Of the Trump Administrations muslim ban, i would like to welcome the members of t the subcommittee and oversight and investigations to this hearing. We are happy to be working on this important issue with you all today. Id also like to thank all of the majorityminority members in staff of both subcommittees for coordination and flexibility while planning this joint hearing particularly given the cancellation of yesterdays vote, i want to note that because of the cancellation not every member is able to be here today, but i did make a point of talking to mr. Columns and mr. Buck to be assure that they would be okay with proceeding and they assured me that they were since mr. Bigg and zeldon will be here, we do appreciate that flexibility and our opportunity to learn more and to probe issues about this matter. I really do think the hearing in many ways is overdue for 2 and a half years the administration has been allowed to arbitrarily ban from predominantly muslim countries and no oversight, mr. Trump wants to ban muslims entering the United States,he suggesting without evidence that would somehow make our country safer. Followed through on his promise only to have it struck down by courts as unlawful. 3 months and 3 attempts and the incollision of a waiver process that appears to be something to create a version of the ban that allowed the Supreme Court to turn a blind eye to the religious animus. The administration claims that the ban is necessary and keep our country safe from terrorists and terrorists yet Bipartisan Coalition of former National Security offices concluded otherwise, according to albright, former senator richard and many others overwhelms evidence demonstrates the ban has failed to advance our our National Security in Foreign Policy interest and is, in fact, damaging those interests, moreover as we will discuss today the muslim ban keeps families apart, and false notion that bad actors are more likely to come fromn certain countries, this is contrary to our American Values and our Immigration Laws. In support of court casessaging the legality of the ban and why im an original cosponsor. The legislation would repeal all 3 versions of the ban and strengthen immigration and nationality act by prohibiting discrimination base on religion and limiting executive ability to issue future travel bans, today we also delve into the process and likely so since so many aspects of it remain a mystery. The department of state claims that around 5 of waiver applications have been approved but standards for granting behavior are inconsistently across and lack of established roplication process only leads to confusion caused by the inconsistency and lack of transparency. One thing we do know is that once an individual case is referred for a waiver chances are the language and administrative processing for months if not longer, we will hear from some individual who is have been stuck in limbo waiting for a decision. Victims of this policy for too long have endured separation from their loved ones, some of tthe individuals have missed te birth of a child, unable to start a family, have had to refuse job offers here in the agnited states, the wave of this magnitude must be placed on hold indefinitely unacceptable. Discrimination based on religion is unlawful and unamerican and until the ban is repealed i will continue to oppose it every step of the way. I want to thank chairman, the former Affairs Oversight investigation subcommittee for his work in making todays joint hearing a reality and also for his commitment toan holding the Administration Accountable for its policies actions and statements about the ban. I also want to thank our titnesses especially those who are here today to show how the ban has so deeply impacted lives. Although the Ranking Member of the subcommittee as i mentioned unable to attend todays hearing, i would like to recognize mr. Biggs for opening statement. Thank you, madame chair. I thank the witnesses for being here today, before i get into to substance of this, the title of the hearing today seems disingenuous to me f my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to be taken seriously in trumps immigration National Security related policies, then the least they dn do is have the titles of hearings accurately reflect the issue. My colleagues have decided to ignore the reality surrounding executive order titled protecting the nation of entry into the United States and instead merely the title of this hearingat today, of course, the7 rscountries in january 2017 tral executive order with those e untries specified by this yountry and the Obama Administration as countries of particular concern for terrorism pursuant to visa waiver improvement and travel a prevention act of 2015. A bill which the democrats allowed to be considered on the house floor under suspension in which only garnered 19 votes in opposition. As the United StatesSupreme Court noted about the subsequent proclamation, quote, the text says nothing about religion, end quote, covers 8 of the Muslim Population. The point of the travel executive order was not to ban all persons or religion to enter the United States, what was it . The point of it was exactly what the september proclamation stated in title, enhancing vetting capabilities and processes for detecting attempted entry to the United States by terrorists or other Public Safety threats. It is ironic that democratic colleagues