[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, email@example.com.
SAFE FOR AMERICA ACT
IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
APRIL 5, 2011
Serial No. 112-27
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement
ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TED POE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
APRIL 5, 2011
H.R. 704, the ``SAFE for America Act''........................... 3
The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 6
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 23
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia
Oral Testimony................................................. 27
Prepared Statement............................................. 29
Stephen A. Edson, Principal, SAEdson, LLC
Oral Testimony................................................. 30
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
Janice L. Kephart, Director, National Security Policy, Center for
Oral Testimony................................................. 35
Prepared Statement............................................. 37
Johnny Young, Ambassador, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Oral Testimony................................................. 44
Prepared Statement............................................. 47
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............. 8
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 24
Material submitted by the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and
Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement... 54
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............. 131
Prepared Statement of Dan Stein, President, Federation for
American Immigration Reform.................................... 134
Prepared Statement of the National Immigration Forum............. 136
Letter from the Honorable Charles E. Shumer, a U.S. Senator from
the State of New York, and Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security................... 138
SAFE FOR AMERICA ACT
TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement,
Committee on the Judiciary,
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:24 p.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton
Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gallegly, Ross, Conyers, Lofgren,
Jackson Lee, and Pierluisi.
Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Marian
White, Clerk; and Tom Jawetz, Minority Counsel.
Mr. Gallegly. Good afternoon. The issues raised by H.R.
704, the ``SAFE for America Act,'' go to the core of any
That is the integrity of the U.S. Immigration policy.
H.R. 704 eliminates the visa lottery program under which
50,000 individuals are chosen completely at random each year to
receive immigrant visas. The visa lottery, first implemented in
fiscal year 1995, has long been a subject of concern for those
of us who believe it is important to have a credible
The program is rife with fraud. That was the case in 2003
when the State Department Inspector General found that ``the DV
program is subject to widespread abuse.'' That was the case in
2004 and 2005 when two different State Department Inspectors
General testified in front of this Subcommittee about the flaws
in the program. That was the case in 2007 when the Government
Accountability Office issued a report stating that ``the DV
program is vulnerable to fraud committed by and against
applications.'' And that is still the case today, when we will
hear testimony about high levels of fraud in the program.
Even the State Department acknowledges the high rate of
deception throughout the visa lottery. In fact, the Web sites
for many of the U.S. Embassies around the world include
diversity visa program fraud alerts, like you can see we have
on the two screens up here as we speak. This particular alert
is on the Web site of the London Embassy, but there are similar
alerts on other U.S. Embassy Web sites.
And why is fraud such a concern? Because terrorists use our
generous immigration policy to harm us, and terrorists have
already used the visa lottery as a means of entering the
The Egyptian terrorist who murdered two Americans at LAX in
2002 was a diversity visa recipient when his wife was selected
for the lottery. And a Pakistani national who received a
diversity visa when his parents were selected for the lottery
pleaded guilty in 2002 to conspiring to wage jihad by plotting
to destroy electrical power stations, the Israeli consulate,
and other South Florida targets. He had reportedly told his
friends he wanted to wage war against the United States.
But terrorists are not the only people who abuse the visa
lottery. We will hear testimony today about foreign organized
crime groups who try their own luck at the lottery. And visa
lottery applicants and third-party brokers all try to, and do,
game the system. The visa lottery gives them a great shot at
U.S. Immigration policy should be based on something more
than just the luck of the draw. It should be secure and it
should be beneficial to Americans. The visa lottery program is
I am glad to be an original cosponsor of the gentleman from
Virginia's bill, Mr. Goodlatte, and I look forward to moving
H.R. 704 toward enactment.
[The bill, H.R. 704, follows:]
Mr. Gallegly. At this time, I would yield to my good friend
from California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
to our witnesses for their patience; first of all, votes and
then the delay in getting back. There is a suspicious package
down in the basement, and everybody had to snake their way
back. So glad that we are finally here on this hearing.
As the Chairman said, the diversity visa program was
established by the Immigration Act of 1990, and the goal was to
encourage greater diversity in the pool of immigrants that we
accept each year. The program now provides up to 50,000 visas
annually to natives of countries from which immigrant
admissions were lower than 50,000 over the preceding 5 years.
Applicants for diversity visas are chosen by a computer-
generated random lottery drawing. Each winner is permitted to
apply for an immigrant visa and can gain lawful permit resident
status in the United States provided that they pass through the
screening, because diversity visa winners are subject to all of
the bars of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Nationality
Act and must undergo background and security checks that are
more rigorous than those required for persons entering the
country by other means such as through the visa waiver program.
Diversity visa winners must provide biographic and
biometric information, including fingerprints and a digital
photograph, pass comprehensive background checks, submit to
physical and mental examinations, and undergo interviews with
consular officers abroad before entering the U.S.
The program represents a small part of our immigration
system. In fiscal year 2010, only 4.8 percent of the total
number of persons who obtained lawful permanent resident status
came through this program, but it also represents an important
effort that has been largely successful in increasing the
diversity of legal residents to the United States.
I recall that this program was originally proposed by then-
Chairman Peter Rodino. He observed that because we have a
strong family-based immigration system, this reduces the
opportunity for immigrants to come to this country if they are
from places that have historically not sent immigrants to the
United States, and over time, this limits the ability to grow
and sustain a diverse Nation. In creating the diversity
program, Mr. Rodino and many others wanted to encourage
continued immigration opportunities for people from Italy or
Ireland; but today, as we see, the program continues to help in
a small way to balance the immigration system.
