[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 26, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-994 WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho ERIC SWALWELL, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TED LIEU, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
RON DeSANTIS, Florida PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
KEN BUCK, Colorado BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT GAETZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
JIM SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice-Chairman
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE KING, Iowa LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JIM JORDAN, Ohio PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
KEN BUCK, Colorado SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
C O N T E N T S
---------- --
----------------------
OCTOBER 26, 2017
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary......................................................
The Honorable Raul Labrador, Idaho, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary.... 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, California, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 6
The Honorable John Conyers, Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee
on the Judiciary............................................... 20
WITNESSES
Mr. Simon Henshaw, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State
Oral Statement............................................... 8
The Honorable L. Francis Cissna, Director, United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Mr. Scott Lloyd, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Ms. Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Security and Justice,
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 13
OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
Responses to Questions for the Record from Mr. Simon Henshaw,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and
Migration, U.S. Department of State.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20171026/106540/HHRG-
115-JU01-20171026-SD006.pdf
Responses to Questions for the Record from The Honorable L.
Francis Cissna, Director, United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20171026/106540/HHRG-
115-JU01-20171026-SD004.pdf
Responses to Questions for the Record from Mr. Scott Lloyd,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20171026/106540/HHRG-
115-JU01-20171026-SD005.pdf
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), International Refugee Assistance
Project (IRAP), Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS),
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB), Church World
Service (CWS), The Cato Institute, The Episcopal Church, Letter for
Acting Secretary Eric Hargan and Director Scott Lloyd from over 100
organizations including the California Women's Law Center,
Catholics for Choice, the Central Conference of American Rabbis,
Human Rights Campaign, National Institute for Reproductive Health,
People for the American Way, Religious Coalition for Reproductive
Choice, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), United We
Dream and Women's Refugee Commission; 24 National and State-Based
Religious Groups Oppose ORR Obstructive Policy on Abortion.
Submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, California, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the
Judiciary. This material is available at the Committee and can be
accessed on the Committee Repository at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20171026/106540/HHRG-
115-JU01-20171026-SD002.pdf
Struggle to Resilience, Economic and Social Outcomes of Refugees in the
United States. Submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Michigan,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary. This material is
available at the Committee and can be accessed on the Committee
Repository at:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20171026/106540/HHRG-
115-JU01-20171026-SD003.pdf
OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2017
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Raul R. Labrador
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Labrador, Goodlatte, Smith, King,
Buck, Johnson, Biggs, Lofgren, Conyers, Jayapal, and Jackson
Lee.
Staff Present: Andrea Loving, Majority Counsel; Jason Boyd,
Minority Counsel; and Sabrina Hancock, Clerk.
Mr. Labrador. The Subcommittee on Immigration and Border
Security will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the committee at any time. We welcome everyone to
today's hearing on Oversight of the United States Refugee
Admission Program. And I now recognize myself for an opening
statement.
I have long been a supporter of the U.S. Refugee Admission
Program and the important humanitarian mission that it serves.
The United States and the peace and democracy under which we
live should give hope to those around the world who face
persecution by their government that their home countries can
at some point also be free of such tyranny.
As a former immigration lawyer, I have seen the USRAP at
work firsthand. I have seen those who have been able to avail
themselves of it come to this country and thrive. But just like
with many government programs that start out with the best of
intention and over the years prove to need updates, the time
has come for reform of the program.
A few problems that have come to light in recent years
include fraud, unchecked executive authority, and threats to
our national security. The House Judiciary Committee has
highlighted some of these deficiencies over the last few years.
For instance, we all know that, during testimony in 2015,
the former FBI Director made troubling statements about the
inability of law enforcement officials to properly vet
applicants for refugee status. And former administration
officials acknowledged in testimony to this committee that
State and local consultation throughout the refugee
resettlement process has not been as robust as needed in all
cases.
In fact, I have been approached by colleagues regarding
this issue. They are concerned that the views of the States and
localities they represent were ignored by an administration
that simply wanted to resettle as many refugees as possible
without regard to prudence.
On the issue of fraud in the program, I am pleased that
today we have the Government Accountability Office here to
discuss two reports they issued this past spring, one of which
highlights potential fraud in the process. These issues I have
mentioned, as well as others, led me to introduce H.R. 2826,
the Refugee Program Integrity Restoration Act of 2017.
Among other things, the bill sets the annual refugee
ceiling at 50,000, taking this responsibility from the
President and placing it where it should be: with us in
Congress. The bill also recognizes that States and localities
should have a true say in whether or not their communities are
able to resettle refugees.