Holding Hearing after 2 weeks of 18th anniversary of september 11thwe terrorist attacks, an attack in which Foreign National terrorists, exploited u. S. Immigration law to gain access in the United States for the sole purpose of killing thousands of citizens, we need to reflect that september 11th terrorists submitted 23 visa applications to the United States governmenti of which 22 were approved. They were approved despite blatant omissions and lies in the applications. It was clear after 911 that vetting and screening was insufficient. In the years since 2001 our vetting has remained insufficient enough to thats we issued immigration benefits to a number of vim who is were in National Security risk, for isstance, among others, we issued a student visa to terrorist that settled in texas and fiancee visa that went to california, late last week the manhattan u. S. Attorney announced indictment of u. S. Naturalized citizen on charges of being agent of hezbollah. He entered the United States in 2000 and naturalized as u. S. Citizen in 2008 despite having joined hezbollah in 1996 and despite being despite being operative, external Operations Unit and despite receiving training from hezbollah in 2004 and 2005, it is obvious our vetting and screening was not sufficient. Today we sit in hearing which colleagues intend to lambaste the administration. This president promised the American People he would dovein that, hes followed through. Of course, no vetting perfect. A fact that the administration recognizes, 9645 includes requirement that now annually secretaries of dh with secretary a state, attorney general, the director of National Intelligence update the president regarding procedures related to immigration screening and vetting, with the purpose of enhancing the safety and security of the United States. The initial executive order and proclamation based on e the president s power under section 212f as well as the president s Foreign Policy powers vested by the constitution. Made by proclamation over such period as deemed necessary and any cross aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants and oppose on aliens and any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. President s of both Political Parties have used many times. Proclamation 9654, 8 countries subject to temporary travel restrictions due inadequacy in pae countrys cooperation with the United States denty management and information sharing policies as well as the wrrorist presence within the countries, one of those countries chad, travel restrictions lifted just 7 months later after they improved sharing processes with the United States. The restrictions are temporary in nature. The travel restrictions for each country range from only restrictions to only restrictions on certain nonimmigrant, the state of hawaii to have travel grounds, the United StatesSupreme Court dreversed in finding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on their claim. Of course, i agree with those who agree with suggestions such as secretary of Dhs John Kelly that the implementation of the executive order should have been vetted. It was not rolled out well, communication among government partners was looking and there was confusion. The importance of the issue to National Security and thosehe affected the administrative the administration should have done better. But only my democrat colleagues would argue an opposition to heighten security and aliens, President Trump promised the American People as the administration would increase u. S. Immigration vetting and screening capabilities, he issued executive order to that effect. It brought revised executive order and president ial proclamation aimed at doing just that. He has been successful in getting the majority of the worlds country to allow access to information and actions have made it safer and that im grateful. I yield back. I turn to my colleague of the chair. Thank you members of both subcommittees, witnesses and public for joining us on todays hearing, first on muslim ban and long overdue. I have a deep love for the United States of america and, you know, as you think about it School Children all across this country every day state the pledge of allegiance and in that, they have struck me one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all, as kids we may not have known what that means, as we get older and we learn about the constitution, we learn about our values as americans, we learn its about those freedoms, those core values and part of that is freedom of religion and, you know, in this great nation of ours, we dont tell people which god to pray to or how to worship and that is, of course, what makes our country great. And when i think one of the first actions that President Trump took in his first daystr n office, profoundly went against those values and thats why you saw such outcry all across the nation because it does really smack against who we are, we have seen several iterations of that executive order, but, you know, as my colleague mr. Biggs pointed out, you know, this if we are to be objective and look at the threats and where terrorist threats are coming from and if the intent here was to keep us safer, we didnt see this imminent threat, if i think about, you know, my privilege now as a member of congress, im not a lawyer, im a doctor, and as such, you know, i wont argue the legal side of this one way or another, but i will look for the facts and that is our job and that is our constitutionalg duty as members of congress to conduct oversight. If we think about the Supreme Court ruling when s they chose t to dismiss the ban, im not going to say they upheld the ban but they didnt tosst the ban out, if you look at that descending opinion, Justice Briar suggested that if there was a waiver process in here that was not actually objectively being implemented, was that in fact, the muslim ban, in my oversight capacity as share, i want to know what that waiver process looks like. I appreciate that state department who provided data bua when i looked at the data, tens of thousands waiver applications only 5 have been granted. I want to know why 95 were denied. 