In fiscal year 2006, for instance, 40 percent of diversity
immigrants were from Africa, and 34 percent were from Europe.
Compare this to the fact that only 3 percent of family and
employment-based visas went to persons from Africa, and only 8
percent went to persons from Europe.
One frequent criticism about the diversity visa program is
that it is random, that we bring people to the country through
the program and that they may not have skills or education they
need to succeed. We know that the program requires applicants
to have a high school diploma equivalent, or at least 2 years
of work experience in an occupation requiring training, but we
actually get more than that.
In 2003, the State Department described its typical
diversity visa recipient as a male professional, age 26 to 30,
holding a university degree. Just yesterday, the Congressional
Research Service released a report finding that diversity
immigrants were 2\1/2\ times more likely to report managerial
or professional occupations than other lawful permanent
residents in fiscal year 2009.
And I would ask unanimous consent that the CRS report be
entered into the record.
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Ms. Lofgren. This is, of course, not the first time the
Subcommittee has considered the bill introduced by my friend
and colleague, Representative Goodlatte. I opposed that bill in
the 108th Congress and I continue to oppose his measure,
although I do not dislike him.
The name of the bill suggests that it increases security
and fairness, but I don't think it does either. Nothing in the
bill increases fairness for Americans or for persons who seek
to emigrate to this country to achieve the American dream. I
think it does the opposite. The bill just eliminates a small
immigration program that allows a small percentage of new
immigrants from underrepresented nations to come and become
Americans. The program adds to our ethnic and racial diversity,
which enriches our society and provides the only hope some
people have to emigrate to the United States lawfully.
The bill also would not make us any more secure than it
would if it eliminated any other visa program. Diversity visa
winners are carefully screened for criminal history or ties to
terrorism, like any other immigrant. In fact, there is no
evidence that a terrorist is more likely to enter the U.S.
under this program than any other U.S. immigration category.
Given that tens of millions of applications are submitted each
year for only 50,000 slots, which includes the spouses and
minor children of lottery winners, this visa program would be
an incredibly inefficient means of entry for a person who seeks
to do harm to the United States.
That is not to say the program is perfect. Both the State
Department's Inspector General and the GAO issued reports some
years ago, I might add, highlighting the risk of fraud and
abuse in the program and the practical resource challenges that
consular posts faces. The State Department has made significant
efforts to reduce that risk of fraud, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't do more.
Several years ago, the State Department converted the
application process from paper to electronic and requires all
applicants to submit digital photos. Recently, the State
Department ended the practice of notifying lottery winners by
mail and now relies entirely on its Web-based system. Consular
posts provide outreach and education to the community about the
process and work to combat fraud through the visa adjudication
In closing, as I prepared for today's hearing, I was
reminded that Freddie Adu, the young soccer phenom from Ghana,
entered the U.S. through the diversity visa program. So did
Seth Dankar, another native of Ghana, who enlisted as a private
in the U.S. Army shortly after entering the country on a
diversity visa. Private Dankar's service was featured in the
film, ``New American Soldier,'' which highlights the courageous
work that many immigrants now do in our armed services.
If there are concerns about this program, we should focus
on ways to improve it. One idea that was recommended by the
State Department's IG is that we charge a small application fee
in order to reduce the prevalence of duplicative applications.
Now that the system has moved from paper-based applications to
electronic ones, the cost effectiveness of this anti-abuse
measure may need to be reassessed.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and working
with you, Mr. Chairman, to improve this program, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
The Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly. Well, like Zoe
Lofgren, I like Mr. Goodlatte but I don't like his bill. And
the question here might be in this hearing is do we want to
have another way for people that don't qualify under the kind
of three-part system of immigration that we have to come into
this country or do we not.
What we are faced with is a rather continued attempt to
eliminate the people least likely to be able to come to this
country, and so this part 3 of the program is designed to
create diversity in our immigration population. And so the
question is, from my point of view, maybe the opponents of this
program don't want diversity in the first place, which is a
perfectly valid position to take. It is not a very nice
position to take, but if we eliminate this system--and by the
way, the hearings, what have there been? Three of them so far?
They are never about how to improve the system. It is how to
eliminate the system and that is not escaping my attention at
this hearing either.
The whole idea is let us get rid of the diversity program
that is the way more African immigrants get into this country
than any other way. You are entitled to that view, but I don't
think that this is the way we want to think about our country
or its policy on immigration.
That is why I support the comments made by Ranking Member
Lofgren. We have got to look at how we improve it, and it is
very interesting to me that we have--our examples are real
great--somebody, I can wager, is going to mention Hedayet--how
can you have a terrorist who has to win the lottery first to
implement his program?
The other part of this that is very important is that the
Government Accountability Office has found no documented
evidence that the diversity visa immigrants program pose a
terrorist or other threat. So don't let me hear anybody talking
And I will revise the rest of my statement, Mr. Chairman,
and yield back my time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman.
And just to take the privilege of the Chair just for a
second to, if I could, engage both my colleague Ms. Lofgren and
John, my neighbor, my friend, how would you respond to the
arguments that many make about since this program started there
have been approximately 800,000 people who have come here under
the diversity program? Many would argue that that 800,000 that
have come here would ensure diversity forever through chain
migration. What would your response to that be, Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. But it isn't happening. That hasn't happened--
well, here, you are just giving me back the challenge that I
posed. If you really want to cut the numbers down in the
program, you are saying the program is a success, so that leads
to the same conclusion: We don't need it anymore. I reject that
out of hand.
Ms. Lofgren. If I can answer your question, Mr. Chairman, I
would note from the report we received from the Congressional
Research Service just yesterday that the predominant immigrant
through this is a managerial, single-male professional and who
is not bringing in a spouse and children.
