[Senate Hearing 114-599]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-599
CANADA'S FAST-TRACK REFUGEE PLAN:
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 3, 2016
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-717 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
Brooke N. Ericson, Deputy Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
Jose J. Bautista, Professional Staff Member
Servando H. Gonzales, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Detailee
Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Stephen R. Vina, Minority Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
Holly A. Idelson, Minority Senior Counsel
Harlan C. Geer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Benjamin C. Grazda, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Johnson.............................................. 1
Senator Carper............................................... 2
Senator Booker............................................... 19
Senator Ayotte............................................... 22
Senator Tester............................................... 24
Senator Portman.............................................. 27
Senator Heitkamp............................................. 30
Prepared statements:
Senator Johnson.............................................. 35
Senator Carper............................................... 37
WITNESS
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Guidy Mamann, Senior Partner, Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell, LLP,
Toronto, Canada................................................ 4
David B. Harris, Director, International Intelligence Program,
INSIGNIS Strategic Research, Inc., Ottawa, Canada.............. 7
Dean Mandel, Border Patrol Agent, Buffalo Sector, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (testifying on behalf of the National
Border Patrol Council)......................................... 9
Laura Dawson, Ph.D., Director, Canada Institute, Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars.............................. 12
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Dawson, Laura, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Harris, David B.:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Mamann, Guidy:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Mandel, Dean:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 47
APPENDIX
Statements submitted for the Record from:
Church World Service......................................... 54
Disciples Refugee & Immigration Ministries................... 55
Gary Doer, Canadian Ambassador to the United States.......... 56
The Niskanen Center.......................................... 59
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from:
Mr. Mamann................................................... 74
Ms. Dawson................................................... 80
CANADA'S FAST-TRACK REFUGEE PLAN:
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Ayotte,
Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Booker, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. This hearing will come to order.
I want to welcome the witnesses and thank you again for
changing your flights and being flexible here because of our
snowstorm in Washington, D.C. It is kind of funny because I am
from Wisconsin. We are used to snow. People say, ``Oh, these
guys just cannot handle it''. I mean, let us face it. Twenty-
some inches of snow is difficult for any part of the country to
handle. I am kind of glad that it is melting pretty fast.
But, again, thank you for coming. I read your testimony and
I appreciate your thoughtful testimony. I am looking forward to
a good hearing.
Let me ask that my written statement be entered into the
record,\1\ without objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, I just want to start with a quote. We had a foiled
terrorist plot in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It was not Israel. It
was not Syria. It was not Afghanistan. It was not Iraq. It was
not San Bernadino. It was in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And the
foiled terrorist's name was Samy Mohammed Hamzeh. There were a
couple of confidential human sources--that is how they are
referred to--and in the criminal complaint, there are a number
of quotes from Mr. Hamzeh to these informants, and I just want
to read you the quotes.
``I am telling you, if this hit is executed, it will be
known all over the world. The people will be scared and the
operations will increase. This way, we will be igniting it. I
mean, we are marching at the front of war and we will eliminate
everyone.''
Now, this was a plot in the Masonic Temple in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Further in the complaint, Mr. Hamzeh says that he
would be 100 percent happy if he is able to slaughter 30 human
beings.
So, the purpose of this hearing is to take a look at the
potential threat. We have had 13 hearings on border security
here in terms of our Southern and our Northern Borders as well
as our maritime border. I think that the conclusion--and I
think that most of the Committee Members would agree with me--
is that our borders are not secure. You take a look at the
danger--the risk.
I mean, obviously, we have far more illegal crossings on
our Southern Border. Canada, generally, is not a threat. I go
fishing up there. You have great walleyes. I mean, I love
Canadians. We have a very special relationship with Canada. As
a result, we have a pretty unsecured border with Canada. It has
just never really represented much of a threat.
Islamic terror represents a threat. This is real. It is
growing. This is a legitimate concern.
We are all compassionate. We want to solve these problems.
But, we also have to, I think, recognize our responsibility,
which is doing everything that we can to keep our Nation safe
and secure.
And, so, I mean, the fact of the matter is that, when I
take a look at the history, the number of refugees that are
resettled in Canada since about 2005, the high-water mark was
35,000--but it is averaging somewhere between the 20,000 and
25,000-person range. Well, Prime Minister Trudeau now is
committed to admitting 25,000, and then 50,000 total, by the
end of 2016. That is a pretty significant ramp-up and over a
pretty short period of time.
In America, it takes somewhere between 18 to 24 months to
properly vet a refugee, on average--and that is from all of the
countries that refugees are coming from. It is far more
difficult to try and get the information--we have heard this in
testimony before this Committee--in a war-torn country, like
Syria. So, how can you do the proper vetting? How can we assure
that there are no shortcuts taken? And, that is really the
purpose of this hearing, to just let us lay out the reality.
Will there be shortcuts taken? Is that something that really
ought to concern Americans here, as Canada is really ramping
up--and again, all with wonderful intentions, being very
compassionate--admitting a much higher level of refugees than
they normally take in and at a much faster pace.
So, again, I appreciate the witnesses being here and I look
forward to your testimony.
With that, I will turn it over to Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, everybody. It is nice to see you. Thank you
for joining us today.
A couple of months ago, in November, our Committee held a
hearing right here on our country's ability to screen Syrian
refugees, and, at the time, there was a lot of unease over the
Syrian refugee population and the security risk that some
believe that they might pose to us in this country. We learned
a whole lot at that hearing that day. I will just mention a
couple of the things that we learned.
We learned that the screening for refugees takes place
wholly overseas before a refugee ever sets foot on U.S. soil.
We learned that the United Nations High Commission on Refugees
(UNHCR) narrows down the list of potential refugees long before
the United States ever considers a single application. We
learned that once we receive a list of pre-screened refugees
from the United Nations (U.N.), the State Department (DOS) and
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) still conduct their
own extensive vetting, and this vetting includes biometric and
biographic checks, health checks, and in-person interviews
conducted by immigration analysts who are trained to spot fraud
and deception.
We also learned that refugees are consistently vetted
against the full repository of U.S. national security
databases. And, we learned that our program focuses on the most
vulnerable refugees, mostly children and families. It is no
wonder that the security experts who testified before our
Committee that day said that the Refugee Resettlement Program
(USRP) is probably the last way a potential terrorist would try
to come to our country.
What I have said, anecdotally, is that a member of the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) would have to be crazy
or stupid to try to get here through our most closely vetted
program and wait 2 years to go through the most extensive
vetting process. Why would you do that when you have other
options to pursue--including, maybe, going to Canada. We will
find out about that today.
But, today, we are going to learn more about the Canadian
refugee program, and from what I can tell, it looks a lot like
ours. And, like us, Canada carefully screens potential
candidates while they are overseas. They also run their own
security checks. Indeed, those checks include systemic
consultation with the United States, vetting against our
terrorism and national security databases under information
sharing agreements that we have in place with Canada.
And, it is true that Canada is doing the screening faster
than usual--but that does not mean that they are doing less
screening than they previously have done. The Canadian
government has surged resources to speed up the time of refugee
processing and states, emphatically, that it is not cutting
corners.
In fact, all of the Members of this Committee recently
received a letter from the Canadian Ambassador to the United
States laying out the screening process for these refugees in
close cooperation with our own security and border agencies. I
would like to place that letter in the record,\1\ Mr. Chairman,
at this time. I ask unanimous consent for that, please.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letter referenced by Senator Carper appears in the Appendix
on page 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first group of refugees that Canada is reviewing is
restricted to families, women, and other at-risk populations. I
should also point out that, with very few exceptions, almost no
single fighting-age males are being considered in the first
batch of 25,000 refugees. Moreover, nearly half of the refugees
are privately sponsored--that is, families or organizations in
Canada have committed to helping them adjust to life in that
country and have even agreed to pay to support them for that
first year. That kind of arrangement can be, I think, very
helpful in integrating new arrivals and helping to safeguard
against alienation or radicalization.
Like our country, Canada has a long, proud history of
helping refugees. In fact, some of the Southeast Asian refugees
who were resettled in Canada in earlier decades are now
stepping up to sponsor Syrian families.
And, finally, it is very important to point out that it
would take 4 years before refugees living in Canada would be
potentially eligible for citizenship and the right to travel
visa-free to the United States. Until then, they would still
need a visa to come to our country and then they would be
subject to fresh screening against U.S. criminal intelligence
databases before they can cross our border.
In short, I think that we should support Canada, our ally,
in doing the right thing in the most secure manner possible
when it comes to Syrian refugees. And as we do that, let us
keep our eye on the ball. Vilifying refugees coming to our
country or to Canada only serves as a distraction from the real
challenges of defeating ISIS on the battlefield and combating
homegrown violent extremism (HVE) here, on our shores.
Providing safe haven for a few of the millions of people
victimized by ISIS and the Syrian war will not hurt that cause.
I actually believe that it helps us.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. We
welcome all of you. Thank you for joining us.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper, and that
letter from the Ambassador will be entered into the record,
without objection.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. It is the tradition of this Committee to
swear in witnesses, so if you will all stand and raise your
right hand.
Do you swear the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Mamann. I do.
Mr. Harris. I do.
Mr. Mandel. I do.
Ms. Dawson. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
Our first witness is Guidy Mamann. Mr. Mamann is a Canadian
immigration lawyer and the foundering partner of Mamann,
Sandaluk and Kingwell, LLP. Previously, he worked for Canada's
Department of Citizenship and Immigration and served as
Immigration Officer at Toronto's Pearson International Airport.
Mr. Mamann.
TESTIMONY OF GUIDY MAMANN,\1\ SENIOR PARTNER, MAMANN, SANDALUK
& KINGWELL, LLP, TORONTO, CANADA
Mr. Mamann. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson. Senator
Johnson, distinguished Members of the Committee, and ladies and
gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for inviting me here
today to discuss the security implications of and unanswered
questions about Canada's recent plan to resettle Syrian
refugees in Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Mamann appears in the Appendix on
page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I am sure you are aware from my biography, I am a
Canadian immigration lawyer who has dedicated his 30-year
career to bringing all kinds of newcomers to Canada, including
thousands of refugees. I very much believe that all countries
should do their utmost to help provide safe harbor to those in
genuine need of protection.