And H.R. 2826 contains provisions aimed at helping to
defect fraud in the program, and thus, to reduce national
security concerns. In that vein, I know that this past Tuesday
marked the end of the 120-day travel suspension for refugees
pursuant to Executive Order 13780. And I know that the relevant
departments have instituted enhanced screening and vetting
procedures for refugee applicants with regard to, one, the
application process; two, the interview and adjudication
process; and, three, the system checks conducted on applicants.
The previous administration always stated, in response to
any security-related questions about the refugee program, that
certain refugees were the most vetted foreign nationals who
enter the United States. But even if true, I never understood
why the administration thought that simply because they were
the most vetted that was the vetting was sufficient.
It seems that within months of taking over, the new
administration has identified several areas in which vetting
could be improved. I appreciate the attention to security
concerns and the steps they have taken.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses here
today. And I yield back the balance of my time.
I now recognize our ranking member, Ms. Lofgren of
California, for her opening statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Like all Members of Congress, my highest
priority is protecting our national security. And today's
hearing presents an opportunity to examine a threat to that
security: President Trump's anti-refugee agenda.
Mr. Trump has characterized immigrants generally and
refugees in particular as bad actors bent on harming Americans.
The conservative CATO Institute found that the odds of an
American being killed in a terrorist attack by a refugee are 1
in 3.64 billion. By comparison, the odds of being struck by
lightning are 1 in 700,000. The truth is this: It is not
refugees that undermine our Nation's security; it is Mr.
Trump's radical restrictions on their admission. Those include
multiple refugee bans, a record low refugee ceiling imposed at
a time of record high global displacement and a failure of
American leadership in the world.
Let me identify two of the many ways in which these
policies undermine our safety. First, by substantially;
lowering Muslim refugee admissions, these measures project
anti-Muslim sentiment that further fuels ISIS recruitment. Ryan
Crocker, a former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, who
served under Republican and Democratic administrations, put it
this way: Those who stand against refugee resettlement say they
are protecting the Nation. They are not. They are putting the
Nation at greater risk by reinforcing the Islamic state
narrative. In other words, Donald Trump's actions galvanize
individuals bent on committing terrorist attacks against
Americans.
Second, those policies damage partnerships with key allies
in the fight against terrorism. Michael Chertoff, DHS Secretary
under George W. Bush, specifically warned of the implications
for our Iraqi allies. Some 60,000 of them await refugee
resettlement in America. Many of their lives are at risk
because of their assistance to the American military and State
Department, yet the record low fiscal year 2018 refugee ceiling
means that only a small portion of them will be resettled. By
turning his back on these allies, President Trump discourages
them, as well as other partners around the world, from helping
the United States in future antiterror initiatives. This leaves
all Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Such national security consequences are so significant that
White House aide Stephen Miller appears to have deliberately
marginalized key U.S. defense and national security agencies in
order to push through the record low refugee cap. According to
a report, Miller cut out the National Counterterrorism Center,
FBI, Defense Department, and Joint Chiefs of Staff, our core
national security stakeholders, from discussions about reducing
refugee resettlement. The report even quotes a State Department
official who stated that Mr. Miller, quote, ``suppressed
evidence that was important to consider in determining a
refugee number that would be beneficial to our national
security interest.'' This gives the troubling appearance that
the Trump administration prioritizes antirefugee agenda over
the safety of the American people.
Of course, I, along with all of my Democratic colleagues,
support rigorous refugee vetting measures. As I noted, we have
no higher duty than protecting the American people. But let us
hope that this administration will not use claims of national
security or reviews of refugee vetting procedures as cover for
implementing a back-door Muslim ban. After all, numerous
Federal courts challenged the administration's claim that its
previous ban squarely advanced national security objectives.
Refugees do more than just improve our national security.
They are core to our American identity and values. That is why
past Presidents of both parties embrace them. And contrary to
this administration's suggestions, numerous studies prove they
enhance our economy. Health and Human Services itself produced
one of those studies, only for the administration to reportedly
suppress it. It showed that, over a decade, refugees made a net
positive economic contribution to the United States of some $63
billion. Another study found that refugees are significantly
more likely than native-born Americans to become entrepreneurs
and thereby create jobs for American workers. In my own
district, refugees have immeasurably enriched our community.
I am deeply troubled by the disconnect between the
administration's rhetoric and reality. I hope today's hearing
will show greater regard for the truth. We owe it to the
American people to illuminate how Mr. Trump's anti-refugee
policies violate our values, damage our economy, and make all
of us less safe.