So also I would note that the brother-sister backlog, as
you know, is very regressed. I mean, it is decades in some
cases for people to bring in siblings. So although
theoretically one could talk about that, in fact, it is not a
We can argue whether or not our immigration system should
seek to have diversity. I recall Senator Kennedy and Chairman
Rodino were concerned that the Irish and Italians would not be
present in our immigrant pool, and they thought that was a
problem, and that really was the origin of this. And it is
interesting that it is now the diversity that we are seeing is
from Africa primarily, not completely, because of the way
patterns of immigration have developed, and absent this visa,
aside from the refugee program--and I guess some of our
students that are coming in who I have met, some who are highly
educated--we wouldn't see much immigration from Africa. And I
think, you know, the diversity has always made our country
richer, and it is why we are a proud immigrant Nation. So that
would be my answer, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. And again, we shouldn't be debating this. We
have witnesses here to listen to, but I can't help but respond
to the only two examples I used in my opening statement about
two incidents, one at LAX and one at Pakistani National, that
was advocating jihad here in the U.S. In both of these
instances, the people that were advocating this were--one was a
son and one was a husband of the applicant. So that does have
something to do with that portion of it.
In any event, we are fortunate today to have four
exceptional witnesses. Each of the witnesses' written
statements will be entered into the record in its entirety, and
I ask each to try to summarize in 5 minutes, if at all
possible. We got a late start. It is not your fault, but in
view of that, I want to make sure everyone has a chance to be
heard. And, if you will, we will provide the lights as kind of
a guide, but I would appreciate you to try to work as carefully
and as helpful in that vein as possible.
The first witness today, of course, the sponsor of the
legislation, who is obviously a good friend of both of my
colleagues here, as evidenced in their opening statements. Bob
Goodlatte, currently is serving his tenth term representing the
Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. He has been an active
Member of the House Judiciary Committee since arriving in
Congress and is currently Chairman of the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the
Our second witness today is Stephen Anthony--I have known
Tony--Edson. Mr. Edson is former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for visa services. He was with the State Department for
28 years and currently serves as principal, SAEdson law firm.
Our third witness, Ms. Janice Kephart, is the director of
national security policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
She previously served as counsel to the 9/11 Commission. Ms.
Kephart received her bachelor's degree from Duke and J.D. From
Villanova law school.
And our last witness is Ambassador Johnny Young. Ambassador
Young is executive director of the migration and refugee
services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
He was previously a member of the senior foreign service with
the rank of career Ambassador and, last, served abroad as the
U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Slovenia.
So you can see we have some very good witnesses this
afternoon, and we will start with our colleague from Virginia,
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Lofgren, Ranking Member Conyers. It is a pleasure to be before
you today, and I will submit my written statement for the
record. I wanted to respond to some of the comments made by the
Ranking Members, who are indeed my friends as well.
First of all, the United States has the largest and most
diverse immigration program in the world, and that is even
without consideration of the visa diversity or visa lottery
program. When I practiced immigration law prior to my election
to Congress for more than a decade, I represented individuals
from more than 70 countries, none of whom were coming in under
the visa lottery program. They were coming in under family-
related and primarily work-related visas. We also admit people
to this country based upon refugee status from any country in
the world where that is a necessity, and we grant political
asylum. So the opportunity right now for diversity from
virtually any country in the world exists even without this
Secondly, this program has been rejected by the House of
Representatives twice now, once under a Democratic Congress,
once under a Republican Congress. The House has voted to
eliminate this program, and while there have been claims, as
have just been made, that the program could be improved, during
the majority in which the gentleman from Michigan was the
Chairman of the full Committee and the gentlewoman from
California was the Chairman of the Subcommittee, no hearings
whatsoever were held on this issue or to improve it.
I would suggest to you that there are a number of
legitimate reasons why the program should be eliminated. One of
those is a national security concern. There is no doubt that
given the fact that there is no necessity for a family
relationship, no necessity for a particular job skill, that it
is easy for an organization like al-Qaeda to submit names--yes,
it is done at random, but you could submit lots of names from
individuals who do not have terrorism records, are young
people, whose names could be drawn. We would be none the wiser
that not only were they admitted to the country like the 9/11
hijackers were, but they were admitted to the country on a
permanent resident status, green card, so they are admitted
permanently to the country.
Secondly, there is I think a very strong argument to be
made that this program is grossly unfair to those people who
have met the public policy interests of the United States.
Immigration is a two-way street. There is not a person in this
room who can't go back a few generations or several generations
and find somebody in their family who came to the United States
to better their lives for themselves and their family, but we
do it based upon having a connection, like having a family
connection or a job skill that is needed in the country, or
based upon persecution or a refugee status situation.
And when we do that, it seems to me very important that we
recognize that this program allows people to bypass people who
are on very long waiting lists from countries who have family
relationships, who have job skills that have been determined to
be in need in this country, and they watch somebody who gets an
opportunity to get a visa to come here based upon pure luck.
That combination I think is not a good one, and that is why I
have introduced this legislation in the last few Congresses.
It has been bipartisan each time I have done it, and as I
say, it has passed both in the 109th Congress as a part of the
appropriations process and in the--in the 109th Congress, it
passed as an amendment to H.R. 4437 on the House floor with a
very strong bipartisan vote; and in the 110th Congress, it
passed as an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 State Foreign
Operations appropriations bill.
