him at risk, but his wife has been kept away from him.
    I'm mindful. I invited this year to the State of the Union 
a woman whose U.S. citizen husband and U.S. citizen son were in 
California, and her son was dying. She asked for a waiver, and 
for 2 years got nowhere. Finally, the uproar was such that she 
was admitted to the U.S. so she could hold her son's hand while 
he died. She got there 2 weeks before he passed away.
    So, there's tremendous hardships that are being inflicted 
on American citizens and their families that has nothing to do 
with the security of the United States. We are hopeful that 
with the help of this hearing, that we will be part of changing 
that, and that we will be part of moving forward with this 
legislation which I've also co-sponsored.
    There's been a lot of discussion today about immigration 
law and the like. I'm mindful that if we don't trust Iran, it's 
a mystery to me why student visas from Iran are exempt from the 
ban. Obviously, there's some inconsistency underway when it 
comes to the American government and their treatment of people 
from Iran.
    Questions about how you establish a hardship. I've often 
felt that if the U.S. State Department has in their travel 
advisories that it's too dangerous to go to a place, it's too 
dangerous to live there. That ought to be the standard for 
hardship, and yet we're asking the family Members of Americans 
to stay in places that we've told people from America you 
shouldn't visit because it's too dangerous to go there. So 
that's just wrong.
    I'd just like to make a personal plea to you, Dr. Dehzangi. 
Taking a look at your resume, it's just an amazing record of 
scholarship that you have compiled, and I hope that you won't 
give up. I know you can apply to become an American citizen, 
and I hope that you do that. Don't give up on being an 
American, and let's see if we can't make sure that your 
tremendously distinguished wife also comes to join you so that 
she can contribute to the scholarship and advance of science 
that has helped make our country great.
    Would you consider that, Mr. Dehzangi?
    Mr. Dehzangi. Of course. If we had this opportunity, of 
course, then we stay. We're going to be here, we'd rather, and 
after 4 years of hard work building all my career, having my 
wife to have the best opportunity, we would love to serve this 
country and serve the economic community as well.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would just like--and I've been reading some 
of your papers, the titles, and improving protein fold 
recognition using the amalgamation of 11 evolutionary-based and 
structural-based information. I don't even know what that 
means. I would like to say that the 5 pages of scientific 
papers that you've helped co-author is going to be important 
for our country, and you are joined by thousands of others who 
are here in America who are born someplace else. Our country is 
about this: It's not where you're from, it's where you're going 
to that makes you an American.
    I am so grateful to all of you for being here today, for 
being witnesses. We will have an opportunity to provide 
additional questions to you over the next 5 days. If we do, 
please answer them.
    At this point, we will adjourn this hearing with thanks to 
all. We are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:57 p.m., the subcommittees were 
adjourned.]

                               APPENDIX

                       MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]