I would also like to add that, when refugees and asylees
enter our country, they have constitutional rights that must be
respected. I am sure we will explore that further in the course
of this hearing.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
I would now like to recognize the full committee chairman,
Mr. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, for his opening statement.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I very much appreciate your holding this hearing today
on this very important issue and with this outstanding panel of
witnesses.
The United States has a generous refugee program, has
provided millions of people fleeing persecution with safe
haven. In fiscal year 2016, we resettled 84,994 refugees. And
last fiscal year, we resettled 53,716 refugees. And while we
should continue that great tradition, it has become clear that
our refugee laws and policies have been abused and that they
need reform.
The Refugee Act of 1980 created our current refugee
resettlement process in which the President sets the annual
limit for the number of refugees the United States can resettle
during the next fiscal year. And the act set forth who could be
considered admissible as a refugee and how and when those
refugees could adjust to lawful permanent resident status. In
addition, the act put in place a process for the Federal
Government to work through nongovernmental agencies to resettle
refugees.
Thirty-seven years later, Members of Congress and the
American public are voicing a growing number of concerns about
how many and the process through which refugees are admitted to
the United States as well as what happens once they are
admitted.
But the Federal Government has done little to respect those
concerns. Under the previous administration, when a State or
locality expressed security concerns about refugee
resettlement, the administration simply repeated the sound bite
that refugees undergo the most rigorous background checks of
any immigrants to the United States. That statement ignored the
concerns of several security officials that, if there is no
information regarding a potential refugee in the databases that
are checked, then no derogatory information will show up during
the check. And it ignored the fact that, in many states from
which refugees are admitted, failed states, there is no
reliable information about refugees.
We know that over 300 individuals being actively
investigated for terrorist-related activity by the FBI came
from to the United States as refugees. And we know that at
least 2 of the 10 successful terrorist attacks carried out on
U.S. soil since September 11, 2001, were perpetrated by
individuals who entered the United States as refugees.
In addition to security concerns, if a State or locality
expressed concerns about the cost of refugee resettlement or
the lack of available employment opportunities, the prior
administration did little in response. It was simply their view
that, quote, ``The Federal Government has the right to resettle
refugees all across America,'' end quote. And while that may be
true, it is not necessarily the best practice. I know that many
resettlement organizations do wonderful and necessary work, but
essentially ignoring the pleas of communities across the U.S.
and leaving refugee resettlement decisions to the
administration simply feeds opposition to refugee admissions on
the whole.
I know that the Trump administration has already addressed
some of the concerns I have laid out today. For instance, I was
happy to see that Executive Order 13780, signed on March 6,
2017, recognized the problem with lack of State and local
consultation prior to resettlement and asked the Secretary of
State to devise a plan to promote State and local involvement
in resettlement decisions. And, of course, the same executive
order required a review of refugee processing to determine what
improvements could be made to the process and then to implement
those improvements.
So I look forward to hearing today how the Departments of
Homeland Security, State, and Health and Human Services are
working together to improve the entire U.S. Refugee Admissions
Program, from referral to post resettlement, so that the
program can remain a valuable and viable part of U.S.
immigration policy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would now like to recognize the full committee ranking
member, Mr. Conyers of Michigan, for his opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Top of the morning, witnesses and everyone else here. Over
the course of today's hearing on the United States Refugee
Admissions Program, there are several factors that I want our
witnesses and our members to consider. To begin with, it is
incontrovertible that the United States since its founding has
been a Nation of immigrants. And in recognition of that fact
and of the undeniable value that immigrants contribute to our
collective well-being, it has provided safe harbor for the
persecuted.
True to these values, past Presidents, Republican and
Democratic alike, have championed robust refugee resettlement.
For example, the annual refugee admissions ceiling has averaged
94,000 since the Refugee Act of 1980, making America the
world's resettlement leader. And just 1 year ago, the cap was
increased to 110,000 in response to the global humanitarian
crisis fueled by wars and unstable political environments.
Unfortunately, the current administration in swift fashion
abandoned America's bipartisan leadership in this arena.
Pursuant to executive orders, President Trump issued a
series of refugee bans. He then set a fiscal year 2018 ceiling
of 45,000, the lowest in modern history. In terms of per capita
refugee resettlement, that ranks the United States behind eight
other nations.
Under any circumstances, these actions would fly in the
face of our country's values. But coming at a time when
worldwide refugee levels have soared to the highest in history,
this cap to me is simply unconscionable. And worse yet, the
administration's purported justification for its actions are
baseless. The administration argues that the refugee program
poses a security threat.
