U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–425 PDF 2014

OVERTURNING 30 YEARS OF PRECEDENT: 

IS THE ADMINISTRATION IGNORING THE 

DANGERS OF TRAINING LIBYAN PILOTS 

AND NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS? 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 3, 2014 

Serial No. 113–72 

(Committee on the Judiciary) 

Serial No. 113–96 

(Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://judiciary.house.gov http://www.house.gov/reform 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

[Vacant] 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

Vacancy 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 3, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary ................................................... 3 

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Utah, and Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform ............................................................... 32 

The Honorable John F. Tierney, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Security, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ................................... 33 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 37 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 38 

WITNESSES 

Alan D. Bersin, Assistant Secretary of International Affairs and Chief Diplomatic Officer, Office of International Affairs, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43 

Janice L. Kephart, Founder and CEO, Secure Identity and Biometrics Association (SIBA), former Counsel, 9/11 Commission 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 51 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 53 

James M. Chaparro, Executive Vice President, Strategic Enterprise Solutions 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 67 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 69 

Frederic Wehrey, Senior Associate, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 76 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 78 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary ...................... 6 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John F. Tierney, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Security, Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform ................................................................................................................... 35 

Additional Material submitted by the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Commitee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 102 
Page

VI 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary ...................... 107 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary ................ 108 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 109 
(1) 

OVERTURNING 30 YEARS OF PRECEDENT: 

IS THE ADMINISTRATION IGNORING THE 

DANGERS OF TRAINING LIBYAN PILOTS 

AND NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS? 

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:37 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary) presiding. 

Present from the Committee on the Judiciary: Representatives 

Gowdy, Goodlatte, King, Lofgren, Conyers, Jackson Lee, and Garcia. 

Present from the Committee on Government Reform: Representatives Chaffetz, Bentivolio, Tierney, Kelly, and Lujan Grisham. 

Staff Present from the Committee on the Judiciary: (Majority) Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Dimple Shah, 

Counsel; Graham Owens, Clerk; and (Minority) David Shahoulian, 

Minority Counsel. 

Staff Present from the Committee on Government Reform: (Majority) Molly Boyl, Parliamentarian & Deputy General Counsel; 

Mitch Kominsky, Counsel; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Sang Yi, Professional Staff Member; Sharon Casey, Clerk; (Minority) Jaron 

Bourke, Director of Administration; Peter Kenny, Counsel; Chris 

Knauer, Senior Investigator; Adam Koshkin, Research Assistant; 

Julia Krieger, New Media Press Secretary; and Juan McCullum, 

Clerk. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and the Subcommittee on National Security will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. We welcome our witnesses today. I will 
2 

recognize myself first for an opening statement, and we will have 

a series of opening statements, given the fact that this is a joint 

hearing. 

The Administration is moving to lift the longstanding prohibition 

against Libyans entering the United States to work in aviation, 

maintenance, flight operations or to study or train in nuclear-related fields. Despite concerns expressed last November by Representative Jason Chaffetz and Chairman Bob Goodlatte, DHS 

moved forward with this change and sent the draft final regulation 

to OMB. 

Under the terms of the regulation, the removal of the prohibition 

will go into effect without prior notice and comment. We would 

have to trust the Libyan Government and the Administration to 

appropriately vet which Libyans would be allowed to learn to fly 

planes and study nuclear technology. 

The current prohibition was put into place in the early 1980’s 

after a series of terrorist incidents involving Libyan nationals. On 

December 2, 1979, a mob attacked and burned the U.S. Embassy 

in Tripoli; and on December 29, 1979, the United States designated 

Libya as a state sponsor of terrorism. 

In order to protect Americans, on March 11, 1983, the Reagan 

Administration implemented this rule to prohibit Libyan nationals 

or other foreign nationals acting on behalf of the Libyan entity 

from obtaining certain immigration benefits for the purpose of engaging and/or seeking to obtain aviation maintenance, flight operations or nuclear-related studies or training. 

While we have hope for a democratic Libya, the question we 

must consider today is, has enough changed to lift this longstanding ban? Why now is post-revolutionary Libya secure enough 

to justify and warrant the change? And let’s consider some recent 

events, if we will. The National Transitional Council has struggled 

to govern Libya effectively since the fall of Qadhafi. The majority 

of territory outside of Tripoli has fallen under control of armed militias that have refused to disarm. 

Just 3 weeks ago, on March 12, 2014, the Libyan prime minister 

fled after parliament voted him out of office. Militias based in 

Western Libya, notorious for their violence and independence, have 

launched an offensive against the Eastern rebels and what can be 

the opening shots in a civil war between Western and Eastern 

Libya. Without a central government, without any real power, 

Libya may be falling apart. Only 2 weeks ago, Libya acknowledged 

for the first time that terrorist groups were behind dozens of attacks against security services. 

The government issued a statement on March 19 saying, 

‘‘Benghazi and other cities are facing a terrorist war waged by Libyan and foreign elements who have hostile, evil agendas.’’ On 

March 20, Libya’s Government called for international help to fight 

terrorism that is threatening internal stability in the country. On 

the same day, a missile was launched at the Tripoli Airport runway, shutting down the airport. 

And finally, the head of Libya’s military police was assassinated 

in Benghazi in October while Libya’s first post-Qadhafi prosecutor 

general was shot dead on February 8, 2013. Unfortunately, these 

new reports indicate that the militias are getting stronger and not 
3 

weaker, so why is the Administration proposing to lift a 30-year 

ban on Libyans coming to the U.S. to train as nuclear scientists 

now? 

The Administration’s draft regulation justifies the change because the U.S. Relationship with Libya has been normalized. In 

November, my colleagues, Representatives Chaffetz and Goodlatte, 

wrote to acting Homeland Security Secretary Beers about this rule 

change and spelled out specifically the violent threats and actions 

against American antiterrorism operations in the country. 

And we cannot talk about the Libyan-American relationship 

without acknowledging the attack against the diplomatic post in 

Benghazi resulting in the murder of four Americans. How is this 

relationship normalized when our Ambassador was murdered in 

Benghazi 18 months ago and not one single solitary person has 

been arrested, prosecuted or brought to justice? It seems, therefore, 

unjustifiable to rescind a 30-year rule at this time. 

Why are we willing to risk, no matter the likelihood, chancing 

Libyan extremists for terrorists to come here to essentially learn 

the skills to commit acts of terror? So why in general, and why now 

specifically? What has changed? And the burden of advocating for 

change, in my judgment, in the status quo lies with the Administration. 

With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member Ms. Lofgren 

from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Based on the letters that the majority has sent to the Department of Homeland Security as well as the opening statement, I believe the concerns can be summarized as follows: The Libyan Government is fragile. There are extremist elements in the region that 

would do us harm. So we can’t lift the visa restriction because 

these people might somehow harm us. 

This argument, however, is illogical. 

First, as the Department of Defense, which initiated the request 

to rescind the visa restriction in the first place, makes clear, the 

whole point of lifting the visa restriction is to help the Libyan government defeat those very extremists. Members on both sides of 

the aisle, including Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey 

Graham, and Saxby Chambliss, have recognized the critical importance of helping the new democratically elected Libyan Government secure itself against militant extremism in the region. 

But the visa restrictions actually stand in the way. Because the 

restriction affects all Libyans, it means we can’t even train the proWestern forces within the Libyan Air Force on the aircraft they 

need to secure their own country against extremist forces. The Libyan Government’s ability to fight such forces depends on being able 

to move troops and equipment throughout the country, and the 

country currently uses Lockheed C-130 military transport planes 

and Boeing CH-47 cargo helicopters to do that. 

But according to the Defense Department, the fleet is aging and 

needs repair and replacement, and many more pilots and flight 

crew need to be trained. There are proposals to buy additional aircraft and parts from U.S. companies and to provide training to pilots and flight crews, but the visa restrictions stand in the way of 

those arrangements. 
4 

Members on the other side of the aisle may raise the unfortunate 

attacks on Benghazi at this hearing today, but that event actually 

underscores why we should lift the visa restriction. On the night 

of the attack, it was one of those very same Lockheed C-130 transport planes that the Libyan Government used to rescue and evacuate their surviving consular personnel at the U.S. compound in 

Benghazi. Rather than used against us, that plane helped Americans survive. 

Now, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle nevertheless raise the Benghazi attack, as well as other terrorist incidents 

within Libya, as grounds for keeping the visa restriction in place, 

we must keep in mind that there is a difference between the extremist forces behind these incidents and the pro-Western Libyan 

military that is trying to defeat them. 

And that is the point of lifting the visa restriction. The visa restriction simply does not differentiate between the Libyan forces we 

are trying to help and the forces we are trying to defeat. It bars 

friend and foe alike, and that just isn’t smart policy. 

That gets us to the second big reason why we should rescind the 

visa restriction: It simply isn’t needed to keep America safe from 

harm. We must bear in mind that the 30-year-old Libyan visa restriction is the only such country-specific visa ban of its kind. It is 

an anachronistic relic of a bygone era. 

If a ban were necessary with respect to Libya, which is not designated a state sponsor of terrorism since the Bush Administration 

removed them from the list in 2006, wouldn’t it be even more necessary with respect to countries that are actually designated as 

state sponsors of terrorism? Well, those bans don’t exist. There are 

no country-specific bans for Iran, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, the countries 

currently listed as state sponsors of terrorism, nor is there a ban 

for rogue nations like North Korea. And that is because our immigration laws provide plenty of authority to prevent the travel of individuals who pose a danger to the U.S. and its interests. 

Our immigration laws already require the denial of visas to persons with suspected ties to terrorism as well as anyone who is otherwise suspected of posing a threat to national security. Our immigration laws also require consular officials to deny visas for an individual whose travel raises significant foreign policy concerns. The 

same is true for any individual suspected of potentially violating 

the terms of their visa or admission to the United States. 

Over the years, including after the attacks of September 11, 

2001, this country has not seen fit to erect more country-specific restrictions like the Libyan visa ban. Instead, the U.S. moved in a 

very different direction, erecting bans that actually focused on 

whether the admission of a particular individual was helpful or 

harmful to U.S. interests. 

In other words, we adopted policies that allowed us to let in our 

friends and to keep out our enemies, rather than barring them all. 

Doesn’t that make more sense? But, unfortunately, sense is rarely 

what congressional hearings are about these days, and I am afraid 

we will see potentially some scare tactics and political attacks on 

the Administration. I hope not. I hope that my fear is not grounded. 
5 

I do thank the witnesses for joining us today, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. Before we go vote and come back, I would ask unanimous consent to put a couple things in the record. 

Number one, the Libya final regulation, final action notice from 

the Secretary of DHS, Janet Napolitano, former Secretary of DHS; 

February 1, 2010 letter to Assistant Secretary Heyman, from Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman; May 31, 2012, letter to Assistant 

Secretary Heyman from Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman; February 12, 2013, action memo from Mr. Bersin to DHS; April 1, 

2014, letter to Mr. Bersin from the Assistant Secretary of Defense 

Amanda Dory; March 21, 2014, letter to Chairman Goodlatte and 

myself from Brian de Vallance, Acting Secretary for Legislative Affairs of DHS; and finally, information from OMB showing the date 

the regulation was sent to them and that the review was extended. 

Because the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act include explicit exemptions for disclosure to Congress Members and 

staff of the House are not restricted in their use of the information 

provided by DHS. As is typical, the speech and debate clause also 

applies in this context. 

With that, I want to apologize to our witnesses—I am asking 

unanimous consent. Is there an objection from the gentleman from 

Utah? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. So admitted. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 

Mr. GOWDY. I will apologize to the four witnesses. We will vote 

as quickly as we can, and then we will come back and recognize 

the remainder of our colleagues for their opening statements and 

then you for yours. 

And with that, we are temporarily recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GOWDY. The Subcommittee will come to order and the Chair 

will now recognize the Subcommittee Chair from Oversight, the 

gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz for his opening statement. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the Chairman. 

I thank you all for being here today on this topic. 

I simply don’t understand. Who in the Federal Government 

wakes up in the morning and says, You know, what is in the best 

interest of the United States, what would improve the national security posture of the United States is to make sure the Libyan nationals can come to the United States and learn about nuclear 

sciences, that we have got to teach them about aviation? 

