[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 130 (Monday, October 11, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11300-S11303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS OF H.R. 10

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about the 
direction our Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives 
have taken on the legislation to implement the recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission. The House bill, H.R. 10, departs in significant and 
problematic ways from the Commission's specifically-tailored 
recommendations to protect our country against future terrorist 
attacks. The recommendations call for preventing terrorist travel, 
establishing an effective screening system to protect our borders, 
transportation systems, and other vital facilities, expediting full 
implementation of a biometric entry-exit screening system, establishing 
global border security standards by working with trusted allies, and 
standardizing identity documents and birth certificates.
  Instead of adhering to these carefully considered measures, as the 
Senate has done, the House Republican leadership has included long-
rejected, antiimmigrant proposals that have nothing to do with the 
Commission's recommendations. The House bill severely limits the rights 
of immigrants, asylum seekers, and victims of torture and fails to 
strengthen the security of our nation.
  Among the worst provisions in the House bill are those which create 
insurmountable obstacles and burdens for asylum seekers, including many 
women and children, eliminate judicial review, including the 
constitutional writ of habeas corpus, for certain immigration orders, 
and which allow the deportation of individuals to countries where they 
are likely to be tortured, in violation of our international treaty 
obligations.
  Many share my concerns with the House bill. The list of critics, lead 
by families of the 9/11 victims, is rapidly growing. A recent letter to 
House members, signed by more than two dozen family members of persons 
who died in the terrorist attacks, states that the immigration 
provisions are outside the scope of the Commission's recommendations 
and urges House members not to enact them. To underscore their 
concerns, the families state their ``strong collective position that 
legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations not be 
used in a politically divisive manner.''
  Similarly, the chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, has said 
that the House immigration provisions ``which are controversial and are 
not part of our recommendations to make the American people safer 
perhaps ought to be part of another bill at another time.'' Likewise, 
the vice-chair, Lee Hamilton, warned that the inclusion of these 
``controversial provisions at this late hour can harm our shared 
purpose of getting a good bill to the President before the 108th 
Congress adjourns.''
  I am submitting for the record the letters of a broad spectrum of 
religious, immigrant, human rights, and civil liberties groups voicing 
their strong opposition to the immigration provisions in the House 
bill. These groups include the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination 
Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Immigration 
Lawyers Association, the American Jewish Committee, Amnesty 
International, the Arab-American Institute Center for Community Change, 
the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, Freedom House, the Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, the 
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the National Asian Pacific 
American Legal Consortium, the National Council of La Raza, the 
National Immigration Forum, the RFK Memorial Center for Human Rights, 
the Service Employees International Union, the Tahirih Justice Center, 
the U.S. Catholic Bishop's Committee on Migration, World Relief, and 
the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children.

  In these difficult times for our country, we know that the threat of 
terrorism has not ended. We have to keep doing all we can to see that 
our borders are protected and our immigration laws are enforced, and 
that law enforcement officials have the full support they need. But we 
must do so in ways that respect fundamental rights. Congress should not 
enact laws that ride rough-shod over basic rights in the name of 
national security. Immigrants are part of our heritage and history. We 
jeopardize our own fundamental values when we adopt harsh security 
tactics that trample the rights and liberties of immigrants. We must 
learn from the past, so that we do not continue to repeat these 
mistakes in the future.
  This legislation is too important for it to be derailed by political 
pandering to anti-immigrant extremists. We need to pass this reform 
legislation, but we need to get it right. The American people expect, 
and deserve, better.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced letters in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             An Open Letter