You have not asked me here today to champion the cause of
refugees, but to address your concerns about the security
implications of Canada's plan. To understand the security risks
associated with this plan, you must first understand the
context in which this plan evolved.
In the months prior to our Federal election this past
October, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party made it a major
part of their election campaign to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees
to Canada by the end of 2015. He won the election and became
Prime Minister on November 4, 2015. This left him only 57 days
to process and land 25,000 refugees as promised.
I was asked on national television if this was doable and I
expressed great doubt that it was. I knew that such
applications normally take about 62 months, and sometimes even
longer, to conclude. So, not surprisingly, the target was
missed when only 6,000 refugees arrived in Canada prior to the
December 31 target date.
To date, to complete the shortfall of 19,000 applications,
the target date has now been extended by 2 months. However, the
government has also announced that an additional 25,000
refugees will be brought in by December 31 of this year.
Accordingly, the initial plan for 25,000 is now doubled to
50,000 and the original estimated cost of 100 million has now
been revised to over 1.2 billion.
This is not a rescue mission--this is a resettlement
mission. The people who we are helping have already escaped the
conflict zone and have already reached safety in Jordan,
Lebanon, and Turkey. We are only relocating them and offering
them permanent resettlement. We are making no attempt
whatsoever to rescue people who are actually in Syria and who
are in imminent danger.
Accordingly, there is no apparent urgency to the situation.
Nonetheless, the self-imposed deadlines have been adopted. This
will undoubtedly put tremendous pressure on our security
personnel to complete their background checks by the target
dates.
Let me address some of the main security issues arising
from this plan, as you have requested. The Liberal government
has assured the Canadian public that no security steps will be
skipped and that all applicants will be fully screened before
arrival. The Canada Border Service Agency (CBSA), the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) have all stated that they are
up to the task. This was affirmed by the Canadian ambassador to
the United States, Gary Doer, who wrote to this Committee last
week in response to the scheduling of this hearing. I have no
reason, whatsoever, to doubt any of them. I have worked
opposite--but closely and cooperatively--with these agencies
for my entire career and I do not doubt that they will not
intentionally cut corners in order to deliver a politically
expedient result.
However, they will be under tremendous pressure to deliver
an unprecedented volume of work in record time. The performance
of overseas security checks is a highly specialized field and
it is difficult--if not impossible--to grow that skill in a
short period of time. Our government has already deployed 500
officials to Jordan and Lebanon to help with medical and
background checks. However, it is unclear what expertise these
people might have and might bring to the table as well as what
databases they may have to reference.
Furthermore, Canada closed its embassy in Damascus in 2012.
The information that we have is old and many of the government
offices in Syria that had reliable records have been destroyed
or have been compromised. In any event, background checks
cannot eliminate risk. They simply cannot tell us what will
happen in the future.
Second, to contain risk, the Canadian plan excludes single
men. The plan is only open to families, women, and children.
Again, this measure will certainly help to reduce security
risks, but it will not eliminate them. Case in point, the
Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 was committed by two adult
brothers who immigrated to the United States as refugees when
they were just children. As for women, women are increasingly
becoming involved in acts of terror. Again, consider the case
of Tashfeen Malik and her husband, who sponsored her to the
United States on a fiancee visa and who, together, killed 14
people in San Bernadino in December, 2015.
Third, I have been asked by your staff whether Canada's
private sponsors might help to mitigate security risks by
providing monitoring of the families that they have sponsored.
These private citizens are not trained nor selected for such a
role. They are simply good Canadians looking to provide
financial help and settlement assistance. They are not expected
to play any surveillance function.
Fourth, I have also been asked about the access that this
group of 50,000 might have to the United States. As you
mentioned, as permanent residents of Canada, they will not
qualify for your Visa Waiver Program (VWP), but will qualify to
become Canadian citizens in 4 years. Like all other Canadian
citizens, they will then be able to present themselves at the
U.S. border and seek admission right at the port of entry
(POE).
Having said all of this, as you may know, our respective
borders remain quite porous. Our checkpoints are only effective
with respect to people who choose to use them. Many going in
both directions successfully avoid our checkpoints every day.
Fifth, Canada passed some very controversial legislation in
2014 known as Bill C-24. It currently allows our government to
revoke anyone's Canadian citizenship for serious acts against
Canada, provided that the person is a dual national and is
convicted of offenses relating to spying, treason, or
terrorism. I do not believe that the United States has similar
legislation. However, Prime Minister Trudeau has now promised
to repeal those provisions once elected--and I anticipate that
this will be happening very soon.
The last, but certainly not the least, source of potential
concern is the demographics of this particular group of
refugees. When compared to other groups of refugees, one can
easily argue that this group represents a relatively high-risk
demographic. Syria is widely considered to be a major hotbed of
international terror. Large parts of the country are controlled
by ISIS, which, sadly, enjoys some considerable local support.
Virtually the entire country supports one of the three warring
factions: either ISIS, the Assad government, or the rebels. All
three groups have been associated with assorted atrocities and
violations of human rights.
By definition, refugees do not necessarily come to our
countries because they share our values. They come to our
countries because they often have no other choice. Whether or
not they possess or adopt our values is something that only
time will tell.
I would like to identify some unanswered questions for
Americans to think about, but I think that, due to time, I will
wait until the question period.
In conclusion, Senators, the extent to which we help
refugees and those in need defines who we are as a country.
Canada has decided to accept 50,000 refugees from the millions
displaced by the Syrian conflict. While I think that there was
a better way of handling some aspects of this initiative, the
cause of helping genuine refugees is a good one.
Having said that, there are unavoidable costs and risks
associated with this type of endeavor. Our government believes
that those risks are manageable. I know that we have
experienced and dedicated men and women in our security
agencies who are working feverishly to meet our government's
timelines. Whether or not our efforts will work out well in the
end, only time will tell.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you.
Our next witness is David Harris. Mr. Harris is the
Director of the International Intelligence Program at INSIGNIS
Strategic Research, Inc. Mr. Harris is a lawyer located in
Ottawa, Canada with decades of national security intelligence
affairs experience. Mr. Harris.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. HARRIS,\1\ DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM, INSIGNIS STRATEGIC RESEARCH, INC.,
OTTAWA, CANADA
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and honorable
Senators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Harris appears in the Appendix on
page 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Committee clearly appreciates, the new Canadian
government took office committed to fast-tracking the
resettlement of 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada between
early November 2015 and the end of that year. Complications led
the government to adjust the intake goals to 10,000 before the
end of 2015 and another 15,000 prior to March 1, 2016. By last
week, about 15,000 Syrian refugees had entered Canada. Recent
reports indicate that Canada is expecting to raise its target
level and take in 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016. I
will focus on the core 25,000 number for the sake of expediency
in the course of this statement.
Given the threat picture in Syria and the scale of intake,
security considerations, of course, require thorough attention.
First, recall that the U.S. population exceeds by nine times
Canada's 35 million population. Therefore, 25,000 refugees in
Canada would be the equivalent of 225,000 refugees in the
United States--all of this by March 1. Britain--almost twice
Canada's population--will take several years to admit 20,000.
And the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Director,
James Comey, has highlighted the screening difficulties that
America would face by admitting 10,000 Syrians. He warned that
information gaps could lead to inadequate screening. If the
extensive U.S. intelligence system would have trouble security
screening 10,000 Syrians in a year, how likely is it that
Canada--even with valuable U.S. assistance--could adequately
screen 2\1/2\ times that number in 4 months?
Canada's special fast-track processing of 25,000 Syrians in
4 months should be compared to the standard, non-fast track
process 13-month timeline for government-assisted Syrian
refugees and 27-month timeline for the privately sponsored.
Note that this 25,000 figure is roughly equal to Canada's
entire annual refugee intake, traditionally.
And, remember the risk context. Apart from the accounts of
suspected ISIS members, that ISIS aims to penetrate
international refugee streams, a Lebanese cabinet minister
warned in September 2015 that at least 2 percent of the 1.1
million Syrians in Lebanon's refugee camps--about 20,000
people--were connected to ISIS extremism. Canada takes refugees
from Lebanese UNHCR camps.
More generally, the Arab Center for Research & Policy
Studies' polls determined that 13 percent of Syrian refugees in
Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey--source countries for Canada's
Syrian migrants--had positive views of the Islamic State. How
many more might have favorable views of al-Qaeda, al-Nusra,
Hezbollah, the Assad militias, and other non-ISIS threat
groups?
In some cases, evidence for screening might be available
if, for example, a migrant's traces have been found on an
improvised explosive device (IED) in Syria or Iraq or where a
time-consuming investigation has connected the dots. But, how
readily can one gain access to a migrant's history when that
migrant is from a hostile or chaotic country? We cannot
reliably confer with authorities of such jurisdictions--
assuming authority exists-- about many prospective refugees.
It is suggested, in Canada, that risk can be mitigated by
barring unaccompanied adult Syrian males. But, people lie about
age. Additionally, many males and females below the age of
majority are in ISIS's ranks. Also, what effect would an adult
male embargo have on at-risk, adult gay and other males
targeted by terrorists?
Meanwhile, when favoring women with children and men with
families, do we know who is actually married to whom and whose
children are accompanying whom? Are some ISIS fighters'
families involved? Would they, in turn, sponsor relatives or
ostensible relatives?
Are there safety issues for existing North American
minorities in a mass movement from a homeland where the
demonizing of Jews is national policy and life-threatening
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persecution is a
crisis? And what of the importing of people from a region where
anti-black racism is an especially serious matter?
Beyond this, secret German government documents reportedly
claim that refugee numbers should be multiplied by a family
factor of between four and eight to determine how many more
migrants will ultimately be sponsored by current refugees. What
could future refugee to refugee chain sponsorship mean for
Canadian stability and border security?
We must also ask what security resources are being diverted
to the fast-track project at a time when security is already
burdened by an existing annual immigration intake of almost
300,000 people--one of the biggest per capita figures in the
world and at least double per capita American immigration.
In the past, there have been few newcomers to Canada who
were crossing the U.S. border for terrorist purposes. But,
failed millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam as well as Ghazi Ibrahim
Abu Mezer's 1997 arrest in his Brooklyn bomb factory remind us
of the cross-border risks. Concern also exists that extremists
could move north from the United States--about the chronic
problem of migrants with U.S.-granted visas from Syria, and
elsewhere, turning up in Canada and making refugee claims.