Like who actually wakes up in this country and says, this will 

be in the best interest of the United States of America; let’s teach 

the Libyan nationals about nuclear sciences? That makes no sense 

to me. None. 

Now, I am sure there are a lot of good and decent people there 

that are going through a lot of difficult things, but it does not mean 

that we should be actively pursuing the bringing of Libyan nationals to the United States to train them on nuclear sciences. 

We have got enough Americans that can do this. And as it relates to aviation security and aviation, we can teach them overseas. 

We don’t need to bring them to the United States of America to do 

this, where we don’t monitor them once they are here. 

I was very surprised to read the Department’s draft final regulation, Billing Code 9111-28, that stated, ‘‘DHS has determined that 

maintaining this regulation would no longer reflect current U.S. 

Government policy toward Libya.’’ I am curious to hear what exactly the Administration’s current government policy toward Libya 

entails. Of all the things in the world we have got to do and work 

on, this is what the Administration is working on, how to loosen 

up the visa requirements for Libyan nationals to come to the 

United States? 

Equally troubling to me was reading Mr. Bersin’s memorandum 

addressed to then DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on February 

12, 2013. In his memo, Mr. Bersin recommended that the Secretary 

take regulatory action to rescind Section 214.5 of Title 8 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. What is most surprising is that the 

memo postdates the tragic day in Benghazi when our country lost 

four Americans during a terrorist attack. 

We couldn’t even send our FBI into Eastern Libya for 18 days 

because it was so dangerous. We couldn’t get the intelligence that 

we needed. We couldn’t even get the FBI to go into that part of the 

country. And yet, we want to give those same people a visa to come 

to the United States to learn about nuclear sciences? Wow! 

However, not one mention of the chaos and violence in Libya is 

made in the memo. There appears to be zero consideration of any 

geopolitical concern in rescinding this 31-year-old rule that prohibits certain Libyan nationals from engaging in aviation or nu-
33 

clear-related training in the United States. Meanwhile, just last 

month, it was reported that the Libyan former Prime Minister Ali 

Zeidan fled after parliament voted him out of office. 

A North Korean oil tanker illegally picked up a cargo of crude 

from rebels in Eastern Libya, despite a Libyan government’s threat 

to detain the vessel. In Western Libya, militias launched attacks 

against Eastern Libya rebels, which could provoke a civil war. 

These events do not indicate a nation where things have been, 

‘‘normalized,’’ rather they seem to be ingredients of a failed state 

in the making. 

Another reason why the Department’s rescission of this prohibition in the CFR is so troubling is the lack of any prior notice or 

comment period. That is a deep concern. I have read the testimonies of the witnesses, and it seems that we are all in agreement: 

Libya is a very dangerous place, challenged by instability. And 

when looking at corruption indexes, Libya ranks 172 out of 177, 

making it the sixth most corrupt country in the world, if you are 

going to believe that index. 

I was in Libya in September 2012. I was in Libya again in November of 2013. I heard firsthand the security challenges of the 

country. I met with the deputy prime minister, who noted that the 

security situation in Libya is tumultuous at best. He referred to his 

government as an accidental government. It was the byproduct of 

removing an existing government, and he claimed one of the main 

obstacles to their progress was a police force, was the lack of a reliable ministry of interior, intelligence and internal affairs apparatus 

to help the police force. 

When we go to give somebody a visa, we rely on the host nation 

to help us identify that person and understand their background. 

That does not happen in Libya. Let’s be realistic. Muammar Qadhafi was ruling there for 40-plus years. They don’t have the infrastructure and the ability to deal with this. 

Now, there was some assertions early on in the testimony that, 

well, we need to train them on aviation. Well, then do it overseas. 

That is how we have done it in the past. There is this assertion 

that there is no prohibition against getting visas from state sponsors of terrorism and other countries. I want to sponsor that bill. 

It is a good idea. 

I want to sponsor a bill that says if you are coming from trying 

to get a visa from a state sponsor of terrorists, then you shouldn’t 

be able to get a visa here in the United States. 

And there are multiple restrictions on Cuba, Mongolia, North 

Korea, Vietnam, the People’s Republic of China, for all sorts of different visas. We have these type of visa—restrictions in Iran for 

people trying to come from Iran. So there is precedent. 

I don’t see, Mr. Chairman, the reason why we have to deal with 

this now, and I am glad to have this hearing. 

Yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Utah. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank our witnesses for being here today, as well. I am going 

to ask unanimous consent to enter my opening statement in its en-
34 

tirety into the official record and make just a couple of brief remarks. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. We are having a review of the attempt 

to define the bilateral relationship between our country and Libya. 

And both before and after the fall of Mr. Qadhafi, the Department 

of Defense espoused the need to lift the restrictions that we are discussing. 

In view of Libya’s challenges in building and stabilizing democratic institutions it seems advisable that we review whether or not 

the success of that country in transitioning has impacted its ability 

to meet national security requirements in a manner that strengthens or weakens the development of its armed forces and political 

process. 

Everybody agrees that there is greater political uncertainty now 

than there was perhaps in 2012, but if the Department of Defense 

security experts feel that military cooperation is a good idea, if they 

think it would help stabilize the government, then it would seem 

to make sense to me that we have the Department of Defense and 

their defense experts here to discuss whether or not the current political infrastructure is secure enough and reliable enough to warrant a cooperation that is being recommended. 

And I just think that is one of the faults of today’s hearing, is 

we don’t seem to have a full panoply of people that are making the 

recommendation, which I think would make ultimate sense, and 

therefore, the Committee Members are not going to get a full discussion of this matter, and I regret that. 

With that, I will rely on the rest of my statement that has been 

entered upon the record and thank the Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tierney follows:] 
35 
36 
37 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan, Past Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman. And we welcome Mr. 

Tierney to our ranks. 

I would like to make this observation, if I may. Namely, that the 

Department of Defense had asked the State Department and the 

Department of Homeland Security to rescind a dated 30-year-old 

regulation that is currently hindering U.S. interests in Libya. That 

regulation, which prevents Libyan nationals and certain other individuals from coming to the United States to study flight operations, 

aircraft maintenance and nuclear science, was put in place in 1983 

when Libya had training camps and supported terrorism around 

the world. 

Such a prohibition on visas for Libyan nationals may have made 

sense in 1983, but it does not make sense over 30 years later. If 

country-specific travel bans were necessary to keep us safe, we 

would have instituted them for other countries, like designated 

state sponsors of terrorism—Iran, Cuba, Syria or Sudan—and other 

countries, like North Korea. But we haven’t. That is because our 

immigration laws provide broad authority to restrict travel to individuals who may do us harm. 

The government already denies admission to anyone suspected of 

having ties to terrorism, anyone suspected of otherwise posing a 

threat to national security, anyone whose travel raises significant 

foreign policy concerns, and even anyone suspected of potentially 

violating the terms of their visa or admission to the United States. 

This kind of system basically allows us to keep in the good guys 

and keep out the bad guys. It is far superior to a system like the 

Libyan regulation that keeps out friend and foe alike. 

Libya, and our relationship with Libya, has changed dramatically 

since the regulation was promulgated in 1983. In the late 1990’s, 

Libya became an ally in the war against terrorism. In the years following, Libya condemned the 9/11 attacks against the United 

States, paid compensation for attacks it had been responsible for 

in the past, destroyed and surrendered its weapons of mass destruction, signed international treaties and protocols on nonproliferation and otherwise sought to return to the good graces of 

the international community. 

For these actions, the administration of former President George 

W. Bush ended sanctions against Libya in 2004. In 2006, President 

Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice removed Libya from 

the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Secretary Rice even said that 

the United States was resuming, ‘‘normal diplomatic relations,’’ 

with Libya. Based on those improving relations, the Department of 

Defense, not known for being soft on terrorism, requested that the 

Libyan regulation be rescinded. 

Libya’s ability to fight off extremist forces in the region, as well 

as the Arab spring and the Libyan civil war, put efforts to lift the 

Libyan regulation on hold. But once Libya established a new democratically-elected government, one that sought closer cooperation 

with the United States, the Defense Department renewed its request to lift the visa restriction. 

The principle reason for lifting the restriction is to help the Libyan Government fight a common enemy, extremist militants in the 
38 

region. Ladies and gentlemen, this is critical. A few months ago, 

Senator John McCain went to Libya and explained the critical importance of training the Libyan armed forces. He said, and I quote, 

‘‘I have met with the military here, and we are confident that we 

have plans now for training and equipment for the Libyan military.’’ 

Senator McCain noted that this support was critical for helping 

the Libyan armed forces carry out their security and border management tasks, tasks critical to beating the extremist forces in the 

region. But the current visa restriction prevents us from providing 

a great deal of this training and equipment, thus making it more 

likely that the extremists may win. 

I doubt that this is the outcome anyone here wants, and I thank 

the witnesses for joining us here today for this discussion, and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, gentleman from Michigan. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the 

Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank you and Chairman Chaffetz for holding this 

hearing. 

On February 1, 2010, then Assistant Secretary of State for the 

Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman requested ending 

the longstanding prohibition against Libyans entering the United 

States to work in aviation maintenance flight operations or to 

study or train in nuclear-related fields. Shortly thereafter, widespread unrest in Libya precluded the U.S. Government from engagement with Libya. 

The post-Arab Spring civil war in Libya led to the fall of the Qadhafi regime in August 2011, and Qadhafi was captured and then 

killed by rebel forces in October 2011. Following the revolution, the 

Obama administration once again began the process of ‘‘normalizing’’ relations with that country. 

Yet, on September 11, 2012, U.S. Ambassador John Christopher 

Stevens and three other State Department officials were killed 

when terrorists stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, 

and set it ablaze. A statement by U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the United States condemned the attack ‘‘in the strongest terms,’’ and was working with Libyan security forces to secure the compound. 

President Obama called the attack in Benghazi outrageous and 

shocking and vowed its perpetrators will face justice. ‘‘I have also 

directed my Administration to increase our security at diplomatic 

posts around the world,’’ Obama said. ‘‘And make no mistake, we 

will work with the Libyan Government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.’’ 

To date, no one has been brought to justice for these attacks. Instead and despite these attacks, on May 31, 2012, Feltman, along 

with Joseph McMillan, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

International Security Affairs, again asked DHS to end the provision stating the ‘‘outdated regulation does not reflect current U.S. 

Government policy towards Libya.’’ Unbelievably, the letter makes 

no mention of the attacks, acting as if they had never occurred. 
39 

Rather, as outlined in a February 12, 2013, memo from Alan 

Bersin, signed by Secretary Napolitano, ‘‘According to the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, there is a robust plan in place to encourage engagement and educational exchanges in coming years with the Libyan Government. The Department of Defense is attempting to initiate a program of aircraft sales, pilot training and ground crew 

training early this year worth $2 billion, the contracts for which 

would go to other countries if training could not be conducted in 

the United States. The Departments of Defense and State have 

made it clear that, absent its rescission, the regulation will significantly hamper these efforts.’’ 

On April 1, 2014, just 2 days before this hearing, the Department 

of Defense reiterated its desire to see the regulation lifted to Mr. 

Bersin. The memo from Mr. Bersin also fails to mention the attack 

in Benghazi, the first time an ambassador for the United States 

had been killed since 1979. The longstanding prohibition on Libyans was put in place to protect the homeland against serious 

threats from terrorists from a particularly unstable and dangerous 

country. 

The Obama administration argues that it is no longer needed. 

However, many of the characteristics regarding Libya that caused 

the regulation be put in place persist today. Regardless of any 

progress that may have been made following the removal of Muammar Qadhafi from power, many extremist and terrorist groups operate unfettered in Libya. 

Two weeks ago Libya acknowledged for the first time that terrorist groups were behind dozens of attacks against security forces. 

And on March 20, Libya’s Government called for international help 

to fight terrorism that is threatening internal stability in that 

country. That same day, a missile was launched at the Tripoli Airport. 