     To: House of Representatives.
     From: Family Members of 9-11 Victims.
     Re: H.R. 10.
       Dear Representatives: We are family members of those who 
     died in the tragedy of 9-11. While we have diverse political 
     views on many issues, we write to you today in one voice to 
     express our strong collective position that legislation to 
     implement the 9-11 Commission recommendations not be used in 
     a politically divisive manner. The discussion around these 
     recommendations is extremely serious and important to 9-11 
     families across the political spectrum. We have heard the 
     House Bill to implement the 9-11 Commission Recommendations 
     (H.R. 10) also includes provisions to expand the USA Patriot 
     Act and reform immigration law in ways not recommended by the 
     commission.
       We strongly urge you to take these provisions out of the 
     bill, and not vote for any bill that contains them. These 
     provisions are outside the scope of the Commission's 
     recommendations, and this is neither the time nor place to 
     consider controversial, unrelated issues. Those issues can be 
     discussed at a later date and proposed in different 
     legislation. Last week, members of the 9-11 Commission 
     themselves (3 Republican and 3 Democrats) also called on 
     House leaders to drop these provisions. The Chairman of the 
     9-11 Commission, Thomas Kean, said on September 30th: ``We're 
     very respectfully suggesting that provisions which are 
     controversial and are not part of our recommendations to make 
     the American people safer perhaps ought to be part of another 
     bill at another time.''
       Please respect the seriousness of the discussions around 
     the Commission Recommendations and immediately remove all 
     unrelated provisions.
           Yours Sincerely,
       Colleen Kelly (Sister of William Kelly Jr.).
       Adele Welty (Mother of Timothy Welty, FDNY, killed 9-11 in 
     line of duty).
       Laurette Poulos Simmons (Sister of Stephen Emanuel Poulos 
     who died in the WTC).
       Karen Shea (Niece of Steven Tighe).
       Barry Amundson (Brother of Craig Amundson, killed at the 
     Pentagon).
       Kelly Campbell (Sister-in-law of Craig Amundson).
       Wright and Meredith Salisbury (Father- and mother-in-law of 
     Ted Hennessy, Jr., who was killed on 9/11).

[[Page S11301]]

       John Leinung (Step-father of Paul Battaglia, WTC Tower 1, 
     100th floor).
       Andrew Rice (Brother of David Rice).
       Rita Lasar (Sister of Ephraim Lasar).
       David Reynolds (Cousin of Scott M. Johnson, died on 9/11/
     2001--South Tower, 89th floor, WTC).
       Alissa Rosenberg-Torres (Widow of Luis Eduardo Torres, 
     North Tower).
       David Potorti (Brother of Jim Potorti).
       George Choriatis (Nephew of Theodoros Pigis, killed in the 
     World Trade Center attacks).
       Roberta Shea (Sister of Stephen Tighe, died in the WTC).
       Terry Rockefeller (Sister of Laura Rockefeller).
       Nissa Youngren (Daughter of Robert G. LeBlanc, United 
     Flight 175).
       J. William [Bill] Harris (Brother-in-law, Laura 
     Rockefeller).
       Logan Harris (Niece of Laura Rockefeller).
       Maureen Donegan (Sister of William Kelly Jr.).
       Jim and Barb Fyfe (Father and mother of Alicia Fyfe, flight 
     attendant).
       Andrea LeBlanc (Widow of Bob LeBlanc).
       Loretta Filipov (Widow of Al Filipov).
                                  ____