Greater transparency in Canada's Syrian refugee security
process would reassure Canadians and their allies. Fortunately,
the current Canadian government's stated commitment to
transparency gives hope that details of the Syrian refugee
security process will be made public. Indeed, the Canadian
government, through its Ambassador in Washington, may have
begun the process with a recent statement. The security-related
details should include the security criteria used during Syrian
migrants' security interviews, statistics regarding the
acceptance and the rejection rates, and the record of time
spent on the security investigation and screening per refugee.
There is little doubt that those in Canada tasked with the
job of screening refugees are doing the best that they can,
given the constraints. But, the constraints are significant and
we must be realistic about that fact.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Harris.
Our next witness is Dean Mandel. Mr. Mandel is a U.S.
Border Patrol Agent currently serving in the Buffalo Sector.
Mr. Mandel has served as a Border Patrol Agent since 2006, and
prior to his position, he served as Petty Officer Third Class
for the United States Navy. Mr. Mandel.
TESTIMONY OF DEAN MANDEL,\1\ BORDER PATROL AGENT, BUFFALO
SECTOR, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (TESTIFYING ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL)
Mr. Mandel. Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Carper,
thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify on behalf
of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC). It is truly an
honor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Mandel appears in the Appendix on
page 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NBPC represents the interests of 16,500 line agents
with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) Border
Patrol. My name is Dean Mandel. I am an active duty Border
Patrol Agent assigned to the Buffalo Sector. I joined the
Border Patrol in 2006, after having served in the U.S. Navy for
4 years.
We live in a highly connected world, and the tragedy in
Paris is, unfortunately, an example of how one country's
policies can impact its neighbors. As someone stationed on the
Northern Border, I want to be clear, what happens in Canada
matters to the United States. Whether it be Canadian policies
toward refugees or immigration, their decisions impact U.S.
security, given the size and nature of our shared border.
I started my career on the Southern Border, in Nogales,
Arizona. In Nogales, we had air support, fencing, cameras, and
a solid network of ground sensors. Although we never had
sufficient manpower, in an emergency, we almost always had
backup.
On the Northern Border, it is entirely different. Of the
21,000 agents in the Border Patrol, only 2,100 are assigned to
the Northern Border. When you take into account supervisors who
are not in the field, annual leave, sick leave, days off,
training days, and the fact that we work with a three-shift
rotation, we only have about 300 line agents guarding the
Northern Border at any one time. I would estimate that there
are approximately as many Capitol Police on duty right now
protecting the Capitol complex as there are on the entire
4,000-mile Northern Border.
On the Southern Border, we have one agent for every linear
mile. Each of these agents is made more effective by the entire
infrastructure of fencing, cameras, air support, and sensors.
On the Northern Border, we have one agent for every 13.5 miles
and we have much less of this infrastructure.
On the Southern Border, if you ask an agent, they will
probably tell you that, at best, we are 40 percent effective in
apprehending illegal aliens and drug smugglers. On the Northern
Border, I would estimate that the effectiveness rate is a
fraction of this figure.
I know that there is significant controversy regarding
Canada's recent decision to admit 25,000 Syrian refugees. In my
opinion, it is very difficult to gauge the risk posed by these
refugees and much of the risk will depend on the screening
process utilized by the Canadians.
Candidly, of greater concern to me, from a border security
perspective, are the over five million foreign visitors that
enter Canada, annually. Canada is a diversive nation and has a
per capita Muslim population three times our own. As a result,
they have major inflows from tourists and business travelers
throughout the Middle East.
Canada has a visa waiver system similar to ours, with 51
countries. The visa waiver system is a huge security gap
because it is operated under an assumption that if you are, for
example, from France, then you would pose no security risk.
Given the number of terrorist cells uncovered in Europe, alone,
this assessment of risk is completely false.
Starting in March, Canada will require visa waiver
travelers to obtain an electronic travel authorization before
being admitted. This is an important first step toward closing
the security gap and will decrease our vulnerability. However,
database checks are only as effective as the database, itself.
As we saw in San Bernadino, many terrorists simply are not on
law enforcement's or the intelligence community's radar.
For visitors from non-visa waiver countries, Canada again
has a system similar to ours. Applicants are required to submit
photos, proof of financial support, a return ticket, and a
police certificate from the country of residence. Although
Canada takes its immigration laws seriously, like the United
States, it also lacks a comprehensive visa-tracking system that
ensures that individuals leave the country.
Finally, there is the issue of homegrown terrorism.
Unfortunately, no country--including Canada and the United
States--is immune from this threat. Given that Canadian
citizens do not require a visa for visits less than 90 days, we
are relying heavily on Canadian law enforcement and
intelligence agencies to identify potential threats.
Canada is a valued partner when it comes to border
security. Personally, I wish that we had such a partner on the
Southern Border. However, we have failed to properly invest in
our Northern Border. As a result, we are gambling that Canadian
law enforcement and intelligence effectively uncover domestic
terror cells and screen over five million visitors, annually,
for threats. As an American, the idea that we would rely so
heavily on a foreign government--even one as friendly,
professional, and competent as Canada--concerns me.
Please remember that the Paris attackers organized their
operation in Belgium, right under the noses of the Belgian
security services. They were able to do this because the
Belgian security services had been underfunded for years--
despite the fact that it was common knowledge that, on a per
capita basis, Belgians supplied more foreign fighters to ISIS
than any other European Union (E.U.) country.
Northern Border Patrol Agents apprehend over 3,000
individuals, annually. Given that we only have about 300 agents
per shift covering almost 4,000 miles of border, I think that
we are doing a good job with what we have. The problem is that
we simply do not have enough manpower. We have more agents in
El Paso than we have on the entire Northern Border.
The NBPC believes that the current force level of 2,100
agents needs to be augmented by another 1,500 on our Northern
Border. This additional manpower will help to decrease our
almost complete reliance on Canadian law enforcement and
intelligence agencies for our security.
Thank you again. I look forward to answering any questions
that you may have.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Mandel.
Our final witness is Dr. Laura Dawson. Dr. Dawson is the
Director of the Canada Institute at the Wilson Center.
Previously, she served as a Senior Advisor on Economic Affairs
at the United States Embassy in Ottawa. Dr. Dawson has taught
U.S.-Canada relations at the Canadian School of Public Service
and at Carleton University. Dr. Dawson.
TESTIMONY OF LAURA DAWSON, PH.D.,\1\ DIRECTOR, CANADA
INSTITUTE, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
Ms. Dawson. Thank you so much, Senator Johnson,
distinguished members of this panel, Members of the Committee,
and ladies and gentlemen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Dawson appears in the Appendix on
page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As pointed out in the introduction, I have worked on
Canada-U.S. relations for more than 20 years as a professor and
as a policy analyst. I have advised the United States and
Canadian governments on Canada-U.S. relations. For 3 years, I
worked as a Canadian analyst at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, so
I watched every day the extent of Canada-U.S. cooperation on a
range of issues. And, most recently, I became the Director of
the Canada Institute at the Wilson Center, where our work is
focused on Canada-U.S. relations. And, while I work at the
Wilson Center, I live in Washington, D.C., so I am going to
apologize in advance because I am going to say ``We
Canadians,'' even though I am a very proud D.C. resident now.
Canada has no greater friend or ally than the United
States, and that is a responsibility that Canada takes very
seriously. Canadian policies are going to differ from those of
the United States from time to time. We are two sovereign
countries. It is certain to happen. But, where we are aligned
is the attention to shared security and to the safety of all
citizens in our territories. That is a guiding principle of
Canadian policymaking.
U.S.-Canada information sharing and security cooperation is
unmatched between any two countries in the world--hearing about
Belgium and hearing about France. With our framework of
agreements on security, border, and law enforcement, Canadian-
U.S. officials communicate directly with each other every
single day and have well-developed institutional and personal
relationships. They are picking up the telephone. There is not
a diplomatic note required. You do not need to send a
diplomatic envoy. They are picking up the phone and they are
talking to each other many times a day.
At the embassy, it is required that foreign visitors--U.S.
Government officials from the United States--register with the
U.S. Embassy in the foreign country that they are going to
visit--and they get tens or hundreds of visits a year. In
Canada, there are thousands and thousands of U.S. officials who
come every year for cooperation, for meetings, for dialogues,
and for joint programming. Please keep in mind that it is a
different relationship with Canada.
September 11 (9/11) was a catalyst for a new security and
cooperation paradigm in Canada. Canadians recognize very
seriously that an attack on one is an attack on all. The post-
9/11 security measures that were implemented, like the 2007
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), were taken very
seriously. Canadians did not question new security mechanisms,
new security screening, and new equipment that was required by
the United States. They just went ahead and did it because that
was what we needed to do. And under the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative, no one crosses our borders without a
passport or an equivalent proof of security.
We have heard about the porous border--and you are right.
We have great lakes and great fishing, and hundreds of miles of
the Canada-U.S. border is actually underwater. I do not know
how you build a wall underwater. We have pieces of the border
that stretch through mountains.
So, what do we do about securing that border? What do we do
about ensuring our security north and south? And, so, the
principle of perimeter security is really important to keep in
mind--and we do not hear about this enough. The 2011 ``Beyond
the Border Initiative'' that was launched by Prime Minister
Harper and President Obama is based on securing our joint
perimeter. Rather than having to do so much at the land
border--and, I agree, Mr. Mandel needs more reserves--we push
out our joint screening and joint verification to our shared
territory, so to our air, marine, and rail. We want to have
full interoperability so that you, as Americans, can be sure
that someone coming into Vancouver or someone coming into
Halifax has the utmost level of screening and that this
security reaches your level.
So, I have been really impressed by this ``Beyond the
Border Initiative'' and I would like to see it continue. I
would like to see Congressional attention paid to it to ensure
that the ``Beyond the Border Perimeter Initiative'' is a matter
of priority. New technologies in biometrics and data analytics
have made this level of cooperation possible, but it is the
highest level of commitment from both governments that have
made it a reality.
It is a myth that the 9/11 attackers entered the United
States through Canada. In fact, Canadian officials work really
closely with American officials every single day. ``Operation
Smooth'' was a joint initiative that led to the arrest of two
men with al-Qaeda links, who were plotting to derail a train
running between Toronto and New York in 2013.