Four 9/11 hijacker pilots obtained their expertise in aviation primarily at U.S. flight schools. Do we want to risk Libyan terrorists 

learning how to fly airplanes in the United States? Given the desire of radical regimes and terrorists to obtain or build nuclear 

weapons or dirty bombs, do we want to possibly train Libyan terrorists in nuclear engineering? 

If the prohibition is lifted, not only can Libyan supposedly vetted 

by the Administration receive this training, but any Libyan can 

seek to do so. 

Ultimately, it does not appear that national security has been 

adequately considered in the effort to end the prohibition. It is uncertain whether our immigration system has sufficient integrity to 

ferret out applicant’s long-term motivations for receiving an education in sensitive topics from the United States. 

As a final note, we have long been seeking information from the 

Department of Homeland Security regarding the status of the rescission of the regulation and the role of the White House. We only 

received answers to some of the questions we asked after this hearing was announced. It is troubling that it takes such actions by the 

Committees to receive information from DHS that is vital for us to 

fulfill our legitimate oversight role. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the Chairman. 
40 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses. 

I am going to do my best to summarize and capture your backgrounds. If I leave something out, it is not because it is not important; it is because I am trying to get you out of here at a reasonable hour. We have your opening statements and then questions. 

I am going to introduce you en bloc, and then I will recognize you 

individually for your opening statements and hope that you do a 

better job than I did at staying within the 5-minute time period. 

The lights mean what they normally mean: Green means go; yellow 

means speed up; and red means stop. 

First, Mr. Alan Bersin currently serves as assistant secretary of 

international affairs and chief diplomatic officer for Department of 

Homeland Security, a position he has held since January of 2012. 

He oversees the Department’s international engagement and serves 

as the principal adviser to Secretary Jeh Johnson on all international affairs. Previously, he was the Commissioner of the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection. He has graduated from Harvard, 

Oxford and Yale, where he got a law degree. 

Ms. Janice Kephart—if I mispronounce your name, forgive me— 

currently serves as CEO of Secure Identity and Biometrics Association, a firm that works to create awareness and promote the value 

of secure identity technologies and biometric solutions. She also recently returned from the special counsel position with the Senate 

Judiciary Committee. Prior to that, she was counsel with the 9/11 

Commission and was the author of ‘‘9/11 and Terrorist Travel.’’ She 

holds degrees from Duke and Villanova School of Law. 

Mr. James Chaparro is executive vice president for strategy at 

Strategic Enterprise Solutions, an information technologies services 

and management consulting company that delivers cybersecurity 

technology and program management capabilities to better enable 

the government to accomplish their mission. Prior to that, he had 

a distinguished 26-year long career in Federal law enforcement in 

the national intelligence community. He has a bachelor of arts degree in political science from California State, University of Long 

Beach, and a graduate of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center in Glynco, Georgia. 

Dr. Frederick Wehrey is a senior associate in the Middle East 

Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His research focuses on political reform and security issues in Arab Gulf 

states, Libya and U.S. policy in the Middle East. Prior to that, he 

was senior policy analyst at RAND Corporation. He was also a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, completed tours in 

Turkey, Uganda, Libya, Nigeria and Iraq, where you earned the 

Bronze Star in 2003. We thank you for your service. 

He holds an M.A. In Near Eastern studies from Princeton and 

a Ph.D. In international relations from Oxford. 

With that, we would recognize Mr. Bersin for his 5-minute opening statement. 
41 

TESTIMONY OF ALAN D. BERSIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND CHIEF DIPLOMATIC OFFICER, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. BERSIN. Chairmen Goodlatte, Gowdy, Chaffetz, Ranking 

Members Conyers, Lofgren and Tierney. I want to assure you that 

we have not approached the subject of today’s hearing without 

careful consideration. 

Secretary Napolitano considered it carefully as is Secretary Johnson, who is taking great care to review this important issue. 

I share your commitment to the safety and security of our nation, 

and I would never undertake any measure that would place this 

country in jeopardy. I have never awakened on any morning with 

the intent to do so. My entire public career and public life is to the 

contrary. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have good reasons and prudent ones 

for changing this regulation, and I want to ensure you are comfortable with our thinking or that at least you understand the basis 

for the recommendation. I am also available to discuss this issue 

with you individually. 

Today, I would like to discuss why this is a sound policy from 

the standpoint of ensuring that we are issuing visas appropriately 

and safely admitting those who we allow to enter the country in 

accordance with congressional mandates that have been established after 9/11. 

In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security under then Secretary Napolitano agreed to formal request by the Departments of 

State and Defense to begin the process to amend the provision from 

1983, barring Libyan nationals seeking to study aviation maintenance, flight operations or nuclear-related fields in the United 

States. 

It is important to note, as have the Ranking Members, that 8 

CFR Section 214.5 applies only to Libyan nationals or other foreign 

nationals acting on behalf of a Libyan entity. There are no other 

DHS regulations similarly restricting nationals of other countries, 

including those that today remain state sponsors of terrorism. 

Much has changed since 1983. The most important change is 

that we suffered the attack of 9/11, and after that trauma, Congress legislated a whole series of security requirements in response. 

Notably, Congress did not adopt the technique embodied in 214.5 

of banning nationals of this country or that country. Instead, Congress adopted a case-by-case approach to be filtered through multiple layers and checks which is what we have proceeded to accomplish over the last 13 years. 

As a result, distinguished Members, the U.S. Government has 

exponentially expanded procedures for vetting immigrants, refugees and visa applicants. Today, our vetting process considers a far 

broader range of information than it ever has and certainly did in 

1983 or in the years before 9/11. 

In the absence of 8 CFR 214.5, Libyan visa applicants seeking 

admission to the United States for any purpose, to include aviation, 

nuclear-related training, would be subject to the array of visa security measures currently in place to protect U.S. borders from terrorist-related or other elicit travel. Each year, 365 people cross our 
42 

borders to visit this country for one purpose or another. Every one 

of them is subject to the restrictions and the layers of security that 

I look forward to discussing with you this afternoon. 

Interagency stakeholders, to include DHS, the Department of 

State, FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center and other intelligence community partners have constructed a visa-vetting processes that leverages state-of-the-art technology, expensive information sharing, highly skilled and trained officers and comprehensive 

interagency cooperation, all to facilitate legitimate trade and travel 

without compromising our Nation’s security. 

The Security Advisory Opinion mechanism is an interagency secondary screening process available to consular officers to provide 

supplemental advice and background information to adjudicate 

cases of visa applicants with possible terrorism or other securityrelated ineligibilities. Specific to the nuclear-related provision of 

214.5, Libyan visa applicants would be subject to a specific type of 

security advisory opinion known as Visas Mantis. The purpose of 

Visas Mantis is to ensure comprehensive interagency vetting to 

guard against improper technology transfers. 

Initially, in 2010 and then in 2012, the Departments of State and 

Defense formally requested that DHS rescind 214.5 to allow for 

comprehensive bilateral security with the Libyan government. I 

want to discuss with you today, and I look forward to doing so, why 

we at DHS felt that that would not jeopardize the security of this 

Nation or the safety of the American people. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bersin follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Bersin. 

Ms. Kephart. 

TESTIMONY OF JANICE L. KEPHART, FOUNDER AND CEO, SECURE IDENTITY AND BIOMETRICS ASSOCIATION (SIBA), 

FORMER COUNSEL, 9/11 COMMISSION 

Ms. KEPHART. Good afternoon, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman 

Chaffetz, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Conyers, Ranking 

Member Lofgren, Ranking Member Tierney and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittees. 

To be clear, I am not representing the views of the Secure Identity and Biometrics Association today, an organization I founded in 

February. 

I understand that DOD, DOE and DOS all have strategic reasons 

for wanting the Libyan visa ban on aviation and nuclear studies 

lifted and that military and diplomatic agreements are the usual 

course of business for the United States. However, when the immigration system is affected in such a contract, such situations must 

be treated with careful consideration. The immigration system is 

more than a token and a contract but a gateway to our great benefits and a core strategic partner in security. 

As such, I deeply appreciate Mr. Bersin’s testimony. He has illuminated much in major improvements to visa processing that support what we learned on the 9/11 Commission and since that time. 

Unfortunately, there is more than just process at stake in rescinding this rule. Remember, there is absolutely nothing in place 

legally when this rule is rescinded: no processing requirements, no 

caveats, no limits on only DOD-endorsed individuals having access 

to these visas, for example. 

Visas Mantis for high science visas like nuclear studies is discretionary. Flight school vetting for DOD-endorsed individuals will be 

waived, and we know the security concerns here are widely understood because of the 9/11 hijacker pilots, who obtained their expertise in aviation primarily at U.S. flight schools. 

Kingfisher counterterrorism automated vetting is not clearly required. 

PATRIOT vetting by ICE officers is not fully in place yet, and we 

don’t even know if it would apply to Libya. Any Libyan in any militia that is threatening the Libyan Government right now, Al-Qaeda 

or numerous dangerous elements in Libya, could apply that, but 

our intelligence simply can’t pick up where there are so many degrees of anti-U.S. sentiment. 

While I personally don’t think it is the right time for rescission, 

the foreign policy questions are for this body and Administration 

to jointly decide. What I want to do with the remainder of my time 

is pose some areas that deserve further consideration. 

Let me begin with the sensitive and dual-use technologies. Current law requires that nations actively sending their citizens to 

study nuclear and other sciences will not use that knowledge to increase a region’s instability, for one; or two, develop and transfer 

arms or sensitive technologies to terrorists. 

In Libya, we have both issues of concern. The region and the government are highly unstable and the Libyan Government could end 

up transferring sensitive technologies to terrorists under a lot of 
52 

different scenarios. The 1983 rule under consideration today requires that no detrimental security situation be implicated, but rescission will repeal that standard, too. 

Also, why does Libya want these students in the U.S. really? 

With a $2 billion military contract at stake, will these state-sponsored students have to work for the Libyan Government and in 

what capacity? Historically, for example, Iraq’s strategy was to 

send students specifically to study nuclear-related subjects in order 

to develop Iraq’s nonconventional weapons programs. One of these 

students received his doctorate in nuclear engineering from Michigan State University, then returned to Iraq to head its nuclear 

weapons program. 

Similarly, at least three Iranian officials suspected of developing 

Tehran’s nuclear program also reportedly studied in the United 

States. 

Libya reportedly sent students to develop Tripoli’s weapons programs prior to Qadhafi’s fall. 

In 2012, we banned Iranians from obtaining nuclear and energyrelated visas. The precedent set in 2012 represents not creating a 

detrimental security situation, which could be very well preserved 

in the current rule. 

And what do we really know about the individual Libyan applicants in a nation being torn by internal terrorist activity? For both 

nuclear and aviation applicants, it is unclear whether the Administration’s self-created Interview Waiver Pilot Program could apply to 

applicants under this rule. 

You may recall that the visa interview played a major role in our 

9/11 Commission recommendations and findings. The Interview 

Pilot Program enables the waiver of interviews deemed in the national interest, and there is the possibility that the national interest exception could apply to some of these Libyans. The result 

could be no robust security vetting, nor interviews for certain Libyans. 

In conclusion, there is no doubt that this rule could detrimentally 

provide access for Libyans to highly desired nuclear and aviation 

visas. However, if there is a decision to do so, I highly recommend 

limiting access of these visas to the original DOD request in the 

contract, mandating interviews, mandating Secure Advisory Opinion and Alien Flight School Program vetting, which is not mandated, using the student tracking to its utmost potential, and enforcing immigration law where appropriate. 

Thank you so much. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kephart follows:] 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. Chaparro. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. CHAPARRO, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, STRATEGIC ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS 

Mr. CHAPARRO. Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Members Lofgren, Tierney and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me 

to discuss DHS’ proposed decision of 8 CFR 214.5. I have spent 

over two and a half decades of my professional career strengthening national security in a number of key positions. 

I have served as a frontline special agent with the Immigration 

of Naturalization Service; the director of antismuggling at INS; 

special agent in charge with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the director of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking 

Center; executive associate director for Enforcement of Removal 

Operations at ICE; deputy undersecretary for intelligence at DHS, 

INA; and executive vice president at SE Solutions. 