                                               September 28, 2004.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations urge the 
     House of Representatives during the debate and vote on H.R. 
     10 (the ``9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act'') and 
     amendments to H.R. 10, to be faithful to the Commission's 
     recommendations and its admonition that the `border and 
     immigration system of the United States must remain a visible 
     manifestation of our belief in freedom, democracy, global 
     economic growth, and the rule of law, yet serve equally well 
     as a vital element of counterterrorism.''
       As we seek to enhance our security, we must do so in ways 
     that are effective and bring our nation together. If we do 
     not rise to this challenge, legislation that is passed and 
     signed into law could have the unintended consequences of 
     hurting our security and making our immigration processes 
     even more dysfunctional than they are today. Unfortunately, 
     H.R. 10 was not crafted in a bipartisan manner and the House 
     did not hold a sufficient number of hearings on the important 
     issues this legislation raises. The bill also includes many 
     provisions that we strongly oppose that go well beyond the 
     scope of the Commission's recommendations. These provisions 
     will distract our government from effectively enhancing our 
     security and threaten to stall the passage of needed reforms. 
     We urge you to oppose them:
       Section 3005--Prohibition on Acceptance of the Consular 
     Identification Card: This provision would prohibit federal 
     employees from accepting consular identification cards. 
     However, in a security-conscious environment, people who are 
     here, whatever their status, must be able to prove their 
     identity. Many cities, counties and law enforcement agencies 
     accept consular identification cards as valid forms of 
     identification.
       Section 3006--Expedited Removal: This provision 
     significantly expands the expedited removal regime and would 
     subject all individuals who entered the U.S. without 
     inspection to expedited removal unless they have been 
     physically present in the U.S. for more than 5 years. 
     Expedited removal currently has created significant due 
     process concerns; this provision would magnify those concerns 
     immeasurably.
       Sections 3007, 3009 and 3033: These provisions encompass 
     key aspects of the so-called ``Fairness in Immigration 
     Litigation Act (H.R. 4406) that would further undermine the 
     availability of basic due process protections for non-
     citizens by: prohibiting habeas corpus review of a variety of 
     immigration decisions; raising the bar substantially for a 
     grant of asylum; prohibiting federal courts from granting 
     stays of deportation while a case is pending except in 
     extraordinary cases; and authorizing the government to remove 
     foreign nationals to countries that lack a functioning 
     government so long as that country does not physically 
     prevent the removal.
       Section 3008--Revocation of Visas and Other Travel 
     Documents: This provision makes individuals who enter the 
     U.S. on a valid visa that is subsequently revoked by the 
     State Department subject to removal. This provision would 
     prohibit all administrative and judicial review of the 
     revocation decision. Thus, an individual whose visa is 
     revoked based on false information (or other errors) would be 
     removable from the U.S. without the opportunity to challenge 
     the basis for the removal.
       Section 3053--Minimum Document Requirements and Issuance 
     Standards for Federal Recognition: This provision bars 
     Federal agencies from accepting driver's licenses or other ID 
     cards issued by a state unless it satisfies certain 
     requirements established by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security. These requirements include: verification by the 
     issuing agency of the authenticity of documents prior to 
     issuance of a driver's license or other ID; proof that 
     the applicant possesses a social security account or that 
     the person is not eligible for one; and confirmation by 
     the SSA of the accuracy of the social security number 
     presented. Not only would these requirements grind to a 
     halt the issuance of driver's licenses throughout the 
     country, they also would lead to a de facto immigration 
     status requirement. Such a result would severely undermine 
     the law enforcement utility of the Department of Motor 
     Vehicle databases by discouraging individuals from 
     applying for licenses.
       Legislation that would enhance our security and our 
     immigration system, and reinforce due process, civil 
     liberties and privacy concerns needs to address the 
     following:
       1. Create a system that can deliver on its ``basic 
     commitments.'' The Commission notes that an immigration 
     system unable to deliver on ``basic commitments'' was one of 