Let us talk about refugees. Canada's Syrian refugee policy
may differ from that of the United States, but the level of
attention to security is no less vigilant. No refugee can enter
Canada before all biometric and biologic data is checked
against U.S. criminal, immigration, and security databases.
This is an automatic process. This is not something officials
can decide to do or decide not to do if it is a busy day. This
must take place. It is an automatic process.
According to the State Department, of the 785,000 refugees
admitted to the United States, only a tiny fraction have been
arrested or removed from the United States due to terrorism
concerns--and none of these refugees were Syrian. If someone
wishes to harm the United States or Canada, entering the
country as a refugee is a very inefficient way to achieve this.
But, let us talk about Canadian safeguards against this
possibility. We have heard that Canada is focusing on low-risk
groups--families with children, single mothers, and LGBT men
who have taken refuge in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Sixty
percent are women. Twenty-two percent are children. This is not
the demographic of ISIS.
Cases are first vetted by the UNHCR and other
organizations. I apologize, in my written testimony, it says
just UNHCR. They are vetted through other processes, as well.
This is a typical process, though. Refugees are then--Canadian
officials determine which of these candidates meet
vulnerability criteria and those who do are invited to an
admissibility interview. If they satisfy officials during the
interview, then applicants are subject to a full health and
security screening.
Ralph Goodale, Canada's Minister of Public Safety and the
counterpart to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, has
made it clear that if there is any doubt about an applicant or
about any of the data, that application will be put aside. And,
all screening takes place before an individual gets on an
airplane.
Yes, 25,000 is a very big number, but it is consistent with
Canada's historic response to refugee crises. Canada accepted
more than 250,000 refugees after World War II, 37,000 Hungarian
refugees after 1956, 10,000 Czechs after 1968, and more than
50,000 Vietnamese boat people in the late 1980s. Before it was
even an independent country, Canada was a haven for African
Americans fleeing slavery. We have a history of accepting
refugees and making a home for them.
The government has set a target, but there will always be
delays. Resettlement is a complex process. But, the Prime
Minister has been very clear: we will meet our target, but we
will make sure that we do it right.
It looks like I am running over the time limit, but I
wanted to let you know, I was a member of a refugee committee--
resettlement committee--at my church in Ottawa, Canada. It was
really hard work. It was not just a matter of signing some
documents. We were engaged with the refugees every single day.
We made sure that that family got to doctor's appointments and
dental appointments, that the kids had babysitters, and that
they had appropriate winter clothing. We made sure that they
were a part of the Canadian community. It was not just, ``Oh,
here are some more refugees. Let us drop them in a ghetto in
the city''. They became part of our community and, as a result,
have now contributed to Canada.
Lastly, to return to where I started, Canada is the United
States' closest ally and largest trading partner. There is no
relationship that Canada takes more seriously, and I urge the
members of this Committee to treat that relationship with equal
seriousness. Canada is not the weak link in the fight against
terrorism. Rather, it is part of a shared security perimeter
with the United States.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Dawson.
Again, I want to thank all of my colleagues for joining us
here today. This is an important hearing. As a result of the
attendance--it worked pretty well yesterday and we did not
reduce the time limits. We will keep it at 7 minutes--but I
will use my gavel. So, I want everybody--witnesses and
Senators--aware of that 7-minute time limit and let us just
keep to that so that everybody has a chance to ask questions.
Dr. Dawson, I just want to comment that I think that we all
agree that the relationship with Canada is very special and
highly valued. And, I agree that we all want to make sure that
we do employ the utmost level of screening--and that is our
concern. President Obama has the legal authority to let in
10,000 Syrian refugees. That increases the number of refugees
in this country by 21 percent, which puts a potential
management strain and possibly some short-circuiting--or taking
shortcuts--within that process.
Canada is looking at--again, if you look at the history of
resettling 25,000 refugees annually--increasing that by a
factor of, basically, double. You are going from 25,000 to
50,000 to potentially 75,000 in one particular year. That could
put on enormous strain.
Mr. Mamann--and, by the way, am I pronouncing that
properly?
Mr. Mamann. Mamann like salmon.
Chairman Johnson. OK. You mentioned that, on average, it
normally takes 5 years to go through this process. Please just
speak to that.
Mr. Mamann. There are two processes. If you were on another
day--not when we are in the middle of an election or involved
in this particular project--you would be spending about 52 to
62 months bringing people in, in this fashion, from
Afghanistan, Somalia, Congo, and Sudan. That is how long it
would take.
The inland process--that is where someone comes on our
shores and declares themselves a refugee and they have a
hearing before the Immigration Refugee Board (IRB), a hearing
to determine that they are a refugee. Then they apply for
permanent residence. They fill out all of the forms. That
process easily takes 2-and-a-bit years.
It is done in two stages. The first is a selection
decision, so that we make sure that you have all of the forms
ready, that everything is done. And then comes the background
checks and the security checks. Only after that is completed do
we have a person who is granted permanent residence.
Chairman Johnson. So, Mr. Mamann, because you mentioned
that Canada has deployed 500 personnel to the Middle East to
start vetting people over there--that expanded perimeter--which
I think we all agree is a good way of doing it. Are those new
hires or is that just taking people from the interior and
moving them overseas to push out the perimeter?
Mr. Mamann. They are taking people from the interior. In
fact, my firm does all kinds of immigration work. We are not
just refugee specialists. It is just a small part of what we
do. We are getting letters now saying, ``This officer has been
reassigned to the Syrian project'', so you are not getting an
answer for the next few months while they tackle those things.
Those are officers who would be normally doing sponsorships,
investor applications, and all kinds of professional
immigration work.
I should say, if you were to ask me what I think of the
500, I would tell you that it does not really matter, because
they are not going to Syria. They are outside of the country.
The question here is the ability to verify information--and
sometimes the only way that you can do that is by putting boots
on the ground. Somebody tells you, ``I am from this town'' or
``I am from this country''. How do you validate that from
outside of the country? That is the concern, I think, that
security agencies have. You do not have anything to measure it.
The fact that someone had an iris scan or had fingerprints done
and nothing showed up tells you nothing about what they were
doing during the conflict and on whose side they fought.
Chairman Johnson. I have been seeing--and I might be
wrong--but I have been seeing in the testimony, basically, that
the manpower that Canada has in these immigration services--
does anybody on the panel have any feel for how many personnel
generally do the vetting of the approximately 25,000, on
average, refugees that Canada lets in? Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. No, it is not entirely clear. It can involve
all kinds of cooperation between different governments and
agencies. So, as I said, it is not entirely clear, and this
situation currently throws an enormous random variable into the
overall challenge, I guess, that we are facing.
Chairman Johnson. Mr. Mandel, do you have any idea of what
our counterparts in Canada have, in terms of personnel, to
properly vet these folks? Or Dr. Dawson?
Mr. Mandel. I do not. I do not have----
Ms. Dawson. I do not have a number for you, but I can tell
you that the Consular Service in Canada is different from that
of the United States, so that officers who are trained as
consular officers for all sorts of processing can also process
refugee applications, whereas in the United States, I
understand, you need a specialized refugee officer. My
understanding, as Mr. Mamann was saying, is that a lot of folks
are being deployed from other offices and that retired officers
are being brought back into service as well.
Chairman Johnson. But, you acknowledge, in any kind of
process, when you increase your workload by double or triple,
that is going to put pressures on the process, correct?
Ms. Dawson. I agree entirely.
Chairman Johnson. One of the things that I have been
intrigued about with Canada's refugee program is their private
sponsorship program. I would kind of like to have people just
speak to that. I mean, to me, that does make an awful lot of
sense, to bring people in that are sponsored by individuals who
can support them financially and help them assimilate and
integrate into society--which is another of my concerns. When
you dramatically increase the number of people coming in, how
good is the assimilation process undertaken going to be? Mr.
Mamann.
Mr. Mamann. The private sponsorship is actually an
excellent device. It deflects costs, first of all, from the
government's shoulders. It also allows people to integrate and
to feel like they have some sense of family here in Canada. As
Professor Dawson was saying, the process is quite intimate. The
families get together. They go to doctor's appointments, etc.
So, it is a very good way of making sure that people land on
their feet.
As I said before in my prepared statement, refugees do not
necessarily come to Canada, or come to the United States,
because they have a desire to be here, or resources here, or
family here. They have no choice. They are running and they
have to go somewhere safe. So, when you have someone there
showing you where you apply for a driver's license, where you
can get English as a second language instruction, when you have
a place to stay, a doctor you are referred to, or whatever, it
is a lot better than just having the government sponsor someone
and putting them on the street.
Chairman Johnson. What percent of refugees are in that
program versus a government-sponsored program?
Mr. Mamann. I would think about half--more or less half.
Ms. Dawson. I have seen currently 10,000 of the 25,000--
about half.
Chairman Johnson. OK. So, again, let us assume that you
have 10,000. The rest will go through a government program,
probably then, correct?
Ms. Dawson. Yes.
Chairman Johnson. I mean, you do not have enough private
sponsors to handle the 25,000 now. Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Just as a matter of facts, it may be useful to
bear in mind that the private sponsorship concept goes back to
the Vietnam boat people era--and there was a great deal of
demand to bring in various people. Enormous numbers of
individuals were brought in, as Dr. Dawson has indicated. But,
it should be remembered that these people were brought in over
about a decade. So, that is a significant distinction, perhaps,
from the current situation.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Again, thank you all for your testimony.
I was interested, Dr. Dawson, when you mentioned that your
church has taken some interest in the plight of these folks.
Why is that?
Is there something about your faith that suggests that you
have an obligation to do this kind of thing?
Ms. Dawson. Yes. The United Church of Canada, which is a
middle-of-the-road Protestant faith--as a community, we felt
that we had an obligation to be part of refugee resettlement.
To be clear, I was not involved in Syrian refugee resettlement.
I was working on African refugee resettlement at the time.
But, I think that it comes down to the larger sense of
Canada's identity. Canada has not been perfect in its dealings
with refugees. Canada turned away Jewish refugees on the MS St.