So, again, I think there is very strong bipartisan support
for this legislation. I think that the State Department's
Inspector General testified before the 109th Congress that the
program contains significant risks to national security from
hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists
attempting to use the program for entry into the United States
as permanent residents, quote-unquote. With the tool of legal
permanent resident status in hand, terrorists and spies would
have free rein to travel and plan terrorist activities within
the borders of the United States.
Our immigration policy should be based upon what the needs
are of the United States because there are people, millions of
people, who want to come here for a multitude of of different
reasons, some good, some bad. We should identify the good
reasons for bringing people here and have an immigration policy
that does that and not rely on pure luck to determine who are
the good people that should be coming to this country.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Edson.
TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN A. EDSON, PRINCIPAL, SAEdson, LLC
Mr. Edson. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren,
Ranking Member Conyers, and distinguished Members of the
Committee, good afternoon and thank you for allowing me this
opportunity to discuss my experience with the diversity visa
All visa categories are subject to attempted fraud by
applicants interested in entering the United States illegally.
Applicants misrepresent their identities, their credentials,
and their intentions every day before consular officers around
the world, trying to obtain visas that they don't qualify for.
Most visa categories, particularly for immigrants to this
country, have very specific requirements that pose barriers for
applicants attempting to submit a false application.
Those wishing to obtain a visa fraudulently must first
convince DHS through the petition process, and then the
consular officer during an interview, that the requisite
relationship or employment experience or work situation exists.
For someone misrepresenting themselves as a doctor or business
executive or a parent of a U.S. citizen, quite a bit of
documentation and interview preparation is thus required.
Contrast this to the diversity visa program where the
barriers for entry into the program are so low that we ask
applicants to prove only that they have the equivalent of a
high school education or 2 years of some sort of a skill-based
employment, some sort of financial support or job lined up in
the U.S., and they are otherwise eligible for a visa, the
standard ineligibility, public health, criminal record.
Because almost anyone can qualify for entry into the
program, the cost of committing fraud in this category is quite
low. The possibility of legal permanent resident status in the
U.S. makes it well worth the limited amount of time and money
required to enter the program fraudulently.
The diversity visa program is subject to attempted fraud
both by applicants themselves and, worse, by third-party
brokers and touts who abuse both the visa system and those
Fraud by applicants includes, among many other things,
multiple entries, fraudulent claims to education and work
experience, pop-up spouses or family members, relatives added
after the application is submitted, and false claims for
employment or financial support in the United States.
Fraud and abuse by third parties is just as prevalent and
can have tragic consequences. Consular officers have seen cases
of collusion with post office officials--thus, the change that
Ranking Member Lofgren mentioned--so that notification to
winners of the lottery are either stolen and used by someone
else or held hostage until the applicants pay for the release
of their documents. This was quite common.
Just as commonly, unfortunately, the applicant may be
extorted throughout the process; in other words, not just
forced to pay for the release of their initial documents, but
forced to pay criminal gangs in order to be allowed to complete
their application. This problem occurs to a limited extent, a
much more limited extent, with other visa categories as well,
but because these diversity visa applicants don't have
relatives and employers in the United States, they are
Nor is this sort of abuse limited to applicants who choose
to enter the diversity visa lottery. Consular officers have
many times seen unscrupulous agents enroll large groups of
people, including in Bangladesh the phone book, so that they
could then extort money from the legitimate applicants who
didn't in fact apply, or from other people that they sell the
winning slot to as they apply for the visa.
The State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs has done
outstanding work over the years in fighting this fraud in the
DV program. I should be clear that just because the program is
rife with fraud, it does not mean that scores of unqualified
applicants are necessarily entering the United States. The
refusal rate for the DV cases is quite high, and Consular
Affairs has done groundbreaking work with facial recognition
software, electronic application processes, and online data
analysis tools to weed out fraudulent lottery entries.
Consular officers in the field are similarly astute in
interviewing these cases, probing for relationship fraud and
working hard to validate the few legislative requirements for
the program. Despite the best efforts of consular officers and
the State Department, however, the DV program will continue to
be a special target of attempted fraud. When anyone can play--
and in this program they can, because of the minimum
requirements for entry--then everyone will, and the cost of a
fraudulent application is so low that fraud will remain
I believe that the SAFE for America Act will solve the
problem of fraud in the DV program in the only way it is likely
to work, by eliminating it. Thank you.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Edson follows:]
Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Kephart.
TESTIMONY OF JANICE L. KEPHART, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY
POLICY, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Ms. Kephart. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and Ranking
Member Lofgren and Ranking Member Conyers, for holding this
hearing on the DV program today. I would also like to
acknowledge the leadership of Representative Goodlatte for the
introduction of this SAFE for America Act.
My purpose today is to provide my analysis of the DV
program from my vantage point as a former 9/11 Commission
counsel, as well as national security policy director at the
Center for Immigration Studies. My underlying perspective, let
me make clear, is to treat our borders as they truly are, as a
geographic demarcation of U.S. sovereign rights, to assure that
people who seek to come here are who they say they are and will
not pose a public safety or terrorist threat to American
Unfortunately, the DV program is a blind spot in our
immigration system that assures none of these elements well.
Instead, it can be a terrorist gamble. A successful application
means an infiltration tactic with little oversight, a
guaranteed visa, and permanent residency for those already in
the U.S. or seeking entry from abroad; or a terrorist or other
criminal can simply wait for a lottery announcement, then hire
somebody to buy that win, change identities, and voila, they
are within our immigration system.
Whatever purpose the DV program sought to be for diversity
in a pre-9/11 environment, it has been outlived. Today it is a
national security vulnerability, and let me go over the six
main reasons why I believe that is the case.