95 of the folks trying to come to the United States for reasons, hardship or National Interest that they present National Security risk . Again, i want to know what happens when that waiver application is sent, you know, into this last box, embassy to washed, who makes the decision, what does the process look like, you know, what authority have our consulate officers been given. I think about this in the context of our most important job as members of the congress, not just oversight but arent the people who we work for, our constituents the people that we represent, i think about one of my own constituents omnia, omnia is a 2yearold and like many families in districts all across this country got stuck in this and let me share her story, her mother is an american citizen and happened to be in libya omnia was born, her father is libyan, 7 months pregnant and went to consul or office and wanted to come to the United States for second childs birth, the 2yearold was denied a visa. Now omnias mother was told to return to the United States, have her child and then come back to libya and let the process take place. I find it hard to fathom that that 2yearold didnt face dndue hardship by being separated from her mom. I find it difficult to fathom that the 2yearold presented National Security risk and i find it very difficult given the values that we care about in this country of keeping families you know, it, wasnt in that 2yearolds interest as well as National Interest to keep mother and child together, well, we were able to help out and able to reunite the family, but when i saw them in my office a few months ago, that child continues to have anxiety issues and separation, that isnt who we are as the United States of america, so ive talked to my colleagues, they have similar stories to share about their constituents, the numbers of itouses that are being kept apart, the number who want to see their children even temporarily who may be dying who are not able to come visit their children. The number of children who cant see their parents who may be dying, again, that isnt who we are, so i think all of us can agree that we have an obligation to keep our country safe, we have an obligation to have vettingbl process but part of wo we are is values of humanity, values of freedom and when you ban entire countries that really smacks against who we are in the United States of america, so i look forward to testimony of the witnesses, i expect answers to the questions and data about processes,nd denial, et cetera s well as approvals and, again, i look forward to looking with you, so thank you and with that that i will yield back my time. Happy to recognize oversight and investigations gentlemanrs from new york mr. Zeldon for opening statement. Thank you for the chairs and all witnesses that will testify today, proclamation 645, processes for detecting attemptingse entry into the unid states of terrorists and other safety threats, i wanted immigration process in the country that allows people to pursue the American Dream legally while also having process that prioritizes National Security. We must be mindful that bad actors are also looking to abuse this system. Onethird of the fbis one thousand domestic terrorist cases involve individuals admit intoed the country as refugees, its importanttt when allowing e individuals entering the United States that their documentation anding and interrogation ando not poster risk threat to the country, this becomes increased challenge in cases where sufficient documentation is less available especially because of the country they are traveling from. When the Supreme Court decided trump versus hawaii last year found that the president has the authority to exclude certain aliens from the country for National Security reasons based on the country these that they came from, the travel restrictions were limit today countries previously identified as posing a National Security risk by congress or prior administrations. Ids conducted thorough worldwide review and carefully identified 8 countries that contained a highrisk profile and ensure proper vetting, this includes basic information sharing requests by the u. S. Government to verify the address or previous residents of refugee or more importantly confirm association with known terrorist group in the region. Each country was treated differently based on thest circumstances with issues that range from failure to identify basic documents to high risk of terrorism heavens in each country. There were exceptions and waivers granted onns casebycae basis. For example, iranians are still allowed to seeking nonimmigrant student visa, countries such as chad and sedan improved and cooperation from