Louis during World War II. Nine-hundred-and-eight people were
returned to the Holocaust. Canadians looked at the images of
Alan Kurdi, the little boy on the beach this summer, and said,
``This is not who we are. We are a community of diversity. We
are a community who accepts newcomers, and we are all
newcomers--unless you are a member of a First Nations people''.
Senator Carper. Yes. Let me interrupt you.
Ms. Dawson. Yes.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Sometimes, in this Committee, I
quote Pope Francis, who quotes Matthew 25, which says something
about, ``When I was a stranger in your land, did you take me
in? '' Does that have anything to do with the fact that your
church and the people in your church have an interest in being
a part of this?
Ms. Dawson. Very much so----
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Ms. Dawson [continuing]. And also----
Senator Carper. That is all you have to say.
Ms. Dawson. Thank you.
Senator Carper. All right. Why is Canada so interested in
taking in so many people? What is it about Canada? I asked the
same question--we had a Consul General from the consulate up in
New York--the Canadian--and I said, ``Why do you guys want to
take so many people in? '' And he said, ``Well, we need more
people and we do not have that many people.'' How many people
do they have in Canada?
Ms. Dawson. 34 million.
Senator Carper. Yes, 34 million. But, what is that, about
one-ninth of our population? So, they are interested in having
more people, and, I think--so there is more of a willingness to
take a look at these folks.
I want to come back to something that you said, Dr.
Dawson--and something that I said, actually. If I am an ISIS-
affiliated person and I am trying to get into this country and
do mayhem, why would I take 2 years to get here? Why would I go
through the most intrusive vetting process that exists to get
here? What is the logic or rationale for doing that?
Ms. Dawson. It seems to me that it is a very inefficient
way to do it, as I mentioned. And, also, I would like to note
that there is an urgency in bringing these people to Canada or
to anywhere else. These are children who have not been in
school for years now. These are families in crisis. If you want
to radicalize young people, that is the way to do it. But,
bring them to a community, put them in school, and reintegrate
them into society--that is the best hedge against
radicalization.
Senator Carper. Yes. I served in the Vietnam War and had
some interest in trying to normalize relations between our
country and Vietnam back in the 1990s. We have a lot of
Vietnamese Americans, a lot of Vietnamese, who come here and
have done remarkably well in their lives and they have been
great citizens. I am struck by the fact that some of the--what
is it, 50,000?--people that you all took in from Southeast Asia
are now serving as host families for the Syrians. Is that true?
Ms. Dawson. Yes. Serving as host families for Syrians and
leading some of the refugee programs. And, also, if you go to
any small town in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, middle of nowhere--
I hope you do not have to go to the doctor, but if you do, it
could very well be a Vietnamese adult who arrived as a child as
a boat person. The integration into Canada's small towns has
been very important.
Senator Carper. That kind of reminds me of the Golden Rule.
How do we want to treat other people? Well, the way that we
would like to be treated. And, so, the Vietnamese certainly
have had a piece of that.
Mr. Mandel, you were a Navy Petty Officer. I just want to
thank you for your service. I did 23 years active and reserve,
retired Navy Captain. We are grateful for that service as well.
Another question, if I could, for Mr. Harris and Dr.
Dawson. When Canada screens refugees or other immigrants for
possible ties to terrorism, my understanding is that it does
not just rely on its own security holdings. Rather, as I
understand it, there is a systematic consultation--this is one
of the things that was asserted to me by the Consul General the
other day--with U.S. officials and databases--just as the U.S.
Government consults with Canadian resources when conducting its
own checks. Could each of you just describe this information
sharing a little bit. Mr. Harris, would you just go first,
please?
Mr. Harris. Yes, indeed.
The cooperation and collaboration, as has been indicated,
is not merely extensive, it is almost astonishing--and
astonishingly successful in the context of world history. This
is not hyperbole. This is absolutely the way that things are.
The challenge that we face is, of course, reality, which
means that we are only as good as our databases. And, you may
recall that in his October 2015 testimony before the House
Judiciary Committee, the FBI Director Comey was pressed on some
of these related questions and he was asked about databases--
whether there were sufficient ones in the U.S. inventory--
which, of course, we will, at least indirectly, from the
Canadian perspective, look forward to relying on. He said,
``The only thing we can query is information that we have. So,
if we have no information on someone, they have never crossed
our radar screen, they have never been a ripple in the pond,
there will be no record of them there and so it will be
challenging.''
And, on some other occasion, he went on to have pointed out
that a number of people who were a serious concern, to use his
expression, slipped through as Iraq war refugees, including two
who were arrested on terrorism-related charges.
Senator Carper. Mr. Harris, I am going to ask you to hold
it there because I want to give Dr. Dawson a chance to respond
to the same question, and then I have a real quick one for Mr.
Mandel. Just very briefly, Dr. Dawson.
Ms. Dawson. I just want to reiterate that there is an
automatic check to U.S. databases--criminal, immigration, and
security databases. It is not an option, it is a mandatory
check and they are databases that are established and
maintained by the United States. Canada does not want anyone--
any incident in the United States--to be linked to a lack of
vigilance on Canada's part.
Senator Carper. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Mandel, one last, quick question. From your
perspective, as a Border Patrol Agent on the Northern Border,
how extensive is the cooperation and information sharing
between our two governments, please?
Mr. Mandel. With the task forces our agents are assigned
to, the relationship has just been fantastic. Good feedback. We
actually have been task forced with an International Border
Enforcement Team (IBET). That was successful. The relationship
has been good, outside what we have received on the Southern
Border.
Senator Carper. OK. I would just say, as one Navy guy to
another Navy guy--there is a friendly rivalry between Army-Navy
in this country, as you know, in football games and stuff like
that, and I always say to my Army friends, ``Well, we may wear
different uniforms, but we are on the same team.'' And, I think
that with the Canadians, we may wear different uniforms, but
clearly, we are on the same team.
Mr. Mandel. Absolutely.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Booker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER
Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really appreciate, Dr. Dawson, what you were saying. I
mean, there are about 4 million refugees between Jordan, Syria,
and Lebanon. 50 percent of them are about 18 years old or
younger. These camps can be breeding grounds for radicalism.
Just imagine a Middle East with that many young people who are
not connected to society--not grounded--and what kind of
radicalization could happen over their lifetimes and what kinds
of problems they could have. This resettlement of those
refugees into communities that are nurturing and supportive can
actually be a preemptive strike against future radicals. So, I
really appreciate you bringing that up.
And, I just want to clarify. Perhaps, Dr. Dawson, I can
start with you. There are a lot of people that keep describing
the Canadian resettlement process or vetting process as
expedited, and I am wondering if that is an appropriate term to
use--that somehow you guys are fast-tracking people or cutting
corners when it comes to the security of your nation as well
as, obviously, your partner across your Southern Border, the
United States.
Ms. Dawson. Thank you, Senator. I agree, ``expedited'' is
the wrong word. Enhanced or expanded--absolutely. But, no
corners are being cut. All of the resources that are necessary,
as I understand it, are being deployed to ensure that every
level of scrutiny and verification has been met. Are they
bringing resources from other areas of government? Absolutely.
Maybe my taxes will not get processed this year. But, I know
that they are paying appropriate attention to Syrian refugee
review.
Senator Booker. Mr. Mamann, do you agree with that? Is this
expedited or----
Mr. Mamann. It is going very fast. I think that we can talk
about what exact word describes it, but we are asking people to
do things that they have never done before and in a timeframe
that they have never used before. As I said before, I have
worked with CBSA, RCMP, and CSIS--dealt with all of those
agencies. They are good men and women. They are not going to
let somebody in because it is 5 o'clock and they want to go
home. I think that they are going to do their jobs.
But, when you do that kind of work under that kind of
pressure--keep in mind that we have a Prime Minister who just
got elected and this was the crown jewel of his election
platform--this is a mark that he has to hit and these guys,
these men and women, are going to be under tremendous pressure
to get the job done, because the leader of the country has
asked them to do a job and they are going to do their best to
do that.
My concern is that when people are fatigued or when they
are tired, they are not as effective--and that is something
that you have asked me to talk about, security implications.
That would be, in my opinion, the security implication--not
that our guys are going to cut corners. I do not think that
they are going to do that. They are just going to be tired.
Senator Booker. Dr. Dawson, are you worried about fatigue?
Ms. Dawson. What I am most encouraged by is that, even
though this is a new government, they have some really senior
people in Cabinet that they have assigned to the task. The
Minister of Immigration and Refugees and Citizenship, John
McCallum, he is a real veteran in government. Stephane Dion,
the Minister of Global Affairs Canada and the Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Ralph Goodale, these
are people who have been around for many years. They know what
the right thing to do is and how to do it.
Senator Booker. And, so, Dr. Dawson, you were talking about
the databases that are being queried. Are you concerned that
there is some database sharing that is not going on, that there
is any cooperation between our two countries, when it comes to
vetting, that is not happening that should be happening? Do you
have any concerns in those areas?
Ms. Dawson. I do not have concerns, but I always would like
to see an expansion of the level of cooperation and expansion
of our interoperability as well as greater investment to
increase security and vigilance.
Senator Booker. What does that mean, the expansion of our
interoperability? Is there something that we should be
concerned with in the Senate, in terms of funding or helping to
facilitate that?
Ms. Dawson. Sure. Well, right now, we are looking at
expanding a pre-clearance program, which would move more
vetting out to air, marine, and rail. With congressional
support for that and Canadian Parliamentary support for that,
that means, basically, that there are U.S. eyes on every
Canadian port, and I think that that is important.
Senator Booker. That is great.
And, finally, Mr. Mandel, thank you for your service. I am
really grateful for what you do for our country. And you have a
haircut much better than Senator Tester, so I appreciate that,
as well. [Laughter.]
Mr. Mandel. Thank you.
Senator Tester. Better than yours. [Laughter.]
Senator Booker. You are just jealous, Tester, and wait your
turn. [Laughter.]
So, I just want to know, how critical are a lot of the new
technologies? We have such a low number of manpower, person-
power, on our Northern Border, and I really want to know about
what investments you think are critical for us to be making to
better secure our Northern Border, which, if you are trying to
run anything--from drugs to sex trafficking--this is something
that really concerns me overall. I do not think that we are
making the investment. So much attention is on our Southern
Border. Could you give me, in the less than 2 minutes that I
have left, some of your ideas about the things that Congress
should be really focusing on to secure the Northern Border?