First, the DV program draws from nations that are state
sponsors of terror or are known to harbor terrorist
organizations with overtly stated terrorist intentions toward
the United States. Eligibility will remain for these countries
in the 2012 lottery, despite 9/11 and despite serious
geopolitical shifts in the Mideast today. The four state
sponsors of terror--Iran Sudan, Syria, and Cuba--received a
total of 2,588 visas or adjustments of status for the DV
program in 2010. Nations with active terrorist populations such
as Yemen and Somalia, as well as governments known to support
terrorist causes and terrorist travel, such as Venezuela, also
benefit from the program, as do Afghanistan and Iraq, to name a
Again, there are no stopgaps against fraud, as Mr. Edson
has pointed out, to determine qualifications or properly vet
identity, or derogatory intelligence, to assure that
radicalized individuals applying from these nations are not
entering the U.S. on a DV.
Second, the program does not include national security
standards for, or reviews of, participant countries, such as
visa-waiver countries have to do to maintain their status in
Third, the program is susceptible to serious fraud and
malfeasance--admitted by the State Department most recently in
a press conference back in 2010 discussing the 2012 lottery--
both in and out of the U.S. because of its inability to assure
identities or qualifications of fraud, similar but perhaps even
worse than that we addressed on the 9/11 Commission regarding
the processing of Saudi visas pre-9/11.
Fourth, the program's low applicant standards, combined
with a computer-generated random lottery drawing, creates an
invitation to those with nefarious intentions to take advantage
of blind picks and negligible standards.
Fifth, the program is known to be exploited for human
trafficking and the slave trade by crime syndicates, which I
discuss in greater length in my written testimony, and it
provides little to promote that straightforward diversity from
lower immigration countries when we have crime syndicates
taking advantage of it.
And lastly, sixth, the program enables those already here
to stay while their change of status is under consideration, as
known terrorist Hesham Hedayet did, thus increasing the
vulnerabilities inherent in the DV program by enabling
potential criminals and terrorists to embed longer and legally
in the U.S.
I would like to spend my remaining time focusing on the
national security challenges of the DV program, particularly
Iran. The high numbers of DVs issued to Iranians is perhaps the
best indication that the DV program is operating in a vacuum
with little concern for national security. For example, Iran is
known for its security forces actively seeking infiltration
from abroad, and creates another opportunity for such
infiltration. It is hard for us to know who is who when we have
such little penetration into Iran with our own intelligence
system. Iran, we know, supported 9/11 hijackers' travel. We
know they support Hezbollah and currently harbor al-Qaeda, and
this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Yet the DV program embraces Iran. Looking closely at the
2010 worldwide distribution of visa lottery winners, Iran
received 1,854 visas or adjustments of status. Iran ranked
ninth in the world of the 173 nations eligible to receive these
visas, up four places from 2009 where it ranked 13th.
My conclusion is that the DV program has, unfortunately,
outlived its usefulness in a post-9/11 world. If this Nation
seeks more diversity in our immigration population, that is for
you all to decide, but the DV program is not the route to do
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kephart follows:]
Mr. Gallegly. Ambassador Young.
TESTIMONY OF JOHNNY YOUNG, AMBASSADOR,
U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
Mr. Young. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to thank you. I would like to also thank Subcommittee Member
Zoe Lofgren and the Committee Member John Conyers for allowing
me to testify today. My testimony is on behalf of the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Chairman Gallegly, the U.S. Bishops believe that the call
for the diversity visa program's elimination is misguided. The
program is an important facet of not only U.S. immigration
policy but also U.S. foreign policy interests. Indeed, the
program benefits the United States' interests both domestically
and abroad. I will address each of these in turn.
First, U.S. domestic interests are served by the diversity
immigrant visa program. The program provides an avenue for a
diverse population of qualified individuals to emigrate to the
United States. It reaches beyond those with family or business
ties in the United States today and creates a mechanism for a
racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse population to
lawfully emigrate, that would otherwise not exist under other
These eligible immigrants, in turn, benefit from U.S.
freedom and opportunities while contributing to the economic
and cultural fabric of our great Nation. In facilitating this,
the diversity visa program, for most respect for U.S.
immigration laws, rewarding would-be immigrants who respect our
laws and seek a lawful means of entry into the United States.
Second, U.S. foreign policy interests are served by the
diversity visa program.Mr. Chairman, I served as U.S.
ambassador to countries as varied as Slovenia and Sierra Leone.
Today, I am executive director for the largest refugee
resettlement agency in the world. From these vantage points, I
have witnessed firsthand U.S. diplomacy and direct aid
initiatives undertaken to further U.S. national interests
abroad. These important initiatives are undertaken in part to
help shape the minds and hearts of those within their borders
to regard the United States and the democracy it enjoys as a
beacon of hope and opportunity and, therefore, a leader in the
In a 2009 report by the independent task force co-chaired
by Jeb Bush and published by the Council on Foreign Relations,
the authors underscored the view of the United States as a
place of unparalleled openness and opportunity that is crucial
to the maintenance of U.S. and American leadership. The
diversity immigrant visa program helps further these
The diversity immigrant visa program has promoted a
necessary diversification of the immigrant population in the
United States. According to the GAO, the data shows that the DV
program is contributing to the diversification of the U.S.
immigrant pool. Indeed, well over a half million immigrants
from countries with low rates of admission to the United States
have become lawful permanent residents through the program. The
majority of diversity immigrants are from Africa and Europe,
two regions with low levels of admission under family- or
employment-based immigrant visas.