     the ``two systematic weaknesses'' that ``came together in our 
     border system's inability to contribute to an effective 
     defense against the 9/11 attacks.''.
       2. Strengthen the U.S.'s intelligence capacity and create a 
     multi-layered border with several tiers of protection to most 
     effectively enhance security. The Commission report 
     repeatedly underscores the need to enhance our intelligence 
     capacity and develop layers of protection that keep targeted 
     people from entering the U.S. to implement such a layered 
     border, Congress and the Administration must, among other 
     actions, direct more money to our consulates, ensure the 
     accuracy of watchlists and create a process that allows the 
     deletion of names that do not belong on such lists, mandate 
     adequate and consistent training for those who implement 
     immigration law, and ensure that ports-of-entry receive 
     sufficient funding and are adequately staffed with well-
     trained officers with access to accurate, functioning, and 
     interoperable databases. Another critical component to well-
     functioning borders and ports-of-entry is access to counsel 
     to facilitate the flow of people and ensure that the 
     government's broad powers to admit or bar noncitizens from 
     entry are not used improperly.
       3. Effective security measures must include rigorous civil 
     liberties, due process, and privacy protections. In this 
     context, Congress must not erode judicial review. These 
     measure must reflect our nation's binding commitment to 
     protect civil liberties, due process, and individual privacy. 
     The Commission recognizes the need to reconcile ``security 
     with liberty, since the success of one helps protect the 
     other.'' While acknowledging the difficult challenge involved 
     in preserving this balance, the Commission emphasizes the 
     critical importance to get it right. The Commission also 
     points out the importance of placing the burden of proof on 
     the Executive for retaining governmental power.
       4. Our nation needs an immigration system that shrinks the 
     haystack by facilitating the entry of ``trusted travelers'' 
     so we can better focus our resources on those who mean to do 
     us harm. The 9/11 Commission recognizes the importance of 
     facilitating travel so that resources can be focused on those 
     who mean to do us harm. The Commission urges that the 
     ``programs to speed known travelers'' be made a ``higher 
     priority, permitting inspectors to focus on greater risks.'' 
     In addition, because the U.S. cannot shrink the haystack, 
     enhance our security, and secure our borders without 
     reforming our immigration laws, it is vitally important to 
     reform our laws by legalizing the status of those currently 
     living and working in the U.S., reducing the long backlogs in 
     family-based immigration, and creating break-the-mold worker 
     programs that allow people to enter and leave the U.S. 
     lawfully.
       5. Measures designed to enhance our security must include 
     provisions that mandate sufficient funding, an adequate 
     number of well-trained officers, reasonable deadlines, 
     accurate databases, technology that is up the task, and 
     Congressional oversight of implementation, along with 
     prioritizing initiatives. Our history is riddled with laws 
     that do not take these factors into account. Congress also 
     must engage in rigorous risk-based and cost-benefit analysis 
     to ensure that agencies are guided by clear priorities and 
     are not overwhelmed by a flood of unachievable mandates.
       6. The United States must remain a nation that welcomes 
     people to its shores. Immigration is in our national 
     interest, and a system that works is essential to our 
     national and economic security. Our immigration system needs 
     to reflect the importance of reuniting families, fulfilling 
     the needs of American business, maintaining America's 
     economic security (which contributes to our nation's well-
     being and national security), protecting refugees and asylees 
     to meet our moral and international obligations and, as the 
     Commission underscores, helping to enhance our security. The 
     U.S. is a nation of immigrants and immigration remains 
     central to who we are and helps to explain our success as a 
     people and a country.
           Sincerely,
       ACORN, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 
     American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Jewish 
     Committee, Arab-American Institute, Center for Community 
     Change, Fair Immigration Reform Movement, Hebrew Immigrant 
     Aid Society (HIAS), Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, 
     National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, National 
     Council of La Raza, National Immigration Forum, Service 
     Employees International Union (SEIU), AFL-CIO, CLC, Tahirih 
     Justice Center.
                                  ____