My experience provides me with a deep understanding of threats 

and vulnerabilities impacting Homeland Security. I understand 

how our legitimate travel systems are continually exploited by 

those seeking to circumvent our security efforts, and I also understand the strengths and weaknesses of our IT systems that vet visitors as well as our enforcement capabilities’ strengths and weaknesses. 

I am extremely proud of the men and women who labor around 

the clock and around the globe to help protect us. I understand 

their challenges firsthand, and I feel a burning sense of urgency to 

help them. 

Once a state sponsor of terrorism with an aggressive WMD program, Libya is working hard to evolve to accepted norms of international conduct and governance. 

Despite the best efforts of Libya’s weak and unstable government, Libya remains a very dangerous place. Radical extremists 

within Libya, including factions of Al-Qaeda, continue to present 

genuine threats to Libyan security and to our own. Libya’s ineffective border controls cannot stand the illicit flow of people and 

weapons across its borders. In fact, the U.N. Security Council 

issued a statement last December urging the Libyan Government 

to gain control of the vast amounts of unsecured weapons in Libya, 

citing the risks of having those weapons fall into the hands of extremist groups. 

I commend the Subcommittees for holding this hearing. While it 

is clearly in America’s interest to strengthen relations with Libya, 

it is also in our interest to protect our own citizens at home. Rescinding 214.5 begs several questions: Does Libya have sufficient 

passport issuance controls, including effective anticorruption measures? Can Libya control its own borders to stem the flow of terrorists and weapons? Does Libya have the capability to conduct comprehensive background and security checks before it issues passports? Are the breeder documents used to issue Libyan passports 

secure? 

And then looking at our own mechanisms, how effective are our 

own border security screening tools? We have made progress, but 
68 

we have gaps. How effective are we at monitoring the compliance 

of foreign students in the U.S.? Have we provided sufficient resources to maintain acceptable levels of compliance, and have we 

implemented effective deterrence for those who failed to comply? 

How effective are our IT systems at pushing that necessary information to our frontline officers and agents? 

The GAO has found considerable room for improvement in many 

of our border security programs, including SEVP which is designed 

to monitor compliance of foreign students. DHS, as Mr. Bersin 

noted, has made tremendous advancements in screening foreign 

nationals coming into the U.S. including the collection and analysis 

of biometrics information, federated search tools, targeting algorithms and increased information sharing. 

But these tools are not a panacea. The tools have improved, but 

funds have been cut in operational programs, such as Homeland 

Security investigations and enforcement and removal operations, 

who are our boots on the ground actually enforcing the law and 

pursuing the leads that these tools generate. 

For example, when I was running intelligence at ICE, Department of Defense was bringing in Afghan nationals to United States 

for military training to support the Afghan military. And about 

once a week, one of them would abscond, which causes great concern because many had training in explosives or training in weapons and tactics. And so my point is that these are very resourceintensive operations. 

My two and a half decades of training and experience has taught 

me that when it comes to the safety and security of the American 

people, we should err on the side of caution. I would rather explain 

to the Libyan Government why we want a little more time to deliberate this important policy matter rather than sit before this Committee at some point in the future explaining something that went 

horribly wrong. I wouldn’t feel comfortable lifting the ban until we 

were satisfied with our answers to these questions, and I know and 

recognize it is a complex issue. 

I thank you for inviting me to testify and I am happy to answer 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaparro follows:] 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Wehrey. 

TESTIMONY OF FREDERIC WEHREY, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE 

Mr. WEHREY. Chairmen Gowdy and Chaffetz, Ranking Member 

Lofgren and Tierney and distinguished Committee Members, I am 

grateful for this opportunity to speak with you today about Libya’s 

security crisis and why a repeal of CFR 214.5 is necessary to give 

the United States the flexibility to assist the Libyan Government 

in its difficult transition. 

I visited Libya four times since the fall of Qadhafi in 2011, traveling to this country’s main cities, including Benghazi. I have spoken with a range of government officials, military officers, 

Islamists and militia leaders about the lack of security and what 

to do about it. Now, prior to this, as an officer in the Air Force Reserve, I served as a military attache at the Defense Attache Office 

in Tripoli in 2009 and again in 2011 before the revolution. 

Based on this service and my visits, I will offer some observations about why U.S. assistance to Libya’s military, especially in 

the aviation field, is so important for the country’s security. 

Now, much of Libya’s hope in bringing about a durable peace to 

its citizens lies in national reconciliation, a constitution, a functioning parliament and a government that can deliver services to 

its citizens. These are challenges where outsiders can assist by offering advice and modest assistance, but the ultimate burden must 

be carried by Libya’s leaders and its civil society. 

The security field is an area where Libya’s Government has 

sought outside help and where the U.S. is well positioned to assist. 

Libya desperately needs a capable military and a police to assert 

control of vast expanses of its territory and confront extremists 

bent on destabilizing the country and its neighbors. 

During my last trip to Benghazi in November, I was struck by 

the poor state of Libyan military units in that city, ill-equipped and 

lacking even basic body armor and secure communications. They 

are often indistinguishable from local Islamist militias. 

Aviation is an especially important part of the effort to bolster 

security across the country. But the Libyan air force is currently 

unable to perform even basic missions. Long neglected by Qadhafi, 

its aircraft are poorly maintained; flight training is inadequate; 

and crashes are common. The Libyan air force lacks the critical capacity to ferry equipment and personnel from one part of the country to another. 

Now, in response to a request by the Libyan Government, the 

U.S. has committed to train and equip a new Libyan national 

army, denoted in military terms as a ‘‘general purpose force.’’ 

Equipping Libya’s military with new lift and mobility aircraft, such 

as the C-130 and CH-47, is an essential element in the U.S. plan 

to help Libya secure its territory and confront extremism. 

So, too, is training a new generation of Libyan pilots in a secure 

U.S. location with adequate facilities and simulators. Training in 

Libya is unfeasible due to security conditions and the lack of facilities. CFR 214.5 stands in the way of this assistance. 
77 

Now, certainly, the effort to build Libya’s military faces challenges and difficulties. U.S. support to the Libyan military must be 

undertaken in a way that does not further polarize or destabilize 

the country. The U.S. must ensure that it trains a force that is respectful of human rights and subordinate to a democratically elected government. But to meet these challenges, the Department of 

Defense has to have the flexibility to meet Libya’s security assistance needs. 

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with a few words about Islamic 

extremism and the influence of Al Qaeda in Libya. 

Some observers have charged that the Libyan government has 

grown hostile to the United States and is under the sway of 

hardline Islamists. Much of this commentary is unfortunately 

based on a superficial reading of Libya’s complex politics. Certainly, there are pockets of Libyan territory that are rife for exploitation by local jihadists working with transnational Al Qaeda elements, but I want to emphasize that these actors remain on the 

fringes of Libya’s politics and its security institutions. Overwhelmingly, the country’s Islamists reject violence for political means. 

Like most other Libyans they remain committed to moving the current forward on a democratic path, and they welcome cooperation 

with the United States, provided it is done in a way that is respectful of Libyan sovereignty and built on a foundation of mutual trust. 

Mr. Chairman, the repeal of CFR 214.5 will help build that trust. 

It will pave the way for the U.S. to provide vital aviation assistance 

to Libya’s military. It is a small but important step in enabling the 

country’s elected government to protect its citizens and territory, 

combat violent extremism, and advance the hard-won gains of its 

revolution. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wehrey follows:] 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the 

Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, for his questions. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bersin, can you give us some more details about the $2 billion contract that you believe is at stake here? 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Chairman, the $2 billion figure that you quoted 

in the—from the memorandum was the information that, best information we had received from the State Department, the Defense 

Department in—at the time that the memorandum was composed. 

As you have seen from the letter filed in connection with this hearing, that number has been reduced based on the assessment of 

what assistance could be available to Libya. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And where was this assistance coming from? 

Mr. BERSIN. From the United States. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So we would be paying the Libyans to come 

here and be trained, not generating additional work from outside 

the country, additional resources to pay people in the United States 

to provide these services? 

Mr. BERSIN. I believe the reference in the letter dated April 1st 

related to hardware. Now I am not familiar with the budget lines 

that would separate between hardware that would be purchased 

and supplied and services that might be involved. I am simply not 

able to do that, although I am certain the Pentagon could. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. You issued a memo to Secretary Napolitano advocating for rescission of the rule that bars Libyan nationals from 

entering the United States. The memo you sent to Napolitano fails 

to discuss the attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, does not 

discuss recent terror threats coming out of Libya or the instability 

of the current Libyan Government. Do you think that any event 

would change the Administration’s mind about rescinding the rule 

when the death of a U.S. Ambassador did not and very heavy terrorist activity inside Libya right now does not seem to change that? 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Chairman, and respectfully, the attachments to 

the memorandum that was submitted with my memorandum to 

Secretary Napolitano did mention the tragic, horrible and unspeakably indefensible attack on our compound in Benghazi. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The attachment, but not the memo itself. So in 

the memo, you did not address those concerns? Why would that be? 

Mr. BERSIN. Because the issue that we were addressing was the 

request of the Defense Department and the State Department 

made to engage with those elements of Libya, the Libyan Government, with whom we could do business and who would be able to 

take actions in the—that would be in the interest of the United 

States. The focus of our request, because that is a policy judgment 

that was recommended by State and Defense, and we did not take 

issue with it, but the focus of our concern was on how we would 

issue visas and what protections existed to be able to assure that 

we could do so securely and safely. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But isn’t it true that if the regulation was lifted, 

there would be nothing in place to prevent any Libyan from seeking access to the United States for purposes of flight training or to 

study nuclear science? 
85 

Mr. BERSIN. They could, as is the case from, with the exception 

of Iran, from other citizens of sponsors of state terrorism in which 

there is no specific or overall ban, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I don’t want to get into other countries that we 

might want to add to that list, but I certainly don’t have a problem 

associating what is going on in Libya today with the same kind of 

concerns we have with what is going on in Iran today. And why 

would we want to reduce that list in a country that is having the 

kind of problems. It is disturbing to me. 

Mr. BERSIN. The ability to enlist and recruit those people who 

are known to our military and to our diplomats and to be able to 

distinguish between them and terrorists I think is a fundamental 

assumption here that is a good assumption. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Why didn’t you modify the regulation to provide 

that only Libyans vetted by the U.S. military could seek to do these 

things? Why do you repeal the entire regulation? 

Mr. BERSIN. Because of the system of vetting and the layers of 

security that exist, Mr. Chairman, we have confidence that we do 

this every day and that we could do this in this case. And with respect to the specific areas of flight maintenance and operations and 

nuclear-related fields, there are extra layers of security and vetting 

through which everyone who would be invited into the country 

would go through. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My time is running out. Let me turn to Ms. 

Kephart and ask her what she thinks about this. Do you agree 

with me that there is nothing that would prevent any Libyan from 

seeking access to the United States for purposes of flight training 

or studying nuclear science? 

Ms. KEPHART. That is correct. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The State Department recently updated their 

security vetting procedures to include a new system called Kingfisher. The system was up and running for nonimmigrant visas as 

of June 15, 2013, and functions for immigrant visas as of the first 

week of September of last year. The notice to rescind the regulation 

makes no mention whatsoever of Kingfisher, though the rescission 

notice was sent to OMB on January 1, 2014. Isn’t it crucial to ensure that Kingfisher processing is required for all Libyans seeking 

to study aviation or nuclear science? 

Ms. KEPHART. I agree, and I would also add that right now, 

under the draft language supporting the final rule rescission, everything, all the other security vetting is discretionary as well. 

There is mention of Visa Mantis for nuclear science, but it is not 

required. There is mention of the flight, the Alien Flight Student 

Program, but that is waived for DOD applicants, so, you know, you 

have got some loopholes in there that are pretty big, and I think, 

and PATRIOT also is not mentioned, either, the visa security vetting as well. So I think these are all really great measures that if 

they are in place would help a lot with this particular rule, but it 

is not even mentioned, and having it discretionary leaves too many 

loopholes, in my view. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My time has expired. 

Thank you, Ms. Kephart. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
86 

The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from California, the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is the Department of Defense that is really driving this proposal as best I can figure, and the letter that has been put into the 

record makes it clear that the Defense Department believes it is 

important to actually get this changed so they can strengthen the 

Western forces in the Libyan Government. 