Mr. Chairman, the diversity immigrant visa program
generates goodwill and hope among millions across the globe
ravaged by war, poverty, undemocratic regimes, and opacity in
government. Through the diversity immigrant visa program, the
United States makes a counterpoint to that reality, a chance at
becoming an integral member of an open, democratic society that
places a premium on hard work and opportunity.
In fiscal year 2011 alone, there were 12.1 million
qualified applicants to the diversity immigrant visa program.
From a diplomacy standpoint, that is a powerful opportunity.
The U.S. Catholic bishops asks that the Congress maintain
lawful avenues for immigration to the United States and
continue to prioritize the diversification of our immigrant
pool. The diversity immigrant visa is an important facet of
both our domestic and foreign policy objectives. If we are
truly concerned about the rule of law, the wholesale
elimination of legal avenues for immigration such as the
diversity visa is not the answer.
Where fraud is present, or security risks the potential,
Congress should work with the Administration to implement
measures to combat that fraud as reported by the GAO, and as it
does with other important government benefit programs.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Mr. Gallegly. I would ask unanimous consent to place into
the record, without objection, the following items to be made a
part of the record of the hearing:
The 2003 Department Office of Inspector General memorandum
inspection report on the diversity visa program.
Number two, the 2007 GAO report entitled ``Fraud risks
complicates States' ability to manage diversity visa program.''
Number three, March 31, 2011, Irish Times article entitled
``U.S. Embassy in Dublin warns of widespread visa lottery
Number four, March 30, 2011, Arab news article entitled
``U.S. Visa scam gets personal.''
And finally, a copy of the fraud alert on the Web site of
the Embassy of the United States in London.
If there is no objection, those will be made a part of the
record of the hearing.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Gallegly. First of all, Bob, in your written testimony
you referred to a statement before Congress made by the State
Department's Inspector General in which he stated that the visa
lottery program contains significant risks to the national
security of the United States. You also mentioned the case of
the Egyptian national who was permitted to enter the U.S.
because his wife was a visa lottery winner. Once in the
country, the person killed two and injured three at LAX. Can
you elaborate a little bit on your statement?
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, I think that there have been reports
from several sources that have indicated a great concern about
this. And I think the nature of the concern is that you have
people who want to come here because they have a family
reunification issue. They have family that is already here
petitioning for them. They have a job skill. They have an
employer who is petitioning for them.
It is a lot harder for a criminal organization, a terrorist
organization, or somebody who just wants to come to the United
States because it is an opportunity for them to engage in some
kind of activity that we don't want them here for, it is a lot
harder for them to do that if they have to create that
connection in the first place. You know, you have to have a job
skill and an employer who wants them, or they have to have a
specific family relationship, than if they simply put their
name into a lottery, as you correctly note, millions of people
And while I have no doubt that most of those people are
wanting to come here for the same reason that other people want
to come here, those who want to come here for illegitimate
purposes, including terrorism or criminal activity, have an
easier time doing that, as Mr. Edson pointed out in his
testimony, than they do if they have to have that preformed
connection in order to get the visa in the first place.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Edson, in your statement you mentioned
the Bangladesh phone book. Can you elaborate a little bit more
on that as an example of concern?
Mr. Edson. Certainly. We obviously have no way, or the
State Department--I have got to get rid of the ``we"--the State
Department has no way of knowing how often applicants--those 12
million entrants into the lottery program every year didn't
actually submit entries on their own behalf. But we know that
it is quite common for agents to just take personal data on
existing people and submit it into the lottery as entries.
Often now, because facial recognition is used and the photos
are required, picking photographs that are relatively neutral
so that there is greater opportunity for look-alikes in the
final win. So then if one of those real people who didn't
really apply wins a slot in the diversity visa lottery, the
agent can then sell that slot to somebody who resembles the
photograph closely enough that they can then steal the identity
of that other person and complete the application process, and
there is no preexisting data that is going to rule out that
Mr. Gallegly. Thanks. Ms. Kephart, in your testimony on
page 6, you discussed how organized crime rings exploit the
visa lottery program. This is becoming a huge problem in my
area, in the greater Los Angeles area, having to do with
Medicare fraud and health care issues, with setting up phony
clinics and so on and so forth. Does this have any relationship
to what you are relating to in your testimony, or specifically
what did your testimony relate to?
Ms. Kephart. Well, I think you are referring to the use of
fraudulent and counterfeit documents to support applications in
general. If that is your reference, yes; we have had Federal
prosecution have to deal with a number of cases that are
extremely serious dealing with fraud on the U.S. Side with the
diversity visa program. One case involved slave trade being
created out of Africa where young female winners between 10 and
19 were brought over. They were forced to give up their
identities and passports and brought over here and had to take
on new identities.
There are other pieces of this, though, as well. If you are
dealing with fraudulent documents--this is something we dealt
with extensively on the 9/11 Commission--the idea of fraud, the
idea of looking clean when you are not really clean. And when
you are dealing with a program like this that does not require
a lot of identity information on the front end, you can switch
out identities very easily, as Mr. Edson has done, based on
fraudulent birth certificates, fraudulent driver's license,
fraudulent passports on the U.S. side.
Abroad, there is no way for a consular officer to make a
determination as to the legitimacy of the high school education
certificate that you are presenting, the birth certificate, or
any of the identity information that you are providing. You can
easily switch that out. Once you do that you are creating a
fraudulent identity--once you have that in place you have a
huge vulnerability that is much wider than what you even had
with the 9/11 situation.