Needless to say, Democrats stand committed to rigorous
refugee vetting. But national security experts from both
parties agree that it is the absence of robust resettlement
that truly undermines America's safety. By slashing refugee
admissions, President Trump damages, to me, key alliances in
the ongoing fight against terrorism and strengthens ISIS
recruitment.
The administration also claims that refugees fail to
assimilate and that they drain public resources. Again,
however, the facts are otherwise. According to reports, an
internal study by the Department of Health and Human Services,
suppressed by the administration, shows that refugees
contributed a net positive $63 billion to the United States
over a 10-year period. In other words, it is not refugees but
the President's restrictions of their admission that saps the
Nation's coffers.
In sum, President Trump's refugee policies don't just leave
tens of thousands of refugees in limbo and danger. They don't
just violate core American values. They weaken our national
security, damage our economy, and undermine our Nation's core
values.
All of this begs the question of what really fuels such
policies. Tragically, the answer to that question appears to
be, to me, a combination of nativism, fake facts, and perhaps
even a little bigotry, drawing from arguments made by anti-
immigrant organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law
Center as hate groups with documented links to white
nationalists.
The administration has even proposed a refugee assimilation
test, which evokes such xenophobic measures as the eugenics-
movement-fueled 1924 Immigration Act, which restricted
immigration from Southern Europe and banned it outright from
Asia. Like the 1924 act, the present administration's refugee
policies are equally inexcusable.
In closing, I urge our witnesses today to examine these
policies unflinchingly and to assess how gravely they endanger
our values, our economy, and even our national security. I look
forward to your testimony.
And I thank the Chairman and yield back.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection, other members' opening
statements will be made part of the record.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Labrador. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren. May I be granted unanimous consent to place
into the record statements from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid
Society, the International Refugee Assistance Project, the
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, U.S. Catholic
Conference of Bishops, Church World Services, the CATO
Institute, the Episcopal Church, a letter to Acting Secretary
Eric Hargan and Director Lloyd from over 100 organizations,
including the California Women's Law Center, Catholics For
Choice, the American Rabbis' Human Rights Campaign, and many
others.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection, they will be made part of
the record.
This material is available at the Committee or on the
Committee repository at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
JU01/20171026/106540/HHRG-115-JU01-20171026-SD002.pdf
Mr. Labrador. Today, we have a distinguished panel.
The witnesses' written statements will be entered into the
record in its entirety. I ask that you summarize your testimony
in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, there
is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from
green to yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your
testimony. When the light turns red, it signals that your 5
minutes have expired. Before I introduce our witnesses, I would
like you to stand to be sworn in.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
Thank you, and please be seated.
Mr. Simon Henshaw has served as the Acting Assistant
Secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
at the Department of State since July 15, 2017. Mr. Henshaw
previously served as Director of Andean Affairs in the State
Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Deputy Chief
of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Honduras, and several other
capacities at the State Department.
Mr. Henshaw attended the National War College where he
earned a master's of science in national security affairs and
has a bachelor of arts in history from the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst.
The Honorable L. Francis Cissna is the Director of the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services. Previously, Mr. Cissna
served as the Director for Immigration Policy within the DHS
Office of Policy and as the Acting Director and Deputy Director
of Immigration and Border Security Policy in the DHS Office of
Policy. Before serving at DHS headquarters, he worked in the
USCIS Office of the Chief Counsel as an associate counsel in
the Adjudications Law Division.
Mr. Cissna received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law
Center. He received a master's degree in international affairs
from Columbia University and a bachelor's degree in both
physics and political science from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. Physics and political science, that is an
interesting combination.
Mr. Scott Lloyd is the Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement. Mr. Lloyd previously worked as an attorney in the
public policy office at the Knights of Columbus. Before joining
the Knights, he worked in private practice at the Department of
Health and Human Services and on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Lloyd received his undergraduate education at James
Madison University and earned a J.D. at Catholic University of
America, Columbus School of Law.
Ms. Rebecca Gambler is a Director in the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Homeland Security and Justice Team,
where she leads GAO's work on border security, immigration, and
elections issues. Ms. Gambler joined GAO in 2002. Prior to
joining GAO, Ms. Gambler worked at the National Endowment for
Democracy's International Forum for Democratic Studies.
Ms. Gambler has an MA in national security and strategic
studies from the United States Naval War College and an MA in
international relations from Syracuse University and an MA in
political science from the University of Toronto.
I now recognize Mr. Henshaw for his statement.
TESTIMONY OF SIMON HENSHAW, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU
OF POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE; THE HONORABLE L. FRANCIS CISSNA, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; SCOTT LLOYD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF REFUGEE
RESETTLEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND
REBECCA GAMBLER, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S.
GOVERNMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
TESTIMONY OF SIMON HENSHAW
Mr. Henshaw. Thank you very much, Chairman Labrador, and
distinguished Members of Congress. And thank you very much for
holding this hearing on the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program,
which I will here after refer to as USRAP.
I appreciate the opportunity to address your subcommittee
with my colleagues from the Departments of Homeland Security,
Health and Human Services, and GAO. Together, the Department of
State, DHS, and HHS, plan to bring up to 45,000 refugees to the
United States through the USRAP in fiscal year 2018.
The security and welfare of the American people is this
administration's top priority. We have instituted additional
procedures in the USRAP application, interview, and
adjudication and systems checks processes to strengthen our
vetting system. We will continue to find ways to make our
screening procedures more effective in order to protect the
American people.
For those eligible for protection as refugees, the USRAP is
committed to deterring and detecting fraud among those seeking
to resettle in the United States. We will continue rigorous
security measures to protect against threats to our national
security.
In fiscal year 2018, the United States expects to continue
to permanently resettle more refugees than any other country,
and we will continue to offer protection to the most vulnerable
of those who have been persecuted because of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.
Since 1975, the United States has welcomed more than 3.4
million refugees, and the United States continues to operate
the largest Refugee Resettlement Program in the world. Through
the USRAP and our generous assistance program for refugees in
countries of first asylum, the United States demonstrates its
commitment to protecting the most vulnerable of the world's
refugees while keeping America safe from harm.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, UNHCR, there are 65.6 million forcibly displaced
people in the world today, 22.5 million of whom are refugees.
The United States and UNHCR focus on three durable solutions to
address the world refugee situation: voluntary repatriation,
local integration, and resettlement to a third county.
The United States and UNHCR recognize that most refugees
desire safe voluntary return to their homeland, and we share
UNHCR's priority of helping facilitate the voluntary
repatriation of refugees in safety and dignity. In 2016, some
552,000 refugees voluntarily repatriated to their countries of
origin.
For those refugees who are unable to voluntarily return
safely to their home countries, the United States supports
efforts to help refugees become self-sufficient and locally
integrate into their country of first asylum. The Department of
State encourages host governments to protect refugees and to
allow them to integrate into local communities. We promote
local integration by funding programs to enhance refugee self-
reliance and support community-based social services. Our
support has enabled numerous refugees from around the world to
integrate into their host communities abroad, even while
awaiting eventual voluntary repatriation.
For refugees who are unable to return home safely or
integrate locally, resettlement in third countries provides
durable protection. USRAP's security vetting process is managed
by DHS and includes the participation of the Departments of
State and Defense, the FBI, and the intelligence community,
including the National Counterterrorism Center.
DHS retains the authority to refuse refugees for admission.
In response to Executive Order 13780, protecting the Nation
from foreign terrorist entry into the United States, refugee
admissions were suspended in fiscal year 2017 for a 120-day
period, with the exception of certain cases.
During this period, the Departments of State and Homeland
Security and the Office of the Director for National
Intelligence, as well as additional intelligence and law
enforcement agencies reviewed and enhanced the security
screening regime for refugees. The program is currently in the
midst of an additional review of nationals of countries--of
certain countries with the potential for higher risk.
The USRAP is premised on the idea that, upon resettlement
in the United States, refugees should become economically self-
sufficient as quickly as possible. The Department of State
works domestically with agencies participating in the Reception
and Placement Program to ensure that refugees receive services
during the first 90 days after arrival in accordance with
established standards.
During and after the initial resettlement period, the
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee
Resettlement, provides technical assistance and funding to
States, the District of Columbia, and nonprofit organizations
to help refugees become self-sufficient and integrated into
U.S. society.
Thank you very much. I look forward to responding to your
questions.
Mr. Henshaw's written statement is available at the
Committee or on the Committee Repository at: http://
docs.house.gov/meetings/ju/ju01/20171026/106540/hhrg-115-ju01-
wstate-henshaws-20171026.pdf
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. Cissna for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE L. FRANCIS CISSNA
Mr. Cissna. Thank you, Chairman Labrador, Chairman
Goodlatte, Ranking Member Lofgren, Ranking Member Conyers, and
good morning to the members of the committee.
My name is Francis Cissna, and I am the Director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS.
I am glad to have this opportunity to discuss the role of
USCIS in the Nation's refugee admissions processes. I look
forward to meeting each of you individually to discuss our
views on immigration and how we can work together to improve
our Nation's immigration system.
Since this is my first opportunity to address any part of
Congress in my new capacity as Director, I wanted to take a
moment to quickly let you know some of my philosophy regarding
the work that we do at USCIS.