Now, I asked my staff to check with the Defense Department to 

understand why in the Department’s view it is important to train 

Libyan officials in the United States, and if we assume that it is 

important, and I think everyone does, that we strengthen Western 

forces—I don’t think anybody is against doing that—why would we 

have to do it here? Now, what we were told is that the training 

that would normally be done, let’s talk about the pilots, has to be 

done under secure conditions, and that the simulators and training 

facilities that meet those security requirements are really only 

here, and that if the travel ban continues, the Defense Department 

would have to establish secure training facilities someplace else, 

which they haven’t done, and they don’t have the budget to do and/ 

or the material to do. Is that your understanding? I guess I should 

ask you, Dr. Wehrey, is that your understanding of what the crux 

of the problem is here? 

Mr. WEHREY. Yes, ma’am. There is—I mean, there is really no 

facilities to do it. Obviously, in Libya, they are in disrepair, security conditions. So it would have to be done in the United States 

or at a third country. I mean, I visited some of these air bases, and 

there is just no place. There is no infrastructure and then, of 

course, the security issue. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, Secretary Bersin, obviously, all of us want 

to have a safe country. We don’t want anybody who would do harm 

to the United States to be admitted to the United States. There is 

no disagreement on that point, I don’t think, among any Member 

of the Committee. The concerns that have been raised about our 

ability to adequately vet prospective Libyan trainees I think needs 

to be addressed directly. Do you think that the State Department, 

the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security 

can adequately screen who we want to receive the training in the 

United States? Are we up to that task, do you think? 

Mr. BERSIN. Ms. Lofgren, yes. In addition to that, there is the 

combined resources of the intelligence community, the National 

Counterterrorism Center, and the FBI and the Department of Justice. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, how—can you explain the process that DHS 

would use to screen out potential bad actors from Libya who might 

want to come and receive training here but really aren’t, they are 

not our side? How would you address that? 

Mr. BERSIN. In two specific ways. First is the standard visa vetting process that takes place with regard to all foreigners who 

enter the United States, and that involves being checked against 

massive databases that are maintained by the United States Government. These include the Automated Biometric Identification 

System, containing 160 million fingerprints; the FBI Next Generation Identification System, which contains 76 million criminal 
87 

records; the consolidated, consular consolidated database maintained by the State Department that has 109 million photos of visa 

applicants; the Consular Lookout and Support System that contains 27 million records of people who have applied for and been 

rejected for visas. 

In addition, Ranking Member Lofgren, there is the Terrorist 

Screening Center activities, in which we are constantly screening 

visa applicants against to rule out people of high risk. That is just 

at the front end. 

With regard to specific people who would be applying to flight 

maintenance schools or flight operations schools, there is a special 

Transportation Security Administration security check that would 

both validate the schools to which they applied, as well as an additional security check, based on biometric and biographic information. 

With regard to those who would be seeking to participate in nuclear-related fields, there is a special program called the Visas 

Mantis program—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. BERSIN [continuing]. Which would involve very specific vetting and a security advisory opinion that is geared specifically to 

that. After people would come to the United States, there would be 

a monitoring of their activities through the SEVIS program—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. BERSIN. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is pretty effective, yeah?. 

Mr. BERSIN. And there are other layers of security I would be 

happy to go into. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I think—I see my time has expired. I will 

just mention something I mentioned to the Chairman that years 

ago, when I was a practitioner, before this ban was in place, I had 

occasion to meet someone from Libya who had a post-doctoral degree in nuclear physics, and he was getting offers from all over the 

world, I mean, for his own lab to go develop nuclear programs for 

other countries, and the Defense Department was quite interested 

that he not go to those other countries, and we ended up getting 

a national interest waiver so that that Libyan could not leave the 

country and eventually did become an American and became an 

employee of the Department of Defense. So it is important that we 

have our friends here. And blanket decisions will not allow us to 

make those kind of fine decisions. I mean, for example, the idea of 

doing a blanket prohibition on visas to Syria, I mean, we have got 

Christians who are fleeing Syria and who are seeking refuge in the 

United States. Surely we don’t want to turn those people away. So 

I think it is important to use our decisionmaking in a way that 

serves American interests. 

Mr. BERSIN. Ms. Lofgren, if I might, the Congress itself made 

that decision in the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when restrictions on issuance of visas to nonimmigrants from countries that are 

state sponsors of international terrorism did not go to the ban as 

a technique but rather insisted that there be judgments made case 

by case, visa by visa before entering. And so this a—this has defined the way in which we approach this matter. 
88 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. 

And the Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Utah, 

the Chairman of the OGR Subcommittee, Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. Bersin, what is the driving need to have a Libyan national 

trained on nuclear sciences? 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Chairman, there are two policy judgments that 

are basically involved here. One had to do with the desirability of 

the engagement and the need to engage with those elements of the 

Libyan Government with whom our Defense Department and 

State—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But they don’t have any nuclear power plants 

there. 

Mr. BERSIN. That is a decision that was made, a policy decision 

that was made, and I can’t—I can point you to the letters on which 

I relied and the points that were made in those letters, but for reasons that are not clear to me, representatives of the Defense Department and the State Department are not here to respond. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you are going to provide to both the Judiciary 

and the Oversight Committee all the letters articulating the need 

for Libyan nationals to be trained on nuclear sciences as well as 

aviation? 

Mr. BERSIN. The ones that I have seen, yes, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And when will you provide those? 

Mr. BERSIN. You have the two letters plus the third that was 

filed this week that made reference to that request. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I still don’t understand for this Committee why 

the driving need to train Libyan nationals on the nuclear sciences. 

Let me also ask you, Mr. Bersin, why not issue a public notice 

and allow for a comment period? 

Mr. BERSIN. As you know, Mr. Chairman, in the letter from Assistant Secretary de Vallance to this Committee, the decision on 

whether or not to apply the foreign policy exception which would 

preclude the need for a hearing is a decision that is still under consideration, and no decision has been made, and the matter will be 

determined in due course. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I know it is not required in the regulation. Why 

not do it? 

Mr. BERSIN. The matter is being considered, and Secretary—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But you listed out all the different agencies that 

are allowing comment period. Why not allow the American people? 

Why not allow the United States Congress? Why exclude them? 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What is the harm? 

Mr. BERSIN. I have no official authority to make the decision. I 

hear you, and I don’t disagree personally, but my personal view is 

unimportant. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Who makes that decision? 

Mr. BERSIN. The Secretary would make it in consultation 

with—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What sort of consultation have you been in with 

the White House? 
89 

Mr. BERSIN. The National Security Council is aware of the request that was made by the Defense Department, the State Department, and is also aware that DHS has decided that given that policy direction, we can adequately and will adequately protect the 

American people. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What is your viewpoint of the status, what is it 

like in Libya right now? 

Mr. BERSIN. Libya is, as Dr. Wehrey described it, an unstable, 

dangerous, and insecure place. There is no question about that. 

That does not mean, from the standpoint of the Defense Department and the State Department, that we should stand back and 

not work with those people within the government that we can 

work with. Normalization does not mean secure nor does it mean 

peaceful nor does it mean halcyon; it means that we will engage. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So when we are doing these visa applications, you 

listed out a number of things that we look at in order to assess 

somebody’s viability, and you talked about the big databases we 

have. How many Libyan criminal records do we have in our database? 

Mr. BERSIN. Inside our databases, the FBI would not maintain 

criminal records unless it was collected as part of a previous case. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So the answer is zero. How many of—— 

Mr. BERSIN. It is not zero. Respectfully, sir, it is not zero. We 

would have to find out. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When will you give me that number? 

Mr. BERSIN. We will make inquiry because I could tell you as a 

former Federal prosecutor, if there were Libyan criminal cases, we 

would have those records in our database. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I am just wondering when you are going to give 

those to the Committee. You said you have those, you can get 

those. 

Mr. BERSIN. I will make inquiry. I don’t have them available 

now. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How many fingerprints, photos, terrorist screening centers? I mean, part of the issue here is the fact that you don’t 

have a fully functional host nation government. We have to deal 

with the fact that after a 40-year regime there under Muammar 

Qadhafi, they are not a functioning country at this point. You can’t 

get to—have you ever been to Libya? 

Mr. BERSIN. I have not, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. As a Member of Congress I have been there twice. 

I couldn’t even go to the eastern part of the country. And so if we 

are trying to assess an individual who comes from Darnah or pick 

anyplace, how are we going to assess that? We can’t even get there, 

let alone be able to work with the host nation government. There 

is no host nation government to work with. 

Mr. BERSIN. I understand that, sir, and I understand that many 

of our diplomats and particularly our soldiers go to places that are 

very dangerous. You could add to the example of Libya what is 

going on in Egypt today on occasions, what is going on in Yemen, 

what is going on as our soldiers are under attack in Afghanistan. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It doesn’t excuse or explain the idea that Libya 

is a very unique case. I see no urgency to try to get this through, 

particularly as it relates to the nuclear sciences. I wish the Admin-
90 

istration would work with Congress. I think we could probably figure something out. But what the Administration has done is 

worked with a whole host of agencies, except Congress. We send 

you a letter. Chairman Goodlatte sends you a letter. No response. 

And then we get some partial information back, didn’t answer all 

of the questions, and we have got to yank you up here for a hearing. 

Mr. BERSIN. May I say, in response to that, while we may disagree on many matters this afternoon, we do not disagree on the 

inexcusability of that late response. And I want to reiterate the 

apology that was contained in Secretary de Vallance’s letter, and 

I know because it was included, and you have been informed that 

Secretary Jeh Johnson, now in his 100th day, together with his 

chief of staff has put into place procedures that would not lead to 

that result. I, again, apologize for that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I appreciate your sincerity. I am 0 for 2 with him 

so far, but I do appreciate his leadership. I am glad he is in that 

role, look forward to working with him. 

Yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Utah. 

And the Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I basically think Ms. Lofgren covered most of the 

ground on this perspective, but Secretary Bersin let me just ask 

you, with respect to a review from an individual coming from Afghanistan to the United States, would their security check be the 

same as, less than, or more intensive than one for proposed process 

for Libyans? 

Mr. BERSIN. It would be the same unless there were special condition, and then it would be the additional security checks and layers that would be applied. 

Mr. TIERNEY. How about Yemen? 

Mr. BERSIN. Same, same answer. 

Mr. TIERNEY. How about Somalia? 

Mr. BERSIN. Same answer. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Sudan? 

Mr. BERSIN. Same answer. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Djibouti? 

Mr. BERSIN. Same. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. The 

Chair would now recognize himself. 

Mr. Bersin, I want to start by thanking you for your service as 

a Federal prosecutor and tell you what you have probably already 

picked up on, which is that I am a simpleminded guy, and I find 

myself in some instances having to piggyback on the equally simpleminded questions of Mr. Chaffetz. 

It strikes me that the prohibition would not have been put in 

place except for a desire to be punitive whenever the Reagan administration put it in place, right? It was designed and calculated 

to be punitive. So the lifting of it would be a reward. Is that fair? 

Mr. BERSIN. Well, I would never refer to the Chairman as simpleminded. 
91 

Mr. GOWDY. Everybody else does, it is okay. 

Mr. BERSIN. But the decision, sir, respectfully, was because circumstances have changed and because after 9/11, we have a completely different approach to the way in which we look at how we 

vet people coming into this country. 

Mr. GOWDY. I get that, but your position would be buttressed if 

this move were made more contemporaneous with 9/11. It has been 

quite some time since 9/11, and the move has not yet been made. 

Mr. BERSIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the engagement 

with Libya began in the Bush administration; 2003 and 2004 is 

when Libya renounced terrorism and renounced its use of weapons. 