Mr. Mandel. Augmentation of more agents. Personnel always
helps. The tools and intel to use the tools. For example, we
have a radar up in Buffalo that was just implemented. It pings
off of waves, even, and it is just a standard operating
procedure (SOP). It is just sitting. We need it--and it can
track something, but it has to be told to track it and there is
no intel as of right now.
So, to me, I think that the answer would be the
augmentation of the agents--how we are implemented. I think
that more of us should be in plain clothes. We should be doing
source, building sources--having force multipliers, reaching
out to community, and starting community programs, which would,
in turn, give us intel to use our tools, to use the sensors, to
use the radar, and to use our manpower. Get those intel agents
to build sources, and hopefully we can be proactive instead of
reactive.
Senator Booker. So, this lack of adequate manpower and some
of the inadequate technology that you are talking about, as an
American, what are your fears? What are your concerns that this
could be leading to as we are speaking right now?
Mr. Mandel. My worst fear is a terrorist attack. I mean, I
wake up, I wake up at night about it. After incidents that I
have seen in San Bernadino and in France, it rocks me, and it
is my job. I put the uniform on every day. I feel the weight of
it. I feel the responsibility of it. That is my nightmare. I
have a family and I have family and relatives across the United
States. It would impact me greatly.
Senator Booker. All right. Sir, thank you very much for
your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Ayotte.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
Mr. Harris, I wanted to ask you--I think that the testimony
here today, and my understanding of it, is that this process is
being significantly expedited to admit these refugees. Do you
believe that there are some risks that are created when you
rush this kind of program, because what I have seen in terms of
some of the quotes of some individuals who are current Canadian
intelligence officials--they are saying that there is a clear
risk given the pace at which security screeners would have to
work to interview, select, and process such high volumes of
applicants. And then I have heard other quotes saying that that
could create vulnerabilities. Our own intelligence officials in
the United States have expressed concerns about what
information we have to be able to vet. So, I wanted to ask you
about some of the risks here.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the risks
are manifest, as has been indicated, and, of course, as many
experts and many of those who have been explicitly involved in
the exercise have reflected--I believe that there were remarks
made by a Mr. Gerry Van Kessel that have been published--and he
had significant responsibility on the Canadian immigration side
of things and was concerned about the speed of things and some
of the priorities and influences that could, in theory, be
brought to bear. There is the issue of efficacy, as my
colleague, Mr. Mamann has indicated. When there are so many
people who are so rushed and might, rightly or wrongly, feel
under pressure, things can happen.
And, it may be useful, in this context, to reflect on work,
not so much by a security specialist, as by an economist. They
do have their uses, we are told. Irwin Stelzer, who has
actually done an appraisal on the generous assumption that the
assessment, for security purposes, of people coming in might
be, for the sake of argument, 99 percent accurate and reliable.
What he said, reflecting on the American context of a 10,000
person intake from Syria, was that, if ``only one percent of
the 10,000 entrants, or 100 applicants, will have slipped
through the vetting net,'' then it might be estimated that
the--I think that he was saying that the units that attacked
France in November each had about 8 to 20 people on them--
involved in them.
And, so, if you work on that assumption, you would have,
for a group of 10,000, at just a 1-percent failure rate,
between 5 and 8 terrorist units, each capable of doing to one
of our cities what they had done to Paris. And if you then
multiply those numbers to the 25,000 contemplated in Canada,
you could be looking at between 12 and 20 terrorist units of
the very kind that tore apart portions of Paris earlier this
year.
If I may add to this a related humanitarian consideration.
It has been said that Canada, of course, is rightly proud of
its traditions with regard to assisting people. However, the
respected Center for Immigration Studies in Washington has made
a very interesting point. It says that, now, again, using the
United States context, and I quote, ``For what it costs to
resettle one Middle Eastern refugee in the United States for 5
years, about 12 refugees can be helped in the Middle East for 5
years, or 61 refugees can be helped for 1 year.''
And when one considers some of the difficulties that one
might be dealing with worldwide in the refugee crisis that,
depending on definitions, could extend to 60 million people on
the planet, it is even theoretically possible, I suppose, that
many of those other refugees who will not have the privileged
treatment that the relative few going to Canada might have,
might expect something akin to an apology from us for not
diverting funds from certain Canadian programs to international
assistance. That, in turn, is relevant in security terms
because, of course, that kind of diversion of funds would allow
for more concentration on the security side in Canada and,
indeed, would allow funds for security per se in Canada.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
I wanted to also follow up on the issue--I represent New
Hampshire and we are a State, of course, that borders Canada.
By the way, we do a lot of important economic trade with
Canada. I trace my own roots to Canada a bit, with ``Ayotte''
as a last name.
So, I wanted to ask about this issue in the context of the
border. With tens of thousands of newly arrived individuals,
what are ways that Canada can ensure that there is close
information sharing and that refugees are not able to cross the
border into the United States? Do you think that there are
going to have to be any changes made there on the U.S.-Canadian
border? Is that going to put some more pressure on local agents
there, who, I know, work very hard? So, I wanted to get your
thoughts on that.
Mr. Mandel. I would like to venture that we need to get
communication--more communication. I talked about intel
earlier. There is intel, but there could be more. And, it will
not take much--one or two to come across, sneak across, and do
a lot of damage. So, I think that the communication lines need
to be bolstered. The relationships that we have have been good,
but I think that everything could just improve--and possibly
more task forces, as well.
Senator Ayotte. So, it is something that we are going to
have to focus on and----
Mr. Mandel. Absolutely. The awareness of what is going on
there, the daily happenings--I think that our agents need to be
aware of the intel--keeping the agents up to date, up to speed
on what is going on.
Senator Ayotte. Well, that is helpful, because Senator
Heitkamp and I have a bill that is focused on our Northern
Border and making sure that we are focusing on ensuring that
that border gets attention and that we are properly ensuring
that that communication exists. So, we passed it out of this
Committee. I am hoping that we might get that passed in the
Senate this year, and so I appreciate all of you being here
today.
Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. Senator
Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Senator Ayotte, when you said ``bit,'' it was a dead
giveaway with the Canadian connection, I have to say.
[Laughter.]
Senator Tester. I want to thank you folks for being here
today. I very much appreciate your testimony and I very much
appreciate our friends to the north. Coming from Montana with a
550-mile border, I can tell you that I often have more
connections with the folks in Alberta and Saskatchewan than I
do with the folks east of the Mississippi. So, we thank you
very much for living in a great country, because, quite
frankly, I have a great appreciation for Canada.
I do not know if any of you can answer this question, but
we talked about 300 agents on the Northern Border, from a U.S.
perspective, at any one moment in time. Can you tell me how
many agents Canada has on its Southern Border at any one moment
in time? Yes.
Mr. Mandel. From personal experience, once in a while we
have someone who is running out of status in the United States
who will go across the border.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Mandel. Canoe, raft, or swim across the International
Railroad Bridge and the reaction time has been good. It could
be better, but they do not have anybody there. Usually, the
Ontario Provincial Police (OPP)----
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Mandel [continuing]. Get over. But, sometimes, the time
could be----
Senator Tester. But, what about the number of agents
serving on that Southern Border? Do we have any idea how much
Canada invests in that?
Mr. Mamann. I would suspect it is a lot less than that.
Senator Tester. Less than 300?
Mr. Mamann. I would think so.
Senator Tester. No kidding? That is surprising. Well, that
is good to know.
Mr. Mandel, you talked about how, in March, Canada was
going to institute some changes to their Visa Waiver Program.
Could you go through that, again, briefly, because I just want
to catch it again, because you had it in your remarks. What are
they going to do?
Mr. Mandel. The Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA). So,
electronically, you have your application prior to coming in
and during your travels. So, hopefully, that would decrease the
amount of risk.
Senator Tester. OK, and you said that that is a first step,
correct?
Mr. Mandel. Yes.
Senator Tester. So, tell me what they are going to do come
March compared to what we do with the visa waivers. Is it as
good a system? A better system? A worse system?
Mr. Mandel. I think it----
Senator Tester. Go ahead.
Mr. Mandel. Comprehensive--it lacks comprehension. For
instance, we have different databases that I use daily. They do
not tell me when someone overstayed a visa. So, it does not
give a red flag and I need to go find them or----
Senator Tester. Right.
Mr. Mandel [continuing]. Keep track of their
accountability. It just goes, and they have overstayed. They
are doing something nefarious. It does not alert me. So, I
think that the lack of comprehensiveness is the issue at hand.
Senator Tester. From our side?
Mr. Mandel. Yes.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Mandel. Yes, and working with Customs and Border
Protection----
Senator Tester. I know that it would be unfair for you to
talk about--and, by the way, we need to deal with that to make
sure that those database red flags come up.
Dr. Dawson, can you talk about it from the Canadian side,
as far as the visa waiver program and how concerned you would
be about that and also whether Canada has taken the proper
steps to ensure security through that program?
Ms. Dawson. From my perspective, Canada has been working
hard to ensure that it can line up its programs with that of
the United States. So, for example, the Electronic Travel
Authorization (eTA) program----
Senator Tester. Right.
Ms. Dawson [continuing]. That is a really good addition for
Canada. I know that in the context of Mexico, Canada had a very
strict visa requirement----
Senator Tester. OK. Good.
Ms. Dawson [continuing]. And now they are recognizing a
U.S. visa plus the eTA for Mexicans coming to Canada.
Senator Tester. OK. Mr. Harris brought up the point that,
when we do this vetting, if there are no records, how do we
know that the wife is really the wife and that the kids are
really the kids. Could you respond to that? In the case where
there are no records----
Ms. Dawson. Sure. All I can respond to is that they are
already dealing with very low-risk demographic groups, women
and children. They are dealing with folks who have been in
refugee camps for a long period of time. So, these are the
people least likely to be radicalized. You can never eliminate
risk, but you can use sound risk-assessment models.
Senator Tester. OK. Thank you.
And, we will stay with you, Dr. Dawson. Can you tell me,
and ``expedited'' may be the wrong word, but can you tell me
how much time is being reduced? There were figures thrown out
of 55 to 65 months to begin with, and then inland was 2-plus
years. What are we looking at?
Ms. Dawson. I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.
Senator Tester. OK. Can you, Mr. Mamann?