Upon my arrival at USCIS, about 2 weeks ago, I made it
clear to the leadership team that my vision of the agency's
mission is one that focuses on three things: efficiency,
fairness, and lawfulness.
Efficiency: The sheer volume of the work that USCIS does
makes it imperative that the efficiency be one of our key
goals. Movement from antiquated paper-based processes to one
that leverages the latest technology will allow us to process
applications and petitions in an efficient and integrated way.
Fairness: Transparency in our operations, from individual
case inquiries to massive data requests, is essential to the
question of fairness. USCIS, under my leadership, is committed
to providing the most accurate and complete information to the
public, whether they are applicants, petitioners, or the
general public, as possible. Doing so, I believe, will
demonstrate our promise to adjudicate benefit applications and
petitions fairly.
Finally, lawfulness: Everything that we do must be done in
accordance with the law. Too often, noble intentions have
resulted in creation of policies and programs that circumvent
or even directly contradict our Nation's immigration laws.
Under my leadership, I will ensure that everything we do,
policy and process, is always in agreement with the law.
You can be sure that these principles will be applied to
every part of USCIS' operations, including the topic of today's
hearing, refugee admissions.
USCIS is prepared to work closely with the Department of
State and other interagency partners to support a refugee
admissions program of up to 45,000 arrivals in fiscal year 2018
while at the same time assiduously maintaining and improving
the integrity of the program and our national security.
On March 6th of this year, President Trump issued Executive
Order 13780, called ``Protecting the Nation from Foreign
Terrorist Entry into the United States.'' In that document, the
President stated this: It is the policy of the United States to
protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including those
committed by foreign nationals.
While the executive order has been the subject of
litigation and portions of it were enjoined for a time, USCIS
has worked aggressively to strengthen the integrity of the U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program, consistent with its legal
obligations. Pursuant to that executive order, USCIS and its
partners engaged in a 120-day review process that ended just 2
days ago. I would like to share at this time some of the
results of that review.
As a result of the review, the Federal Government is
implementing enhancements that have raised the bar for vetting
and screening procedures, including enhancing the collection of
biometric information, better information sharing between State
and DHS, and new training procedures to strengthen screeners'
ability to detect fraud and deception.
Recognizing that the suspension of the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program in Executive Order 13780 has served its
purpose, the President issued a new executive order ending the
suspension and directing State and DHS to resume refugee
resettlement processing, consistent with the improved vetting
measures.
While DHS, State and the Directorate of National
Intelligence have jointly determined that the screening and
vetting enhancements to the Refugee Admissions Program are
adequate to generally resume refugee admissions, they have also
concluded that additional in depth review is needed with
respect to refugees from 11 countries that were previously
identified as posing a higher risk to the United States.
Consequently, admissions for applicants from those 11 high-
risk countries will resume but on a case-by-case basis during a
90-day review period. As DHS, State, and DNI complete
individual country reviews, they may resume a standard
admissions process for applicants from those countries. These
new measures are part of the administration's initiative to
raise national security standards across the board. These
enhancements will continually be evaluated to determine
efficacy for ensuring national security. The administration
will continue to work closely with law enforcement and
intelligence communities on these security enhancements, and of
course, we will work with you to ensure that operational and
legislative efforts are well coordinated.
Finally, I wanted to just touch one subject, and that is
the asylum backlog that USCIS is facing right now. We are
looking at 300,000 cases. Thank you.
Mr. Cissna's written statement is available at the
Committee or on the Committee Repository at: http://
docs.house.gov/meetings/ju/ju01/20171026/106540/hhrg-115-ju01-
wstate-cissnaf-20171026.pdf.
Mr. Labrador. We will let you touch on that during
questioning and answer. Thank you very much.
Now, I recognize Mr. Lloyd for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF SCOTT LLOYD
Mr. Lloyd. Chairman Labrador, Ranking Member Lofgren,
Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for inviting me to discuss the Department of Health and
Human Services responsibilities to help refugees resettle in
the United States.
My name is Scott Lloyd, and I am the Director of the Office
of Refugee Resettlement. I oversee ORR's programs which provide
refugees, asylees, victims of trafficking, and other
populations with support and services to assist them to become
integrated members of American society. In my testimony today I
will describe the role that HHS plays in refugee resettlement
and upcoming initiatives that the office plans to pursue.
In addition to refugees, asylees, Cuban and Haitian
entrants, special immigrant visa holders and victims of human
trafficking are eligible for ORR services. ORR's mission is to
link these populations to resources to help them become
successfully assimilated members of American society. In fiscal
year 2016, the United States resettled refugees from 89
countries. In total, over 212,000 individuals were eligible for
resettlement services through ORR programs.