                                               September 30, 2004.
       Dear Representative: We strongly oppose a provision in H.R. 
     10 that would authorize the outsourcing of torture to brutal 
     dictatorships like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and China.
       Section 3032 of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations 
     Implementation Act of 2004, would make it official U.S. 
     policy to send or return individuals to countries where they

[[Page S11302]]

     would be at grave risk of torture. This provision would 
     violate U.S. law and policy, and it is completely 
     inconsistent with decades of efforts by Republicans and 
     Democrats alike to make America a world leader in the fight 
     against torture and for human rights. Far from implementing 
     the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, it directly 
     contradicts the Commission's counsel that the United States 
     should ``offer an example of moral leadership in the world, 
     committed to treat people humanely, [and] abide by the rule 
     of law.''
       The legal prohibition on torture is absolute. Along with 
     135 other countries that have ratified the Convention against 
     Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
     Punishment, the United States has committed itself to 
     upholding this fundamental principle of human dignity. Just 
     as governments cannot engage in torture directly, they cannot 
     send people to places where they risk being tortured. The 
     Convention against Torture states that ``no State Party shall 
     expel, return (`refouler') or extradite a person to another 
     State where there are substantial grounds for believing that 
     he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.''
       Congress reiterated its commitment to upholding this 
     obligation in 1998 when it passed section 2242 of the Foreign 
     Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, stating that ``[i]t 
     shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, 
     extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any 
     person to a country in which there are substantial grounds 
     for believing the person would be in danger of being 
     subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is 
     physically present in the United States.'' Section 3032 of 
     H.R. 10 would violate that legal and moral obligation by 
     permitting the U.S. government to turn over people to other 
     countries even if it is 100 percent certain they will be 
     tortured. This will have immediate and damaging consequences.
       For example, the government of China has been demanding 
     that the United States turn over to it a number of ethnic 
     Uighur detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Because it 
     believes the detainees would likely be tortured, the Bush 
     Administration has rightly refused and is instead seeking 
     other countries to accept them. If Congress were to approve 
     this provision, there would be no legal bar to sending these 
     detainees back to torture.
       By contrast, in 2002 the U.S. government sent a transiting 
     Canadian-Syrian national, Maher Arar, to Syria despite its 
     systematic use of torture. Now safely back in Canada, Arar 
     alleges he was severely tortured, including beatings with 
     electrical cords, during his ten months in a Syrian prison. 
     Such incidents undermine the credibility of U.S. efforts to 
     promote human rights and democracy in the Arab world, which 
     President Bush has identified as a key element in the 
     Administration's long-term strategy to combat terrorism. If 
     this provision is passed, such incidents will become more 
     common, dealing a profound blow to America's moral authority 
     in pursuing a vital goal.
       In the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, President Bush and 
     the Congress have gone to great pains to persuade the world 
     that U.S. policy does not condone torture. If Congress enacts 
     this legislation, it would make tolerance of torture official 
     U.S. policy. We urge you to strike this provision from the 
     bill and to reaffirm America's commitment to a world without 
     torture.
           Sincerely,
         William Schulz, Amnesty International USA; Douglas A. 
           Johnson, The Center for Victims of Torture; Jennifer 
           Windsor, Freedom House; Elisa Massimino, Human Rights 
           First; Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watch; Scott Horton, 
           International League for Human Rights; Ralston H. 
           Deffenbaugh, Jr., Lutheran Immigration and Refuge 
           Services; Robin Phillips, Minnesota Advocates for Human 
           Rights; Loenard Rubenstein, Physicians for Human 
           Rights; Todd Howland, RFK Memorial Center for Human 
           Rights; R. Timothy Ziemer, Rear Admiral USN (Ret.), 
           World Relief.
                                  ____