President Bush sent an ambassador to Tripoli. In 2006, it was the 

Bush administration that removed Libya from the list of state 

sponsors of terrorism. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am with you. And Mr. Chaffetz said that part of 

his frustration was that there had not been a lot of consultation 

with Congress, which is not your fault, but nonetheless that is his 

perception. I want to tell you what my perception is because you 

seem like somebody I would be very pleased to have a conversation 

with about this. It strikes me that when you talk about normalization or what kind of countries, to use your quote, Libyan Government with whom we could do business, that was a quote that you 

used in response to another answer—question. And it strikes me 

that a government with whom I would be interested in doing business would be a government that has some semblance of a civil or 

criminal justice system. So I understand that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don’t want to go back to 

Benghazi, but it is tough. It would be tough in my district to explain to people why a government that can’t help us make a single 

solitary arrest in 18 months or a prosecution would be a government that we would trust to vet applicants to come to this country. 

How is that analysis flawed? 

Mr. BERSIN. Chairman, we don’t trust the Libyans nor do we 

trust any other country to do the vetting that we are required to 

do under the law, and we do that. When we can, through the intelligence community or otherwise, receive information on people because of inquiries that are made, we take it, but this is a responsibility of our government to do this. 

With regard to the state, I admit and concur with you that Libya 

is in a very unstable place. Dr. Wehrey, I think, outlined the considerations quite directly. But I can tell you as a vice president of 

INTERPOL, the international criminal police organization, that in 

fact there are many countries around the world, not only the ones 

that Mr. Tierney mentioned, but many countries that don’t have 

the rule of law established. We do everything we can to help build 

the capacity for that, but it is a fact of life so that when we invite 

someone to enter this country, it has got to be based on capacity 

and knowledge and data that we have. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I am not disagreeing with you there, but I do 

believe that having a normalized, whatever that definition may be, 

I am not a diplomat, but whatever that definition is, a normalized 

relationship between our country and another country is a reward 

or a benefit to that country. 
92 

It may also be a reward and a benefit to our country, but I would 

imagine that there are countries that want to have a better relationship with ours, and I don’t think it is asking too much that we 

tell that country, this is what we would like to see. And Benghazi 

leaps to mind. There was a schoolteacher that was murdered in 

Benghazi. It didn’t get nearly the attention that our diplomats and 

our Stevens and Smith and Doherty and Woods got, but a teacher 

named Ronnie Smith was murdered in Benghazi. There have been 

no arrests. I have heard nothing about it. If you are going to seek 

a reward from this government, which is how I view this, then I 

would expect to see something on your behalf, and a stable criminal justice system, which results in arrest and prosecutions, would 

be something I would be interested in. 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would also welcome the 

opportunity to discuss this with you in the aftermath of the hearing. With regard to the suggestion you just made, I urge you to 

take that up with the State Department in a similar kind of discussion. 

Mr. GOWDY. Oh, excuse me. The Chair would now recognize Ms. 

Kelly. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Doctor, I am glad you are here today because it would appear 

that you have firsthand knowledge of the situation in Libya and 

have knowledge from a military perspective training, why training 

Libyans may further security goals. What is your military expertise, and how did that lead you to your understanding of U.S.-Libya 

military relationships? 

Mr. WEHREY. Nineteen years in the Air Force, 9 years active 

duty, 10 years in the Reserves. I am what is called a foreign area 

officer. I speak Arabic. I served for 2 and a half months in Libya 

as the acting chief of security cooperation, where I was assisting 

the active duty defense attache, essentially spearheading this nascent training effort in 2009 that included English language training to the Libyan military, C-130 maintenance, so it gave me a 

sense of the Libyan military, their structure, their weaknesses, 

their shortcomings. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. You seem to be arguing that in order to maintain security within Libya, the central government needs a strong 

airlift capability, and currently, the Libyans have minimal capability in that regard with both aging equipment and aging pilots. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. WEHREY. That is correct. We are talking about systems that 

have fallen into real disrepair throughout the sanctions era. They 

are legacy U.S. systems. The pilots are aging. They need these systems really to project the government’s authority over a very expansive country, to include border control, an issue that the international community cares about, to include securing oil facilities in 

the far south of the country. The roads are in disrepair. So we are 

really talking about giving the government, the military, an essential military capability. And I should also add that the air force of 

Libya’s institutions or of its military services is among the most coherent and most pro-Western elements in the country. I mean, Air 

Force officers defected en masse during the revolution, entire air 

bases went over to the rebel side. These are Western-oriented offi-
93 

cers. They could not have gotten to where they are in Libya’s military if they were extremists or Islamists. Qadhafi made sure of 

that, so—— 

Ms. KELLY. So the airlift capabilities would help in maintaining 

security? 

Mr. WEHREY. Absolutely, yes. 

Ms. KELLY. And also you seem to be saying that in order to have 

a strong security force with airlift capabilities, DOD needs to be 

able to provide training to the Libyans. The current regulation 

CFR 214.5 is hampering that training. Is that accurate? 

Mr. WEHREY. That is accurate, yes. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. And can the Department of Defense sufficiently train Libyans in Libya do you think? 

Mr. WEHREY. I believe they can. I mean, obviously, this is an 

international effort as well. We have to remember that many of our 

allies have also committed to helping Libya’s military, the Turks, 

the British, the Italians, the U.N. is heavily involved, so it is really 

an international effort, and the Libyans I think welcome U.S. expertise, and they want this training. 

Ms. KELLY. So do you feel like they need to come to the U.S. for 

training or not necessarily, or there are practical limitations of 

training Libyans in Libya? 

Mr. WEHREY. Well, again, I think that is a question for the Department of Defense. My understanding, as was mentioned, that 

there are a number of cost issues and practicalities to having this 

training at a third country outside of Libya. Certainly it would be 

easier and more efficient to have it in the United States. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from Illinois. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 

King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this 

hearing and the testimony of the witnesses here today. 

And I would turn first to Dr. Wehrey and just inquire, your last 

trip into Libya was November 2013, and you talked about the presence of militia there. Hard to distinguish whether they were Islamic extremists or whether they were from other entities. Does 

the government of Libya have a full military and security presence 

in Benghazi? 

Mr. WEHREY. They have a marginal presence. They have a special forces unit there. They have infantry. They do have regular 

Army units. I mean, I visited the base of a Libyan military unit 

there in Benghazi. The problem is they are ill-equipped. They lack 

training. They lack essential communications. So they are competing with these other militias, so the way they control the city 

is by, in some sense, cooperating with these militias, and they can’t 

push too hard against them. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Somewhat like Beirut then, would that be similar? Have you traveled there? 

Mr. WEHREY. It is a very, I think, rough and I think, frankly, 

crude analogy. I mean, you do have—— 

Mr. KING. With Hezbollah standing on the streets in Beirut 

along with—okay, I will just skip away from that, and we will focus 
94 

on Benghazi for a moment. Do government security personnel, are 

they, do they openly patrol the streets? 

Mr. WEHREY. In places like Tripoli, yes. 

Mr. KING. Benghazi. 

Mr. WEHREY. Yes, and in Benghazi, they do. When I went to 

Benghazi, there were government military personnel at every 

checkpoint. They were out in force. 

Mr. KING. Where? 

Mr. WEHREY. The government has made an effort with what it 

has to patrol the streets, and I visited the country four times since 

the revolution, and in each visit, I have seen more and more uniformed police and military on the streets and less and less informal 

militias, technicals. 

Mr. KING. Tell me about your security detail there in Benghazi. 

Mr. WEHREY. I am sorry? 

Mr. KING. Your security detail in Benghazi, did you wear a bulletproof vest or helmet? 

Mr. WEHREY. I did not have a security detail. 

Mr. KING. You walked down the streets—— 

Mr. WEHREY. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And you were anonymous enough that you didn’t fear 

for your life? 

Mr. WEHREY. Yes. 

Mr. KING. Okay. What about the operation of militia or, say, Islamic extremism in places like Tripoli that might come from places 

like Benghazi, can you tell us about the instability in Tripoli? 

Mr. WEHREY. It is not really an issue in Tripoli. Again, the 

Islamist presence is primarily or the radical Islamist presence is 

primarily in the east, in Darnah. 

Mr. KING. Didn’t they once circle the parliament and shut down 

the parliament in Tripoli, and didn’t that force come from Benghazi 

and not—— 

Mr. WEHREY. Part of it came from Benghazi. Part of it was from 

Misrata. It was actually a diverse coalition of interests. There were 

people from the south, people from the west. I spoke to many of 

these individuals about what they wanted. I actually talked to 

them about what they wanted, and they were not doing it out of 

an Islamic cause. They were pressing the government for certain 

infrastructural requirements. They believed they needed to use 

force. It was not an Islamic takeover of the parliament. 

Mr. KING. Just I appreciate you willing to take this risk, not the 

risk of testifying before Congress, that is relatively safe, but walking the streets of Benghazi is not. And I would reflect upon after 

hearing the testimony here that this is a difficult question. We 

want to help stand up a security force and detail in Libya that will 

be our friend and our ally that can project force into all of Libya 

and perhaps beyond if called upon to do that. I hear the testimony 

that if we are going to have a Libyan Air Force, we need to have 

personnel that are trained to take care of the maintenance on that 

and to get that Air Force in the air, but it is not practical to train 

them in Libya, and I don’t know who has got the best answer to 

that question, but I would turn perhaps to Mr. Bersin on that. 

Why is it not practical? Who testified to that? Was that you, Doctor? Who testified that it is not practical to train them in Libya? 
95 

Mr. WEHREY. I did, sir. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Then I would direct the question to you, Doctor, 

please. 

Mr. WEHREY. Well, again, I would defer the ultimate answer to 

that to the Department of Defense. I mean, they do the assessments, but my understanding is there is very—I mean, the actual 

air bases are in a state of disrepair. There are certain air bases and 

certain facilities that are, in fact, under the control of militias, they 

have not been turned over. So have the armories. Something I 

didn’t mention was the fact that if you put U.S. personnel, boots 

on the ground, contractors, you introduce a dynamic I think that 

could undermine a lot of the goodwill that Libyans feel toward the 

United States right now. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Ms. Kephart, could you respond to that same 

question, please? I watch my clock ticking down here. 

Ms. KEPHART. Could—the last part of your question was the 

practicalities of training the Libyans here in the United States? 

Yes? 

Mr. KING. Versus that in Libya, yes. 

Ms. KEPHART. Right. I think the biggest problem you have is you 

have got an incredibly—you have got no infrastructure really with 

the government right now that can provide border security in 

Libya, so you really don’t know who your applicants are going to 

be. I think the infusion of a lack of intelligence about who you are 

actually dealing with is the big problem here. I think there is a 

concern about DOD and DOD being able to do its business, but the 

problem with this rule rescission is it is so broad that it could 

apply to anybody, and the militias that have been testified about 

here today all have access to those visas as well, so bringing them 

here creates the enforcement issues with immigration, as well as 

all the other security and counterterrorism issues that you all have 

heard about multiple times. 

Mr. KING. I hear your testimony on that, and I appreciate it. I 

know the light is red, but I would ask unanimous consent to yield 

to the gentleman from Utah for 1 minute or to the Chairman at 

their choice. They are talking. 

Mr. GOWDY. Will this be in lieu of a second round would be my 

question to the gentleman from Utah? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would like to simply make a point if my colleagues are okay with that. 

I think they are overstating the security situation in Benghazi 

and Libya. I just wanted to inject in here as you are talking about 

what it is like in Benghazi, let’s remember that Libya’s first postQadhafi prosecutor was shot and killed, let’s also understand that 

the head of Libya’s military police was assassinated in Benghazi in 

October, let’s remember that our U.S. SEALs had to board a ship 

that had gone into the port there in eastern Libya. I mean, we are 

having to deploy SEALs to go over and take care of business over 

there, and for us to suggest that, hey, it is just getting better, we 

see a few more police out there—can anybody here name who is the 

prime minister of Libya? You can’t because he had to flee. This 

place is falling apart. The military, the militias have over 8,000 

people in prisons. You have got another town in Libya where they 

had 40,000 people had to leave. You had an Indian doctor who was 
96 

assassinated. Consequently, according to press reports, 1,600 doctors have left the country. This place is falling apart, and we are 

over here trying to figure out how to get more Libyans into the 

United States to be trained on nuclear sciences. It doesn’t add up. 

Yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa and the gentleman 

from Utah. 

And the Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

First of all, let me thank both Committees for joining together 

on an important question, and I believe that we do ourselves a disservice to come to a hearing like this with a closed mind. 