ORR carries out its mission to serve refugees through
grants and related services, administered by State governments
and nonprofit organizations, including faith-based groups, and
an extensive public-private partnership network. Through these
grants, ORR provides time-limited cash and medical assistance
to newly arrived refugees as well as case management services,
English language classes, and employment services, all designed
to facilitate refugees' successful transition and assimilation
into life in the United States. To ensure a successful
transition for refugees, ORR funds cash and medical assistance
for individuals who are determined, not eligible for SSI, TANF,
and Medicaid.
Through programs administered by States and by voluntary
organizations under the Wilson-Fish programs, ORR provides this
assistance to eligible populations for up to 8 months after
their arrival in the United States.
A portion of new entrants participate in the voluntary
agency matching grant program rather than the refugee cash
assistance program. Through the matching grant program, ORR
funds U.S. resettlement agencies to help refugees become
employed and self-sufficient within their first 4 months in the
U.S. by providing services, such as case management, job skill
development, job placement and followup, and interim housing
and cash assistance. Participating refugees may not access
other public cash assistance if they choose to participate in
the matching grant program.
This employment-focused case management model has proven to
be effective in helping refugees achieve economic self-
sufficiency. In fiscal year 2016, the matching grant program
served almost 35,000 refugees, asylees, entrants, and special
immigrant visa holders, and reported economic self-sufficiency
rates of approximately 84 percent for refugees at 180 days
after arrival.
ORR also provides funds to State governments and private
nonprofit agencies to support social services, including
English language courses, employment services, and social
adjustment services. ORR allocates these funds based on a
formula tied to the prior year of arrival data that accounts
for refugees' and other entrants' movements to other States
after their initial resettlement. ORR provides targeted
assistance grants to States with qualifying counties that have
high numbers of refugee arrivals. Services provided by this
program are generally designed to help refugees secure
employment within 1 year or less of their arrival. ORR programs
also support economic development activities. These programs
focus on financial literacy, establishing credit and match
savings in support of housing purchases, educational goals, and
hundreds of business startups that in turn employ thousands.
ORR is committed to achieving a culture of excellence
throughout its programs. To do this, the program is redoubling
its efforts to obtain dependable data on program outcomes and
to incorporate evidence-based decision-making. Over the past
year, ORR has engaged in an initiative to improve data and
research on how refugees are integrating into the United
States.
ORR has awarded two research contracts. The first contract
will oversee the annual survey of refugees for the next 2
years. We have worked to improve the sampling design and
methodology to ensure that ORR has nationally representative
data on refugees' first 5 years in the United States. The
second research contract will assess ways to improve the survey
as an indicator of refugee successes and challenges. In
addition, ORR is particularly interested in enhancing data
collection from our State and local service providers to better
assess refugees' success and assimilation in communities post
arrival. ORR is working on a number of related data collection
initiatives to strengthen program performance reporting and
outcomes.
I welcome this committee's interest in HHS' refugee
resettlement programs. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss
the work we perform, and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Lloyd's written statement is available at the Committee
or on the Committee Repository at: http://docs.house.gov/
meetings/ju/ju01/20171026/106540/hhrg-115-ju01-wstate-lloyds-
20171026.pdf.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.
I now recognize Ms. Gambler for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF REBECCA GAMBLER
Ms. Gambler. Good morning, Chairman Labrador, Ranking
Member Lofgren, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify at
today's hearing to discuss GAO's work on the process by which
refugees seek to be resettled in the United States. The United
States admitted nearly 85,000 refugees in fiscal year 2016 and
over 50,000 in fiscal year 2017.
In recent years, questions have been raised regarding the
adequacy of the process for screening refugees seeking
resettlement and the extent to which the process may be
vulnerable to fraud. In two GAO reports issued earlier this
year, we examined U.S. Government efforts to oversee and
implement the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program as well as
efforts to identify and address potential fraud in the program.
My oral remarks summarize GAO's key findings and
recommendations in three areas: one, policies and procedures
for case processing; two, policies and procedures for
adjudicating refugee applications; and, three, efforts to
assess and address fraud risks.
First, State, through its nine support centers overseas,
has policies and procedures for processing refugee referrals
and applications to the United States. For example, State's
procedures include requirements for these centers to conduct
prescreening interviews of applicants to obtain information on
their persecution stories, among other things.
State also has various mechanisms to oversee the activities
of these refugee support centers. However, State does not have
outcome-based performance indicators to assess the centers'
performance, such as ensuring the quality of the center's
prescreening activities. We recommended that State develop such
indicators, and State concurred.