Mr. Mamann. Yes. The process for which, Senator?
Senator Tester. Well, for vetting the refugees.
Mr. Mamann. The current refugees?
Senator Tester. Yes, the 25,000 that are going to be
brought in.
Mr. Mamann. So, here is the situation. By December 31, we
had 6,000 come in. The target was 25,000.
Senator Tester. Right.
Mr. Mamann. They did not go from start to finish. Those are
people who were sitting around waiting for the finalization of
their applications. So, we are just talking about the very last
little piece of it.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Mamann. So, that is how we got 6,000 in.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Mamann. But, you could not draw from that the
conclusion----
Senator Tester. Right.
Mr. Mamann [continuing]. That it only took 57 days----
Senator Tester. Got you.
Mr. Mamann [continuing]. To do from start to finish. So,
now, the tough part is going to begin, because all of the easy
cases, the ones that were sort of 90 percent of the way down
the pipe, have already been processed and they brought them in
as quickly as we can. Now, the question is, the remainder are
people who may or may not have even been selected----
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Mamann [continuing]. Or had the background checks
started.
Senator Tester. Got you.
Mr. Mamann. So, we really do not know what it is going to
be.
Senator Tester. All right. Sounds good.
Just one quick comment for Mr. Mandel on the points that
you mentioned that we need on the Northern Border. I agree 100
percent. I think that the interoperability portion is also one
that we need to include in that. But, we need more agents. We
need radar. We need more technology. We need more cooperation
with local government agencies and we need community programs.
And, I appreciate you saying that because you took the words
right out of my mouth, so thank you.
I would just say one thing in closing. First of all, thank
you all for your testimony. We invaded Iraq some 15 years ago
looking for weapons of mass destruction. The result of that has
been, quite frankly, a Middle East that is a mess. These
refugees do not have any homes. They have been destroyed. And,
I especially want to bring up the point that Dr. Dawson made,
and that is that the best way to radicalize people is to not
reintegrate them into a society. We have an obligation to
figure out how to do this and how to do this right for the
safety of this country, but we cannot ignore it, because if we
do, we are not doing anybody any favors on this earth.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Portman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not have quite the border that Senator Tester has with
Canada. We have 149 miles. We are proud of that. And we have a
great relationship with Canada, and I agree with what Senator
Tester said about the need for us to do more to protect that
border.
Our 149-mile border, as you know, is a water border, and so
it is a little different than a land border, but it has
substantial risks. Right now, the way in, which you help to
enforce, is, I think, problematic. If you come across Lake Erie
with a boat, you are supposed to enter into what is called the
Outlying Area Reporting System (OARS). You dial into one of
eight OARS landing locations that are in Ohio.
And, I have talked to your colleagues, Mr. Mandel. They
cannot tell you how many people actually comply with that or
not. We have thousands of places for people to dock, and then
we also have people that can just dock in shallow water. So,
only having eight makes it hard.
They are also able to fill out what is called the Form I-
68, which provides information and then is filed. The problem
with both of these is that you do not capture the people who
are on board the boat, either. So, the OARS system, you do not
know if the person that calls in is reporting the crew or the
content of the vessel.
So, it is riddled with holes and one way that you check it
is through air assets--and I am told that your CBP air assets
have been reduced in the Lake Erie region, so it is harder to
monitor.
So, again, you talked about only having roughly 10 percent,
as I heard your numbers, of agents on the Northern Border
compared to the Southern Border, even though the Northern
Border is about twice as large. And, I would just say that,
even in Ohio, where you would think that you have this great
body of water to deter people from coming over, we have a lot
of traffic back and forth--commercial traffic, recreational
traffic, and so on. It is very difficult for us to be able to
monitor that.
So, part of my question to you, Agent Mandel, if you do not
mind and if you have any comments on this, are the ways in
which we could do a better job of ensuring that we do not have
a problem coming across our water. Do you think that the I-68
Form and the OARS System can be improved? And, do you have any
comments about what we face in Ohio?
Mr. Mandel. The difference between the Southern Border and
the Northern Border, to start, is that the Northern Border,
with the Great Lakes and Niagara Falls--the border is the
attraction--so we get a lot of clutter, as you spoke of. The
reporting--they come over with visas, using the Visa Waiver
Program, and there is so much clutter. So, if you have a
lookout, you are doing some surveillance, and you also want to
consider those people being reporters and force multipliers--
they see something, they say something.
So, I weigh out my suspicion level, basically, versus
aggravating someone and making someone not report something and
making law enforcement an enemy again. So, I weigh all of these
things out.
I think that the communication could always improve between
the Canadians and us. It is fantastic. But, the clutter and the
amount of people that are there--it is very hard to track. So,
I think that the answer is the infrastructure, the radar, and
more augmentation of agents, our posture changing into more
intel-related. These organizations communicated through social
media--encrypted. They get on video game sites and talk while
playing video games. It is a different animal than it is down
South, where they are making money up North--even down South.
But, up North, with these possibly radicalized people, they are
not looking to make money. They are interested in creating
terror and chaos.
Senator Portman. I think that what you are describing----
Mr. Mandel. I hope that I answered your question, sir.
Senator Portman. No, it is very helpful. You are giving
some context to it. And, you are right. A lot of those, let us
say, visa waiver holders, visa holders, or tourists who would
come, as you say, to an attraction like Lake Erie--or you
mentioned Niagara Falls--so, that makes it even more
challenging for you. I mean, you just laid out the huge
challenge that we have. And, I am for more resources along the
border. I think that that would be helpful. But, as you are
saying, even with that, it is going to be very difficult for us
to know what is going on on this vast border--even our water
border.
And, I guess that that gets to the point that, if Canada
does have a more aggressive refugee program and they are
accelerating that program--or not doing the vetting that we
might do--that puts us more at risk. That is sort of our point
here this morning and why we wanted to have this hearing.
The one thing that we have not talked about as much, Mr.
Chairman, and I know that this is not a hearing to talk about
the international side, but it is all relevant, I think, and
Mr. Harris, I think, made a really good point. I never heard
the economic analysis before. He said that you can support one
refugee here--and I would assume that that would be true for
Canada or the United States, and that the resources are
probably similar--Mr. Mamann can tell us that, if they are
similar--versus 12 refugees overseas by supporting
international efforts on refugee resettlement.
And, I have supported this ``no fly'' zone, for instance,
in Syria. Someone talked earlier about the 4 million refugees.
We are talking about 4 million people fleeing their homes and
we are talking about how we can come up with a security system
to be able to deal with 10,000 in the United States or 25,000
in Canada. So, it is a drop in the bucket. And, could you help
much more internationally? Canada does help already. The United
States does help. Probably per capita, Dr. Dawson, Canada is at
the top of the list, I would think. They have been
traditionally.
But, I think that this is something that we have to focus
on more. How do you resettle people in these other countries in
the region, Arab countries, in an appropriate way? How do you
ensure that these refugee camps are not places where you are
spawning more radicalization?
And, finally, how do you keep them at home? There was an
interview not long ago. They interviewed one of these refugees
from Syria and said, ``Would you rather go to the United States
or Europe?'' hoping that they could figure out where this
person would rather go. And, of course, the answer was, ``I
would rather go home.'' I mean, these people do not want to
leave their homes, and they--I do not know, Mr. Mamann or Dr.
Dawson, you might want to comment on that, but how do you keep
people from this radicalized environment by getting them
resettled overseas? I think that that is the bigger challenge
that we face, if you really want to help the people who we are
talking about today.
Mr. Mamann, do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Mamann. A very small percentage of the applicants that
were contacted by Canadian officials actually took up the offer
to come to Canada. It is only about, when the poll was taken,
maybe 6 percent. You are absolutely right. People do not
necessarily want to leave their home, their culture, the sounds
of their home, the food of their home, and the language of
their home. It is not their first choice.
With respect to the economic argument that my friend, Mr.
Harris, was talking about, this began with a $100 million
pledge to help a certain group of people. We are now talking
about a $1.2 billion project--and we have not even ramped up.
We have no idea where that is going to go.
So, if you were to ask me, would that money, as Mr. Harris
suggested, be better used overseas to help even more people to
stay where they want to be, in the regions that they want to be
in, to find a regional solution, to provide proper shelter,
proper schooling, and proper education with our friends in the
United States--and put that together, work together, and
eliminate whatever ideological risks--terrorist risks--that
Officer Mandel talked about, there is a discussion to be had
there. I am not sure if that is the way that we should go or
the way that we want to go, but that is a discussion that I
think needs to take place as allies and partners.
Senator Portman. Thank you for the indulgence, Mr.
Chairman. I am over my time, but thank you all for your
testimony. I appreciate it. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. And again, I agree. That is a very
important point. Take a look at that $1.2 billion. Another
point we are not really making----
Mr. Mamann. Well, that is Canadian. I am not sure it is
worth much up here, but---- [Laughter.]
Chairman Johnson. It is a lot of money.
Senator Heitkamp. Take it times 70. [Laughter.]
Chairman Johnson. It is a lot of money.
The other point that we really do not make enough is that
Sharia law is not particularly compatible with Western
democracies, and part of assimilation is coming in and
assimilating into our rule of law. And, that is, again--it is
kind of something that is never really mentioned, but it is a
real problem. Senator Heitkamp.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP
Senator Heitkamp. I frequently get mistaken for a Canadian,
so you will recognize the accent. No mistake there. North
Dakota has a long border. We have the Grand Forks District,
which houses one of the regional operations. In a previous
life, I was the Attorney General (AG) responsible for running
something called the Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI),
which held, on a regular basis, intel sessions all across the
State of North Dakota on the topic of the border. Royal
Canadian Mounties were invited, as were the local Canadian
officials, border security, and Border Patrol. So, I want to
give a fairly accurate picture of the great collaboration and
work that is being done on the Northern Border.
But, with that said, we have taken our eyes off of the
Northern Border. It was painful during the discussion on
immigration reform, when I tried to take some of the discussion
to the Northern Border, only to be shut down in terms of
resources. This is why Senator Ayotte and I got together to,
basically, introduce a piece of legislation to let us look at
what the challenges are.
Now, I have just a couple of questions. The refugees that
come get a permanent resident card, correct? And that permanent
resident card, if you are going to come into the United States,
would require a visa application. Is that correct, Dr. Dawson?