We recognize that part of the engine behind the decision, Mr. 

Bersin, is a reality of the small world in which we live, and the 

question is, do we turn our backs and utilize the turtle theory, or 

do we answer questions from Members of Congress, legitimate 

questions, about breach of security that would result in a terrorist 

act on our soil? I think that is what my friend from Utah is suggesting, that we would allow individuals into the United States unchecked and that they would perpetrate horrors because, one, they 

would not be tracked. So let me say to you that I think the premise 

of this repeal of this particular regulation has value, but I do think, 

as someone who has been in the region, is on Homeland Security, 

I think we have just seen each other recently, I recognize that our 

ultimate responsibility, I just got through interviewing on the question of Fort Hood and the issue of whether we can protect our soldiers on domestic soil. Our soldiers are not supposed to be armed. 

We are a civilian government. But whether or not we can protect 

against this potential of happening. 

So let me ask this question to you: The title of the hearing is provocative. It says that we are going to be training nuclear scientists, 

and that raises an ugly head that we are going to be training people who will use nuclear bombs to implode. Why don’t you tell us 

what you think the impact of such a regulation will be? Is it your 

goal to bring over nuclear scientists? Can you kind of describe what 

kind of training and the level that individuals will be at, and then 

I would like to ask Mr. Wehrey—am I pronouncing your name 

right, sir? 

Mr. WEHREY. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. You were on the ground, and I want 

you, in fact both of you to answer the question that I think has 

been asked is, what will be our checks and balances? What will be 

our screening process? And I ask Mr. Bersin a larger question of 

the types of individuals that will come over. Let me yield at this 

point. 

Mr. BERSIN. Ms. Jackson Lee, the people that would be selected 

would not be a casual process. The Defense Department would select and vet those people who they would recommend apply for 

visas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The Defense Department? 

Mr. BERSIN. That is correct. At that point, the whole panoply of 

screening mechanisms that I described in my testimony would 
97 

apply to these particular individuals. So this would be a very carefully monitored and—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would this be a crowd of thousands? 

Mr. BERSIN. No, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so let’s just say if we framed it in that 

way, you would expect what? Because we have done training in 

Egypt, remember that was a longstanding relationship that we had 

with the Egyptian military, of course, over the period of time, and 

certain other countries in the Mideast, we have the Saudis trained 

over here. So what level of size are we talking about? 

Mr. BERSIN. I am unable to give you a specific number, but you 

are talking about a manageable group, not numbering in the hundreds or the thousands, that would be presumably affected by this. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And what would be the focus of tracking or 

maintaining the whereabouts of these individuals? 

Mr. BERSIN. There are, in addition to the security measures that 

would be applied and the vetting procedures that would be applied 

before they would be permitted entry, there is a process called the 

SEVIS, which is the Student Exchange Visitor Information System, 

that would actually require that a school continually update the 

status of that particular element. In addition, there would be the 

so-called Visas Mantis program that would be an especially rigorous security advisory opinion applied to those individuals. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me just say this, and I appreciate 

that. Being on Homeland Security, I know some of the fractures in 

that system. I would want the Department of Defense to commit 

to a collaboration with Homeland Security for a definitive way of 

respecting the dignity of these individuals, but even beyond the 

SEVIS process, because you are leaving it to colleges, and I think 

it would be very important. I think the process is important. 

Let me just ask this, are you specifically training people to be 

nuclear scientists? Are you calling them over and saying, I want 

you to be a nuclear scientist, to be a bomb thrower? 

Mr. BERSIN. I am unable to identify any particular case and tell 

you what that particular person is, so—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So it is not—the headline of the hearing says 

‘‘nuclear scientists.’’ That is not the whole label of what you are 

doing? 

Mr. BERSIN. We are certainly not bringing over someone who 

doesn’t know anything about atomic or nuclear physics, I think 

that is a fair assumption. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentlewoman yield? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be happy to yield if I could get—if I 

have the Chairman’s unanimous consent to allow me to have Mr. 

Wehrey answer my question and Mr. Bersin to just answer the 

question, I would be happy to yield, ask unanimous consent. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. 

Mr. Bersin, before I yield to the gentleman from Utah, what I 

was saying, Mr. Bersin, are you saying that you don’t know if they 

are going to be that or you don’t know the types of training or individuals, is that what you are saying? 
98 

Mr. BERSIN. I am not familiar with any specific application of 

people who have applied or who would apply or who the Defense 

Department may have identified as wanting to participate. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. So it is no glaring announcement that 

it has just these nuclear scientists. That is what I wanted to make 

sure. Thank you. 

Mr. Wehrey, and then I will yield to the gentleman. My question 

was on the idea—you have been on the ground, and the idea of the 

value of having Libyan, I will put the word students, but also the 

value of having them having some system of knowing who they are 

and where they are. 

Mr. GOWDY. You may answer as quickly as you can. 

Mr. WEHREY. That is absolutely essential, and I would defer to 

the Defense Department on that. I mean, they have to do the vetting. They have to do the screening. There are programs in place. 

My sense, again, I want to emphasize that this is about a partnership with a specific Libyan institution, the air force, that overwhelmingly has been pro-Western and supportive of U.S. objectives 

in that country. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you would support the importance of 

that? 

Mr. WEHREY. Absolutely, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Utah. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We are fine, thank you. I think we are—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Oh, you are getting your own time? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes, thanks. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just thank you very much and indicate in 

conclusion that we must be careful, but what we are trying to do 

is reestablish government in Libya. That is of concern to the 

United States homeland security, national security. And I think we 

have to be tough, but I think the door has to be opened carefully, 

cautiously, but we have to be responsible or responsive to trying to 

reconstruct a government. If that helps, we should do so. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from Texas. 

The Chair will now recognize himself and the gentlelady from 

California for 5 minutes for closing remarks. I will go briefly and 

then yield to the gentleman from Utah. 

Dr. Wehrey, I want to thank you for your service to our military. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chaparro, and you, Ms. Kephart, for your 

service to law enforcement. I know yours, I believe, was active, and 

you were with the 9/11 Commission, and I want to thank you for 

your service as a Federal prosecutor, which is very near and dear 

to my heart, and for your collegiality and expertise and comity, 

with a T, among yourselves and with the Members of the Committee. 

And Mr. Bersin, I would like to take you up on your opportunity 

to meet privately at your convenience because if there is a leverage 

point by which we can impress upon the folks in Libya the importance of the civil and criminal justice system and bringing those to 

bear, not just in Benghazi but also the teacher, I would love to talk 

to you about that. 
99 

And with that, I would yield to the gentleman from Utah. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank you, I thank all the panelists here, but 

to address what the gentlewoman from Texas brought up, the reason it is bringing nuclear scientists into the title of this hearing is 

the fact that based on what—during the Reagan administration did 

in 1983, the Department of Homeland Security is looking to rescind 

a prohibition of bringing Libyan nationals who are engaged in or 

seeking to obtain studies or training in aviation maintenance, 

flight operations, or nuclear related fields. That is what they are 

trying to rescind. The prohibition is there right now, and what is 

very telling about the answer is you know of no person, there is 

not one person that you are aware of that is trying to come here 

to get trained on nuclear sciences. Yet we are spending all this 

time and energy, all this effort to try to rescind it, and again, it 

begs the question that it sounds like it is best answered by the Department of Defense and the Department of State as to the need, 

the driving need to bring a Libyan national to the United States 

to train on nuclear sciences. That is what is mystifying to me. 

I would hope that you would carry back to the senior management, including the White House, but certainly within Homeland 

Security, I think it would be prudent to allow public comment and 

to allow the public notice, and then public comment and to better 

inform Congress of what you are trying to do. If there is a driving 

need, then I want to hear it, but we have gone through this entire 

hearing, and I don’t think anybody has adequately explained in 

this hearing on why we need to train Libyan nationals on nuclear 

sciences. It just mystifies me. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would you yield just for a moment? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Sure. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is just a moment. You have just said 

what all of us are saying, which is the State Department I believe 

is doing well and I think the Defense is doing well, is that they will 

generate answers to these questions that you have, and we should 

allow those answers, and finally you are reading a 30-year commentary by, under President Reagan. The gentleman from the 

State Department indicated that he has no known knowledge of the 

level of individuals that will come. I think we are really recognizing 

that we have to do something to rebuild that government, and the 

United States is very much a player in that. I yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time. I don’t think bringing people 

in to train them on nuclear sciences when they have no nuclear 

power plants is where we would start. We need some basic rule of 

law. The gentleman is from the Department of Homeland Security, 

not from the Department of State. I would also ask—and part of 

the reason we are having this hearing here today is that Chairman 

Goodlatte and I did issue a letter asking for a response and explanation, of which we didn’t get an answer, and I appreciate the gentleman’s apology to that effect. 

I would like to ask Mr. Bersin, under Executive Order 12866, the 

Department of Homeland Security is required to provide the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs numerous assessments regarding needs, costs, and benefits among other items in writing regarding to this rescission. Have you done that? 
100 

Mr. BERSIN. I would have to confirm that. I have seen OMB, Office of Management and Budget, documents to that effect, so I believe so, but I would have to confirm that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Would you commit to providing those to this Committee, these Committees? 

Mr. BERSIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And when would we—what is a reasonable—— 

Mr. BERSIN. I should say, because I am, I was a fair lawyer at 

one point, subject to whatever privileges. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Fair and lawyer are not very often used in the 

same sentence, but I get what you are saying. 

I remind the Chairman from South Carolina that I am not an attorney. 

Mr. GOWDY. Quit apologizing. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thought I was bragging. But we would certainly 

appreciate it if you would provide those to these Committees, and 

I do appreciate your perspectives on this. We obviously care about 

this and would like more information. Thank you. 

Yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Utah. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. 

I do think that we have managed to surface some useful information here today. You know, I think key to this issue is whether we 

are going to use the tools available to us to benefit our country or 

whether we are just going to use a blunt instrument that could do 

harm to our country. That is really the question before us. And 

when I think about, you know, normalized relations doesn’t mean 

that you have a relationship with a country that is normal. You 

think about the countries that we maintain some kind of connection with when it is advantageous to us, you know. In Colombia, 

they assassinated the supreme court. You know, the drug cartels 

tried to take over the entire country, but we did not say no one 

from Colombia can ever come to the U.S., even though they were, 

I mean, a basket case at the time because, you know, there were 

things that we needed to do, and in fact, we have helped Colombia 

turn the corner and defeat the drug cartels. And part of that was 

training their people, and you know, it is a success story that is 

not over with yet. But I mean, they are in much better shape than 

they were, and I think this, hopefully, could be a similar situation. 

I do think that it is a legitimate question of why would we have 

study in the nuclear field. I think it is worth pointing out that 

Libya as a nuclear, a former nuclear power, has weapons scientists 

there. They have nuclear weapons scientists in the country, or they 

did at one time. Historically, we have sought to take weapons scientists from potential enemies and teach them something useful to 

do, other than weapons scientists, because if that is all you know 

how to do, that skill is for sale in the world, and if you have something useful to do with that level of information, it is much safer 

for the United States. 

I would note also that we are not asking to repeal the deemed 

export rule, and for those of you who are not aware of this, the 

deemed export rule means that if you have got sensitive information and you have got a foreign national, they can’t actually study 
101 

that because it is deemed that you are exporting that sensitive information to a nation, hence the name deemed export rule. So this 

would seem to preclude, I think, bringing in new scientists to learn 

how to make new weapons. But you know, I think we would like 

to follow up with the Department kind of what the intentions are 

and if it really matches what I have described here, which I think 

so far as I have been able to learn, it does. 

And Mr. Bersin, let me—— 

Mr. BERSIN. Ranking Member Lofgren, I want to point out that 

after we have been talking about the Department of State and the 

Department of Defense, but actually, the Department of Energy actually also weighed in for precisely the reason you suggest. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. BERSIN. After, and I would have to get you the date when 

this began, but they started a Libyan scientific, scientist engagement program precisely on this notion that there are nuclear scientists in Libya as a result of the Qadhafi years, and it is in our 

interest to see that they get gainful employment that is not hostile 

to us. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I would yield back 

my time and go meet the people who are amassing in my office for 

a meeting. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. 