                                   National Immigration Forum,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 2004.
       Dear Representative: We write to express concern about 
     several provisions of H.R. 10 that, contrary to the 
     recommendations of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, broadly 
     restrict the rights of immigrants while failing to enhance 
     national security.
       Like all Americans, the National Immigration Forum supports 
     proposals to enhance domestic security and prevent acts of 
     terrorism. We applaud the bipartisan 9-11 Commission's 
     recommendations that effectively target terrorism and not 
     immigrants. Similarly, the bipartisan Senate bill appears to 
     capture these recommendations and is largely free of attacks 
     on the newcomer community. Unfortunately, House leaders 
     crafting H.R. 10 have decided to take a different tactic and 
     play politics with this critical legislation.
       Several immigration-related provisions of H.R. 10 are of 
     grave concern. They focus on limiting immigrants' rights to 
     due process and legal identification documents, measures 
     which are not only un-American, but actually 
     counterproductive to our goal of improving national security. 
     Specifically, we are opposed to the following provisions of 
     this legislation:
       Subjecting an immigrant with less than five years' physical 
     presence in the U.S. to an expedited deportation, without a 
     hearing on her right to remain in the United States (3006).
       Restricting states' right to permit all immigrant drivers 
     to be legally licensed and insured (3052).
       Barring federal acceptance of identity documents issued by 
     foreign governments (other than passports), no matter how 
     secure the documents are determined to be (3005).
       Putting up new hurdles and pitfalls for asylum-seekers that 
     purport to address terrorism concerns, but which are 
     unnecessary, excessive, and in violation of international 
     conventions (3006, 3007, 3031, 3032, 3033).
       Further limiting immigrants' access to meaningful judicial 
     review (picking up where the 1996 immigration laws left off), 
     including the right to a simple challenge of their detention 
     pursuant to the writ of habeas corpus (3006, 3008, 3009).
       Expanding the instances in which individuals can be 
     deported to countries with no functioning governments or 
     where they are likely to be tortured (3032, 3033).
       As the 9-11 Commission pointed out in its report, 
     intelligence is the key to finding terrorists and shutting 
     down their operations; broad-based immigration restriction 
     measures that cast a wide net are ineffectual at best, and a 
     waste of precious resources. The H.R. 10 immigration 
     provisions outlined above fail on all counts: they don't 
     enhance the government's ability to collect or analyze 
     intelligence, to use intelligence in making law enforcement 
     decisions, or to respond to or prevent terrorism. These 
     provisions simply expand the federal government's authority 
     to deport foreign nationals quickly and without proper 
     judicial review, and push immigrants who want to play by the 
     rules further underground. They have no place in this ``9-11 
     Commission recommendations bill,'' which is why distinguished 
     members of the Commission, and even the White House, have 
     called for the removal of several of these sections.
       We urge members of the House of Representatives to strike 
     these provisions from H.R. 10 and to pursue instead the well-
     reasoned recommendations of the 9-11 Commission.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Angela Kelley,
     Deputy Director.
                                  ____

                                            Women's Commission for


                                   Refugee Women and Children,

                                                  October 5, 2004.
     Hon. David Dreier,
     Chair, Committee on Rules,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to you on behalf of the 
     Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children concerning 
     several immigration-related provisions contained in H.R. 10, 
     the ``9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act.'' While the 
     Women's Commission understands the need to pass legislation 
     addressing the findings and recommendations of the National 
     Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, we 
     believe that several of the provisions in the proposed bill 
     go beyond the scope of what the report called for and 
     unnecessarily harm women and children asylum-seekers. 
     Specifically, we are concerned with the following provisions:
       Section 3006. Expedited Removal: We believe that this 
     provision impacts women and children escaping persecution in 
     a particularly harmful manner. The new provision provides no 
     review process for those individuals expressing a fear of 
     persecution if they have been in the United States for longer 
     than one year. Refugee women and children who are escaping 
     rape, female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced 
     marriages, sexual slavery, trafficking, recruitment as child 
     soldiers, and other forms of age and gender related 
     persecution often face the most difficulty in presenting 
     their cases. Due to the extremely sensitive and often painful 
     nature of such claims and cultural barriers that inhibit 
     women and children from expressing themselves and their 
     needs, women and children often require significant time and 
     counseling before they can articulate their claims, 
     particularly in front of government officials.
       Moreover, highly specialized skills are needed to interview 
     women and children asylum seekers in a gender and age 
     sensitive manner, and it is unlikely that front line 
     immigration officials will have these skills. The result 
     could be returning at-risk women and children to life-
     threatening situations.
       Finally, children have traditionally been exempt from 
     expedited removal in recognition of the vulnerabilities that 
     their tender age creates. H.R. 10, however, would apply 
     expedited removal regardless of age, thus subjecting children 
     to a process that they cannot reasonably be expected to 
     understand or appreciate. Even if protections are put in 
     place for children, children may be improperly classified and 
     treated as adults due to the lack of a scientifically sound 
     method to determine age.
       Section 3007. Preventing terrorists from obtaining asylum. 
     This section in actuality is irrelevant to terrorism. 
     Instead, it fundamentally alters the evidentiary standards 
     for asylum claims and the burden of proof for asylum 
     applicants.
       This section would require an asylum seeker to establish 
     that the central motivation for his or her persecutor's 
     actions was one of the five protected grounds under the 
     refugee definition. This change would be catastrophic for 
     both women and children asylum-seekers. Even under current 
     law, which