Mr. Gallegly. Thanks. Thank you very much, Ms. Kephart. Ms.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is
important to note that nobody on the Committee is in favor of
fraud, but the issue is how to preserve diversity in a way that
works for the country. That is the way I see this question
Without this diversity visa, African immigrants would only
be 3 percent of the immigrants to the United States, I mean
statistically, and I don't think that is good for the United
And, Bob, I hear what you are saying. I always think about
my grandfather, because he came here when he was 16. He didn't
have family ties. He didn't have a job. He hadn't finished his
education, but he wanted to come here. He wanted to be free,
and you know, what a country, his granddaughter is in Congress.
So that is part of what this is about. It is to not lose that
part of our history, but the question is how do we avoid the
Mr. Edson, I don't know the answer to this. Can the State
Department impose a fee on their own? They don't need
congressional action to do that, or do they?
Mr. Edson. I am probably not in the best position to
answer, but it is my understanding that they do need
Ms. Lofgren. That is something that maybe we ought to look
at, because certainly if there were a fee, that would be a
deterrent. If we are talking about entering the phone book,
that would be a very different issue. I think the facial
recognition and the Web-based stuff is going to help, and maybe
there are some other ideas to make this work better.
You know, I think it is always dangerous to legislate by
anecdote. Certainly, the fellow in Los Angeles who engaged in
violence was awful; but there was an Egyptian man named Abdel
Rahman Mossabah who came as a diversity visa immigrant, and he
uncovered a planned terrorist attack on the New York City
subway system. He reported it to the New York City Police
Department, and they went in and they arrested the guys and
they stopped the plot.
So I don't think you say, well, that is the reason for the
diversity visa program any more than the reverse. And I think
it is worth noting that the GAO's report that has now been
entered into the record--and this is a quote--``found no
documented evidence that diversity visa immigrants from [state
sponsors of terrorism] or other countries pose a terrorist or
So we need to, I think, make improvements if we can.
Ambassador Young, I found your testimony actually pretty
moving because the diplomatic value of being a beacon of hope
for the world really is important to the United States. You
served as Ambassador to a number of Nations. Were you able to
use this as a tool of diplomacy, and can you expand on your
experience with those who applied for the lottery program and
what it means to us in the diplomatic sense, or who they are in
Mr. Young. Certainly. I found it particularly useful when I
was in Africa, in Togo in particular. I served in Sierra Leone
also, but that was prior to the program. In countries that are
under, you know, oppressive governance and rule, that are very
impoverished, that has very little to offer its people--
although I didn't go around peddling or advertising for the
diversity visa in my interaction with young people, with young
professionals, and what have you--they would ask me: You know,
what can I do? I am a university graduate, I am a professional,
or what have you. There is nothing for me to do here. What can
I do? You know, you come from a great country; is there
anything you can do for me?
I said, well, I can't meddle in the visa business as the
Ambassador, but we do have something called the diversity
visa program and you can apply for it and you may win, you may
not, and you keep trying until you do.
I can cite the case of a woman that I knew in Togo. She was
educated. She had a sister in the United States who was a U.S.
citizen. The sister had petitioned for her. She believed that
the wait would have been about 25 years, and while waiting, she
applied for the lottery. She didn't win the first few times but
she won--I think it was about the fourth time around. She came
to the United States. She brought her teenage son. He finished
school here in the United States and last year got his MBA at
Ms. Lofgren. Wow, quite a story.
Mr. Young. That was a good one.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Ambassador, what
is the impact of 12 million people all thinking about trying to
get over here?
Mr. Young. Well, they are anxious to do that because they
look to us as their one opportunity for hope and for getting
out of the situation that they are in. So they think of the
United States in a very positive way, and I think that is a
very good thing for our image, and I think that helps us. And
as I said, the most important thing is that we offer--this is
an opportunity for hope.
Mr. Conyers. And, Mr. Edson, your work with State
Department gave you an opportunity to make a number of
improvements, and we are grateful to you for that. I wanted to
thank you. Could you discuss some of the things you got in
place while you were there?
Mr. Edson. Certainly, thank you. The program when it began
was a mail-based program and the amount of mail received was so
high that the envelopes were actually bar-coded on the outside
without being opened. Winners were selected sight unseen. In
the early years there was no way to tell how many entries were
being submitted by applicants, and, in fact, we knew through
sampling those first couple of years, there were large numbers
of duplicate entries, thousands of duplicate entries from
people who were just using technology and law firms and agents
and things to help them out.
The State Department was able to move to an electronic
application process at a time when people thought that Internet
penetration wasn't enough. That helped. The facial recognition
has helped. It was I think one of the earliest uses of facial
recognition technology in the government to look for duplicate
entries in the application process, and then some changes in
rules like the requirement to submit photographs with the--and
not the application but the lottery entry, the first stage,
they were required to submit a photograph. That limits some
identity fraud opportunities.
It is telling, though, if I can get off the track just
slightly, the bulk of the money spent on this program is to
fight fraud in this way instead of to administer the program.
And that is unlike any other visa work that we do, or we did at
State, where the bulk of the resources were spent helping
applicants get through the process. In this case it is almost
all fraud-related but it has been done.
Mr. Conyers. I want to thank you for your helpfulness and I
wanted to turn to attorney Kephart because, you know,
immigration as a field is a big problem in all of its branches,
don't you think? I mean, there is a lot of work to be done in
all the areas and there continues to be more work done in this
Ms. Kephart. Yes, Ranking Member Conyers, yes, absolutely,
you are right.