Before we adjourn, I would move, I would ask unanimous consent to move two things in the record. One is the statement from 

our colleague, Mr. Bentivolio, and the other is an article by Patrick 

Cockburn entitled, ‘‘Three Years After Gaddafi, Libya is Imploding 

Into Chaos and Violence.’’ 

[The information referred to follows:] 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 

Mr. GOWDY. With that, this concludes today’s hearing. 

Thanks to all the witnesses for attending. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional questions for the record for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:09 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 
(107) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary 

The Administration is moving to lift the longstanding prohibition against Libyans 

entering the United States to work in aviation maintenance, flight operations, or to 

study or train in nuclear-related fields. 

Despite concerns expressed last November by Rep. Chaffetz and Chairman Goodlatte, DHS moved forward with this change and sent the draft final regulation to 

OMB. Under the terms of the regulation, the removal of the prohibition will go into 

effect without prior notice and comment. We would have to trust the Libyan Government and Administration to appropriately vet which Libyans would be allowed to 

learn to fly planes and study nuclear technology. 

The current prohibition was put into place in the early 1980s after a series of terrorist incidents involving Libyan nationals. On December 2, 1979, a mob attacked 

and burned the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, and on December 29, 1979, the United 

States designated Libya as a state sponsor of terrorism. 

In order to protect Americans, on March 11, 1983, the Reagan administration implemented this rule to prohibit Libyan nationals, or other foreign nationals acting 

on behalf of a Libyan entity, from obtaining certain immigration benefits for the 

purpose of engaging in or seeking to obtain aviation maintenance, flight operations, 

or nuclear-related studies or training. 

While we have hope for a democratic Libya, the question we must consider today 

is: has enough changed to lift this longstanding ban? Why now? Is post-Revolutionary Libya secure enough to justify the change? 

Let’s consider some recent events: 

The National Transitional Council has struggled to govern Libya effectively since 

the fall of Qaddafi. 

The majority of territory outside Tripoli has fallen under the control of armed militias that have refused to disarm. 

Just three weeks ago, on March 12, 2014, the Libyan Prime Minister fled after 

parliament voted him out of office. 

Militias based in western Libya, notorious for their violence and independence, 

have launched an offensive against the eastern rebels in what could be the opening 

shots in a civil war between western and eastern Libya. Without a central government with any real power, Libya may be falling apart. 

Only two weeks ago, Libya acknowledged for the first time that ‘‘terrorist groups’’ 

were behind dozens of attacks against security services. The government issued a 

statement on March 19 saying: ‘‘Benghazi and other cities are facing a terrorist war 

waged by Libyan and foreign elements who have hostile, evil agendas.’’ 

On March 20, Libya’s government called for international help to fight terrorism 

that is threatening internal stability in the country. On the same day, a missile was 

launched at the Tripoli Airport runway shutting down the airport. 

And finally, the head of Libya’s military police was assassinated in Benghazi in 

October while Libya’s first post-Gaddafi prosecutor general was shot dead on February 8, 2013. 

Unfortunately, these new reports indicate that the militias are getting stronger, 

not weaker. Why is the Administration proposing to lift a 30-year ban on Libyans 

coming to the US to train as nuclear scientists now? 

The administration’s draft regulation justifies the change because the US relationship with Libya has been ‘‘normalized.’’ 

In November my colleagues Rep Chaffetz and Chairman Goodlatte wrote to Acting 

Homeland Security Secretary Beers about this rule change, and spelled out specifi-
108 

cally the violent threats and actions against American anti-terrorism operations in 

the country. 

And we cannot talk about the Libyan-American relationship without acknowledging the attack against the diplomatic post in Benghazi resulting in the murder 

of four Americans. How is this relationship ‘‘normalized’’ when our Ambassador was 

murdered in Benghazi 18 months ago? And not one single person has been arrested, 

prosecuted or brought to justice. 

It seems unjustifiable then, to rescind a 30 year rule at this time. Why are we 

willing to risk, no matter the likelihood, chancing Libyan extremists and terrorists 

to come here to essentially learn the skills to commit acts of terror? Why? Why now? 

What has changed? And the burden of advocating for a change in the status quo 

lies with the administration. 

f 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary 

Based on the letters that the Majority has sent to DHS, as well as their opening 

statements today, I believe their concerns can be summarized as follows: the Libyan 

government is fragile and there are extremist elements in the region that would do 

us harm, so we can’t lift the visa restriction because people might somehow harm 

us. 

This argument, however, is entirely illogical. 

First, as the Department of Defense—which initiated the request to rescind the 

visa restriction in the first place—makes clear, the whole point of lifting the visa 

restriction is to help the Libyan government defeat those very extremists. Members on both sides of the aisle—including Republican Senators John McCain, 

Lindsey Graham, and Saxby Chambliss—have recognized the critical importance of 

helping the new democratically elected Libyan government secure itself against militant extremism in the region. 

But the visa restriction stands in the way. Because the restriction affects all Libyans, it means we can’t even train the pro-Western forces within the Libyan Air 

Force on the aircraft they need to secure their own country against extremist forces. 

The Libyan government’s ability to fight such forces depends on being able to move 

troops and equipment throughout the country. And the country currently uses Lockheed C–130 military transport planes and Boeing CH–47 cargo helicopters to do so. 

But according to the Defense Department, that fleet is aging and needs repair and 

replacement, and many more pilots and flight crew need to be trained. There are 

proposals to buy additional aircraft and parts from U.S. companies and provide 

training to pilots and flight crew, but the visa restriction stands in the way of those 

deals. 

The Members on the other side of the aisle will likely raise the unfortunate attacks in Benghazi repeatedly at this hearing today. But that event actually underscores why we should lift the visa restriction. 

On the night of the attack, it was one of those very same Lockheed C–130 transport planes that the Libyan government used to rescue and evacuate the surviving 

consular personnel at the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Rather than used against us, 

that plane helped Americans survive. 

Will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle nevertheless raise the Benghazi 

attack, as well as other terrorist incidents within Libya, as grounds for keeping the 

visa restriction in place? We must keep in mind that there is a difference between 

the extremist forces behind these incidents and the pro-Western Libyan military 

that is trying to defeat them. 

And that’s the point of lifting the visa restriction. Like my Majority colleagues, 

it simply does not differentiate between the Libyan forces we are trying to help and 

the forces we are trying to defeat. It bars friend and foe alike, and that just isn’t 

smart policy. 

This gets us to the second big reason we should rescind the visa restriction. It 

simply isn’t needed to keep America safe from harm. 

We must bear in mind that the 30-year-old Libyan visa restriction is the only 

such country-specific visa ban of its kind. It is an anachronistic relic of a by-gone 

era. 

If a ban were necessary with respect to Libya—which is not a designated state 

sponsor of terrorism since the Bush Administration removed them from the list in 
109 

2006—wouldn’t it be even more necessary with respect to countries that are actually 

designated as state sponsors of terrorism? 

But such bans don’t exist. There are no country-specific bans for Iran, Syria, 

Sudan or Cuba—the countries currently listed as state sponsors of terrorism. Nor 

is there a ban for rogue nations like North Korea. 

That’s because our immigration laws provide plenty of authority to prevent the 

travel of individuals who pose a danger to the U.S. and its interests. 

Our immigration laws already require the denial of visas to persons with suspected ties to terrorism, as well as anyone who is otherwise suspected of posing a 

threat to national security. 

Our immigration laws also require consular officials to deny visas for an individual whose travel raises significant foreign policy concerns. The same is true for 

any individual suspected of potentially violating the terms of their visa or admission 

to the United States. 

Over the years, including after the attacks of September 11, 2001, this country 

has not seen fit to erect more country-specific restrictions like the Libyan visa ban. 

Instead, the U.S. moved in a different direction—erecting bans that actually focused 

on whether admission of a particular individual was helpful or harmful to U.S. interests. 

In other words, we adopted policies that allowed us to let in or friends and keep 

out our enemies, rather than barring them all. 

Doesn’t that just make more sense? 

But sense is rarely what congressional hearings are about these days. I’m afraid 

all we will see today are scare tactics and political attacks to try and hurt the administration. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us today and I yield back the balance of my time. 

f 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

On February 1, 2010, then-Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau for Near 

Eastern Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, requested ending the longstanding prohibition 

against Libyans entering the United States to work in aviation maintenance, flight 

operations, or to study or train in nuclear-related fields. 

Shortly thereafter, widespread unrest in Libya precluded the U.S. Government 

from engagement with Libya. The post-Arab Spring civil war in Libya led to the fall 

of the Qadhafi regime in August 2011, and Qadhafi was captured and then killed 

by rebel forces in October 2011. Following the revolution, the Obama Administration 

once again began the process of ‘‘normalizing’’ relations with that country. 

Yet, on September 11, 2012, U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens and 

three other State Department officials were killed when terrorists stormed the U.S. 

Consulate in Benghazi, Libya and set it ablaze. 

A statement by U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the 

United States condemned the attack ‘‘in the strongest terms’’ and was working with 

Libyan security forces to secure the compound. President Obama called the attack 

in Benghazi ‘‘outrageous and shocking,’’ and vowed its perpetrators will face justice. 

‘‘I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts 

around the world,’’ Obama said. ‘‘And make no mistake—we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.’’ To date no 

one has been brought to justice for these attacks. 

Instead and despite these attacks, on May 31, 2012, Feltman, along with Joseph 

McMillan, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, 

again asked DHS to end the prohibition, stating the ‘‘outdated regulation does not 

reflect current U.S. Government policy towards Libya’’. Unbelievably, the letter 

makes no mention of the attacks, acting as if they had never occurred. 

Rather, as outlined in a February 12, 2013 memo from Alan Bersin signed by Secretary Napolitano: ‘‘According to the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, there is a robust plan 

in place to encourage engagement and educational exchanges in coming years with 

the Libyan government. DOD is attempting to initiate a program of aircraft sales, 

pilot training, and ground crew training early this year worth $2 billion, the contracts for which would go to other countries if training could not be conducted in 

the United States. The Departments of Defense and State have made it clear that 

absent its rescission, the [regulation] will significantly hamper these efforts.’’ On 

April 1, 2014, just two days before this hearing, DOD reiterated its desire to see 

the regulation lifted to Mr. Bersin. 
110 

The memo from Mr. Bersin also fails to mention the attack in Benghazi—the first 

time an ambassador for the United States had been killed since 1979. The longstanding prohibition on Libyans was put in place to protect the homeland against 

serious threats from terrorists from a particularly unstable and dangerous country. 

The Obama Administration argues that it is no longer needed. 

However, many of the characteristics regarding Libya that caused the regulation 

to be put in place persist today. Regardless of any progress that may have been 

made following the removal of Muammar Qadhafi from power, many extremist and 

terrorist groups operate unfettered in Libya. 

Two weeks ago, Libya acknowledged for the first time that ‘‘terrorist groups’’ were 

behind dozens of attacks against security services. And on March 20th, Libya’s government called for international help to fight terrorism that is threatening internal 

stability in the country. That same day, a missile was launched at the Tripoli Airport. 

Four 9/11 hijacker pilots obtained their expertise in aviation primarily at U.S. 

flight schools. Do we want to risk Libyan terrorists learning how to fly airplanes 

in the U.S.? Given the desire of radical regimes and terrorists to obtain or build nuclear weapons or dirty bombs, do we want to possibly train Libyan terrorists in nuclear engineering? If the prohibition is lifted, not only can Libyans supposedly vetted by the administration receive this training, but any Libyan can seek to do so. 

Ultimately, it does not appear that national security has been adequately considered in the effort to end the prohibition. It is uncertain whether our immigration 

system has sufficient integrity to ferret out applicants’ long term motivations for receiving an education in sensitive topics from the United States. 

As a final note, we have long been seeking information from DHS regarding the 

status of the rescission of the regulation and the role of the White House. We only 

received answers to some of the questions we asked after this hearing was announced. It is troubling that it takes such actions by the Committees to receive information from DHS that is vital for us to fulfill our legitimate oversight role. 

Æ