[[Page S11303]]

     requires a finding of ``mixed motivation,'' many women and 
     children asylum-seekers have a difficult time proving motive. 
     Most gender and age related claims are based on persecution 
     by a private rather than government actor. Often, the 
     violence occurs in private settings. It is thus extremely 
     difficult to prove that the perpetrator is motivated by the 
     victim's age or gender.
       Furthermore, the provision would require the applicant to 
     provide corroborating evidence unless unreasonable to do so. 
     The private nature of most gender and age related persecution 
     makes it highly unlikely that such evidence will be 
     available. Moreover, even if it exists, children in 
     particular are unlikely to be able to produce it unless 
     intensive legal assistance is provided; the reality is that 
     more than one-half of children are unrepresented when 
     presenting asylum claims.
       This section would also allow an adjudicator to consider 
     any statements made by asylum-seekers in determining 
     credibility. Thus, if a woman or child discusses their 
     persecution for the first time in front of an asylum officer 
     or an immigration judge, their failure to discuss it in prior 
     conversations with immigration officials could be considered 
     proof of inconsistent statements. This requirement again 
     fails to consider the extremely difficult nature of age and 
     gender related claims. It is unrealistic to expect a woman or 
     child claimant to articulate the embarrassing details of 
     their abuse to immigration officials when they first arrive 
     in the United States and are still fearful and confused. To 
     later use this natural reticence against them is grossly 
     unfair.
       Furthermore, this section condones the evaluation of an 
     applicant's demeanor in assessing credibility without 
     clarifying that an applicant's behavior should be considered 
     in the context of their culture. This framework completely 
     discounts the complex psychological, social and cultural 
     context of many women and children asylum-seekers.
       Section 3033. Additional Removal Authorities. This section 
     authorizes the removal of individuals to countries other than 
     their country of origin. Deporting women and children to a 
     third country may be extremely hazardous to their safety. 
     Women often and children always are heavily dependent on 
     family and community support to ensure their well-being.
       Section 3082. Expanded pre-inspection at foreign airports. 
     This provision would require the expansion of pre-inspection 
     at foreign airports. Immigration officials charged with 
     enforcing pre-inspection would not have sufficient training 
     or expertise to determine whether a woman or child is fleeing 
     persecution. Even if such training were provided, the lack of 
     oversight of such officers and the absence of assistance for 
     women and children are likely to result in many at-risk women 
     and children being prevented from departing the country in 
     which they are being persecuted.
       Section 3083. Immigration Security Initiative. This 
     provision mandates the posting of immigration officials at 
     overseas airports to check documentation of individuals 
     traveling to the United States. This provision may 
     inadvertently lead to more trafficking in women and children. 
     Asylum seekers who are desperate to leave countries in which 
     they are experiencing persecution often resort to the 
     assistance of outsiders, who may wish to exploit them through 
     trafficking. The more difficult it is to travel without 
     appropriate documents, the more such vulnerable refugees will 
     resort to avenues that could result in their further 
     persecution.
       While we have limited our comments to those sections of 
     H.R. 10 that we believe are particularly harmful to women and 
     children, we stand with our colleagues in also opposing those 
     other sections (for example, section 3032) that harm all 
     people fleeing past and future harm. Women and children 
     constitute both the majority of and the most vulnerable of 
     the world's refugees. Regardless of the critical merits of 
     fighting the war against terrorism, we cannot afford to 
     relinquish our strong international leadership role in their 
     protection, especially when these women and children present 
     no harm to us.
       Thank you for considering our concerns. Please do not 
     hesitate to contact us if you would like to discuss any of 
     these issues further.
           Sincerely,
     Wendy Young,
       Director of External Relations.
     Joanne Kelsey,
       Senior Coordinator for Detention and Asylum.

                          ____________________