Ms. Dawson. That is correct.
Senator Heitkamp. So, on the POE, if, in fact, that is a
Syrian or a refugee from a country that we think may have
radicalized that person before they entered the Canadian
refugee system, that person would not be given entry into the
United States unless they went through the visa application
process.
Ms. Dawson. That is correct. And it would be U.S. officials
that would make that determination.
Senator Heitkamp. That is correct. So, they would look at
any information. And, so, as we are talking about visa
waivers--and, obviously, one of the great security gaps that we
found is the Visa Waiver Program. Every panelist who has come
before us and talked about refugee radicalization has basically
said that refugee resettlement is a process that is long enough
and is robust enough that it is not something somebody who
wants to do harm would do. They would find a way to get in
under a visa waiver program. And, so, it is good to hear that
the Canadian officials are now undertaking the same kind of
scrutiny that we are looking at.
So, Dr. Dawson, can you tell me what the equivalent to the
Visa Waiver Program is in Canada? What are you guys doing? You,
obviously, are part of our Visa Waiver Program, one of 51
countries. Let us say that you have somebody who wanted to come
to study in Canada--or said that they wanted to--or came on a
wish to be a tourist. They qualified, if they are French, for a
visa waiver, right?--or to not require a visa? What are you
doing now that would be a comparable increased security
provision like we did with the Visa Waiver Program?
Ms. Dawson. I am going to defer that question to possibly
Mr. Mamann as an expert in----
Mr. Mamann. If you are a French national or a British
national, you just hop on a plane and come to Canada.
Senator Heitkamp. And you guys have not changed that
system?
Mr. Mamann. No. We have a list of countries that are visa
exempt. Those are usually friendly countries, countries that
are more developed countries, and richer countries, because we
make the assumption that a person coming from that country is
welcome and is going to return to that country because there is
no economic reason to overstay and work here.
Senator Heitkamp. And that is one of the concerns that I
have. I mean, let us take the refugees--same scenario here. Who
is more likely to want to come to Canada and then find access
to the United States, somebody who comes in as a refugee or
somebody who came in with a visa waiver?
Mr. Mamann. Right.
Senator Heitkamp. And, is Canada looking at doing something
like we did, which is say that, if you have been in Syria or if
you have been in Iraq within the last 5 years, you actually
have to apply for a visa?
Mr. Mamann. Right. So, we do not really have that system.
The eTA system, from what I understand, is going to be--of
course, I have no experience with it because it has not been
implemented yet----
Senator Heitkamp. It is new, yes.
Mr. Mamann [continuing]. But the idea is that, when a
person comes to the border, like when I used to work at the
airport, you are seeing them for the first time. You are sort
of caught off-guard. You look at their passport, you do
whatever checking that you can do, and you have to move them
along. I mean, you cannot keep people held up all day.
So, the eTA program is going to require you to register
online, and hopefully, that will give the Canadian authorities
some advanced notice that this person is coming. Maybe we will
check with our American partners and say, ``Hey, do you have
anything on this? '' Maybe it will happen electronically or
manually. I am not sure.
Senator Heitkamp. We will probably follow up with the
Canadian officials, because ``maybe'' is not good enough for
me.
Mr. Mamann. Right.
Senator Heitkamp. I want to know exactly what that means.
Is that just a step that you think will be a deterrent to
somebody coming because they think that they might get caught?
Or is that something where you are actually going to scrutinize
the people who come to the country?
Mr. Mamann. I do not think that it is going to be a
deterrent. It is going to give you a little bit more time to
think things through. Why would I be deterred? I will go on my
computer. I will put in my name and my passport number----
Senator Heitkamp. Well, but if you think that you have a
record somewhere where, actually, they could trace back your
bad behavior----
Mr. Mamann. Right. But, most people--if you take a look at
even the 9/11 situation--no one had negative records.
Senator Heitkamp. Right.
Mr. Mamann. I believe that people who have negative records
are less of a threat to a company for a major terrorist attack
because they are easily detectable. A person who has a clean
record, that is the person that----
Senator Heitkamp. Who is going to be----
Mr. Mamann [continuing]. Who is going to create problems.
Senator Heitkamp. No, I get that. I am just saying that
that is one of the fallacies of all of this, that we are going
to know for sure whether, in fact, somebody is intending to do
harm, basically, by looking at biometrics, and basically,
looking at all of the advanced data. And, so, that is our
concern.
And then the point becomes, what happens at the border? I
mean, I sat down with a county sheriff from Minnesota, the same
situation that Senator Ayotte was telling me is in New
Hampshire. It is wooded. Anyone can walk across the border. I
flew Senator Carper up to the Northern Border and people farm
around the border lines. I mean, it is very porous.
But, I also want to make one final point, which is that,
because we are dealing with a neighbor that is trusted, that
culturally is similar, it is not similar, in that way, to the
Southern Border. We have an opportunity to double force by
working closely with our Canadian neighbors. We are doing that
in Portal. We are doing that in Grand Forks and Pembina. But we
need more people and we need more resources if we are going to
have situational awareness on the border.
And, so, thank you for your work. You are welcome any time
in our district. Officer Mandel, we would love to put you in
Portal. If you do not know where that is, it is next to
Montana. [Laughter.]
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. And then, he could just walk across the
border. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Senator Heitkamp.
Senator Carper has one question that hopefully he can ask
quickly and that can be answered quickly. And then, I will give
each of you about 30 seconds for just a final comment before we
close out the hearing. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, our
thanks to each one of you for joining us today and for your
testimony.
The Chairman and I, as well as some other colleagues, had
breakfast yesterday with Secretary Jeh Johnson, and among the
things that he reviewed with us were the priorities of the
Department--the priorities of the Administration--and their ask
in terms of authorizing legislation and appropriations. One of
the initiatives that we talked about was a community
partnership countering violent extremism (CVE), and it would be
an agency within the Department of Homeland Security whose job
it would be to work out--to reach out, particularly, to the
Muslim community in this country, the faith-based
organizations, through NGOs, and others to try to find ways to
partner--not locking people up, but actually to partner and
encourage people not to become radicalized, especially young
people. They would help develop almost like a messaging
campaign for young people who have no interest in being
radicalized, a message to those who might be sensitive to that
or attracted to that.
Doctor, when you talked to us about how these families
actually adopt and welcome families, that is a great way to
assimilate people into a country and make them feel comfortable
and part of a community. I do not know how much of that we do
in this country. I think that that is a good thing that we
could learn, maybe, from you. If we are not doing enough, we
could do more.
Do you have any thoughts or comments on this idea, the idea
of a community partnership countering violent extremism as a
unit within the Department of Homeland Security? You or anybody
else, please comment just very briefly.
Ms. Dawson. I think that it is an excellent idea. I think
that it begins at the community level. We have talked about
faith-based communities. The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish
communities in Canada have been very active in this. New
technologies and young people have all contributed to making it
easier and better in Canada.
Senator Carper. Mr. Mandel, last comment.
Mr. Mandel. Yes. I am actually one of the instructors at
the Citizens Academy up in Buffalo, and we are thinking about
an explorer program, as well. I recently went to a mosque and
we brought ourselves, CBP, and the Office of Air and Marine
Operations (AMO). It was a fantastic experience. It went well.
Knowledge and getting to know each other--I was over in the
Middle East, in Bahrain, being a gate guard with Middle
Easterners. It just comes down to being good people and getting
to know each other. Here, we are on the same team and on the
same side. It builds tolerance.
Senator Carper. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Mandel. And understanding.
Senator Carper. Yes. Thank you both.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you again.
Briefly, a final comment in 30 seconds. Mr. Mamann, do you
have a closing comment?
Mr. Mamann. Sure. We started off, Senator Johnson, by
talking about an ideology. We were talking about radical Islam.
Ideology is not something that you can stop at a border. I
think that we really need to rethink this whole idea of how you
fight an ideology. You can go on the Internet and pick up an
ideology without ever crossing a border.
An undue emphasis on building walls and visa requirements
is not going to stop that. You can grow this ideology at home.
You can transmit it via the Internet. You are going to have to
develop more modern tools than just issuing visas, because
visas--getting no negative hits on a background check does not
tell you anything about what is in someone's mind. So, you need
to rethink how to approach this thing.
Chairman Johnson. It is a long-term, complex problem. Mr.
Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that
it is time for us, in Canada, to really revisit our immigration
and refugee numbers, at large, so that we can ensure that we
have the kinds of integration that really will count. I work
very closely with any number of Canadian Muslims, including
through the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow. I am on their
advisory board, though I do not speak for them.
And members of that organization have counseled enthusiasm
and encouragement on the idea of outreach, but also a great
caution to media, to politicians, and to police and security to
do their due diligence, because there have been some signal
failures in Canada, as in the United States, where undesirable
organizations have been able to have legitimacy conferred upon
them through their being beneficiaries of outreach.
So, I would simply offer that caution and the reminder
that, of course, Canada and the U.S. have the closest
imaginable relationship where security--and not just security--
is concerned, and it has been a very successful one. One
expects it to continue.
Chairman Johnson. Agent Mandel.
Mr. Mandel. I have been to Canada countless times. I grew
up in Buffalo--born and raised--and across the border, and I
have been up through Toronto. We plan on going up to Montreal
this summer, my wife and I. I have had a long relationship with
Canada. I absolutely love the country. I hate to see anything
horrible happen on either side.
I think that the Syrians--if there is a threat that comes
out of there--it is just the tip of the iceberg, as compared to
the criminal element that is around that could radicalize
them--or in the United States, as well. So, personally, I hate
to see anything happen across our border--our shared border.
Chairman Johnson. Dr. Dawson.
Ms. Dawson. Without being cute, the United States is more
of a risk to Canada than Canada is to the United States. The
only way to get into Canada is across the Atlantic or the
Pacific Ocean or across the Pole. So, while the border will
continue to be porous because of necessary geography, we really
need to work together--Canada and the United States--to ensure
that our shared space is defended and secured. And please, in
your endeavors, make Canada your partner in this work.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Again, I want to thank all of the
witnesses for your time and testimony, and for your thoughtful
answers to our questions. Again, I think that we have kind of
laid out a reality here, which is important.
The hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until
February 18 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and
questions for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]