Across border security apparatuses, Mr. Edson was one of
the people I interviewed when I was on the 9/11 Commission, and
we went across the board, as you know, making lots of
recommendations and criticisms on border security. Our staff
monograph ``9/11 and Terrorist Travel'' is a long history of
problems with the immigration system, and there have been some
improvements in some areas for sure.
It is unusual for me, I have to say, to actually be in
agreement on eliminating something completely. And in this
particular case, when you run it through the rubric of our sort
of tiered-analysis we used on the 9/11 Commission, we said two
things that people up here know very well: Terrorist travel
documents are as important as their weapons are; and that we
must assure that people are who they say they are.
When you look at this, this is not just a nonimmigrant
visa. This is an immigrant visa. This allows permanent
residency. This allows you to go freely in and out of the
United States. So the vulnerability here is high. So for me,
the security aspect of it on the front end has to be very high.
Because that is not there, I think that is a vulnerability and
because we really can't--there are improvements in the system
for sure in the DV program.
However, the DV program is not strong enough to really
assure that people are who they say they are. And when we are
embracing state sponsors of terror, when we are embracing those
nations where we know there are radicalized populations, that
puts I think this on a cusp of--an unfortunate cusp of not
being a program that assures our national security and really
gets at the issue that this program is supposed to, which is
diversity and welcome mat to those who otherwise would not have
the opportunity to come here.
Mr. Conyers. Chairman, could I get one additional----
Mr. Gallegly. With the help of you and Mr. Pierluisi, I
made a commitment we would finish by 330. So I will be happy to
do that. Maybe you could help me, Mr. Pierluisi, to yield to
Mr. Pierluisi. I will yield a minute to the ranking.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. On a personal--I know you are representing
here today. But, personally, has your vast experience with
immigration issues led you to be skeptical, if not negative,
about the whole immigration system itself?
Ms. Kephart. Actually, no. I think that the immigration
system, as problematic as it is, has a lot of potential for
improvement, and that is how I look at it. You know, I look at
the southwest border and I see potential that we can actually
secure that border now. And I look at all the work that has
been done since 9/11 and the seriousness with which you all
took our recommendations and that gives me a lot of hope. I
think if I had thrown in the towel, I wouldn't be sitting here
Mr. Conyers. But you have given up on this one.
Ms. Kephart. On this particular one, yes, because I think
Mr. Conyers. We want to encourage you. We want to give you
hope and encouragement. We want to keep hope alive.
Ms. Kephart. I understand, sir.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Pierluisi.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Chairman. I will just make a
comment and then wait for your reactions. I just believe that
messages we send to the rest of the world are very important.
And by having this program, we are sending a message that we
continue to welcome immigrants from a diversity of backgrounds
and nations of origins, and that is an important message. We
have always been viewed as the land of opportunity and lots of
people would like to join us; and what is wrong with that?
I do agree that we have to make every effort to make sure
no terrorists take advantage of a program like this. We don't
want any of them here, but I see--and the stats do not support
this issue we are raising, because when I see the stats, close
to 800,000 people have come in using this program to our
country, and I can only see four cases of actual terrorists we
have spotted. Wow, four cases out of 800,000 people. That is
the first thing that comes to my mind.
Another thing, GAO, which was the last objective entity
looking at this, said there is no evidence of the program being
abused for purposes of terrorism. So I see that, too.
And then I see all these enhancements. So my reaction, my
gut feeling is, let us keep improving it, but let us not send
the message that we are basically closing this or, you know,
shutting this door on so many people that dream about joining
us and making this country even better.
So now I would like to hear your reactions. I guess I will
start with Mr. Young; but, obviously, my fellow Member here, I
would like to hear from you, too, Congressman Goodlatte.
Mr. Young. Shall I begin?
Mr. Pierluisi. Yes, I guess I said it in that order.
Mr. Young. I am with you 100 percent. I believe that the
program is important to what we try to do worldwide in terms of
who we are, what we represent, that we do offer hope. We give
people an opportunity to those who are successful through this
program to live with dignity and to realize their potential. We
think the program is good. It is valid. It serves our purpose.
We say do not eliminate it but let us work and find ways to
improve its imperfections.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Goodlatte, did you want to respond?
Mr. Goodlatte. I definitely do. Let me just say, as I
indicated earlier, I have practiced immigration law before this
program existed and, at that time, helped people to obtain
permanent resident status from more than 70 countries. So I
think that we already are, regardless of this program's
existence, the most diverse Nation on Earth and it is in part
because of our immigration policies. But if those policies are
designed to make this country better, we ought to take into
account who it is that want to come here, based upon needs that
we have in the United States, including needs to have the
people with particular job skills, and including the important
need to reunify people who have family members who are already
here. Those should be our priorities. And given the high, high,
high level of immigration we have, and given the problem that
we have with the levels of unemployment and so on, we should
not pick people to come here based on pure luck.
And I respect the millions of people who want to come here.
My concern is that basing your future upon whether or not you
have one in 200 or one in 300, whatever the odds are, the
chance of having your name picked out is like saying, I am
going to--you know, I am going to save for the future by buying
a lottery ticket every week. That is not the best way to
enhance your own life.
The program should be based upon people who have something
the United States needs and want to come here, we want them
here and they want to be here, not based simply on pure luck,
chosen at random.
Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentleman has expired. I want
to thank all of the Members for being here today, particularly
when everyone likes everyone, that always makes it a lot easier
for the Chair.
In any event, thank you to all of our witnesses and,
without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative, days to
submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
witnesses, which we will forward and ask the witnesses to
respond as promptly as they can so the answers can be made a
part of the record of the hearing.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit any additional materials for inclusion into the
Again, thank you all for attending today, and with that,
the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record