Second, within the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS
has policies and procedures to adjudicate refugee applications.
For those adjudications that we were able to observe during our
audit work, we found that USCIS staff generally implemented
these procedures. We also found that USCIS provided training to
all officers who adjudicate refugee applications abroad.
However, USCIS could improve its training. Specifically, we
found that officers who adjudicated applications on a temporary
basis did not receive the same amount or type of training as
full-time refugee officers. We recommended that USCIS provide
additional training for temporary officers, and USCIS has since
done so. Further, with regard to quantity assurance, USCIS has
not regularly assessed the quality of refugee adjudications to
help ensure that files are complete and that decisions on
applications are well documented and legally sufficient. Thus,
we recommended that USCIS conduct regular quality assurance
assessments of refugee adjudications.
Finally, State and USCIS have procedures to mitigate fraud
risks in the Refugee Admissions Program but could improve their
efforts. While infrequent, instances of staff fraud have
occurred, such as processing center staff soliciting bribes
from applicants in exchange for promises of expedited
processing. In response, these centers have designed control
activities to address staff fraud. However, State has not
required that all centers conduct staff fraud risk assessments.
Further, regarding applicant fraud, in the past, State has
suspended refugee resettlement programs because of fraud. State
and USCIS have implemented mechanisms to help prevent applicant
fraud. However, they have not jointly assessed applicant fraud
risks program wide. Absent such joint assessments, State and
USCIS do not have comprehensive information on risks that may
affect the integrity of the process. We recommended that State
regularly review processing center staff fraud risk assessments
and use them to examine the suitability of existing fraud
controls. We also recommended that State and USCIS conduct
regular joint fraud risk assessments of the program. State and
USCIS concurred with these recommendations.
In closing, giving the potential consequences that the
outcomes of decisions on refugee applications can have on the
safety and security of both vulnerable refugee populations and
the United States, it is important that the U.S. Government
have an effective refugee process to allow for resettlement of
approved applicants while preventing those with malicious
intent from using the program to gain entry to the country.
This completes my prepared statement, and I would be happy
to answer any questions from members.
Ms. Gambler's written statement is available at the
Committee or on the Committee Repository at: http://
docs.house.gov/meetings/ju/ju01/20171026/106540/hhrg-115-ju01-
wstate-gamblerr-20171026.pdf
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much.
We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions.
I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Henshaw, as you know, last year, the U.S. entered into
an agreement with Australia to accept over 1,000 refugees that
Australia has refused to resettle, many of whom are from
countries of national security concern. When this committee
inquired about the agreement, we were told that it was
classified. Press reports have indicated the deal was little
more than Australia agreeing to resettle a small number of
individuals from the Northern Triangle countries.
Don't you agree that the American people have a right to
know the details of that agreement?
Mr. Henshaw. Sir, it is our intention to make public as
much as the agreement as we can. The report that you initially
referred to was classified and remains classified. We have been
unable to declassify it. But, nevertheless, we will continue
to----
Mr. Labrador. Why? Why is that?
Mr. Henshaw. Sir, the original report was classified by the
Australians, and we have an agreement with the Australians
that, if they classify a report, it is classified under our
system.
Mr. Labrador. So will you commit to supporting
declassification of the agreement? Can you find a way to
declassify it? We are talking about an agreement that affects
the lives of America people, not--it is not the Australian
people. So how do we let our people know what is in that
agreement and what we are doing?
Mr. Henshaw. I will continue to work towards declassifying
the report, sir. I believe that most of the information in the
report is already in the public domain.
Mr. Labrador. Yeah, but we need to know from the
government, not what has been leaked to the press. I want
testimony on what exactly we agreed to with the Australian--
will you commit to doing that?
Mr. Henshaw. I will commit to continuing to work to
declassify the information, sir.
Mr. Labrador. Can you please explain the role of the RSCs
in the refugee programs?
Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. We use RSCs to enter the original
data on refugees who we are considering for resettlement in the
United States. We do some early interviewing to collect data,
biographical data, and information from them so it can be later
used by DHS and so that we can enter that into our security
system so that security reviews can be carried out.
Mr. Labrador. What types of fraud have occurred at the RSC
level?
Mr. Henshaw. I am not prepared to give full details. I just
don't have it with me on fraud.
Mr. Labrador. Didn't you know you were coming to testify
about this program?
Mr. Henshaw. Yes.
Mr. Labrador. So why are you not prepared?
Mr. Henshaw. I can give you some examples, if you would
like, sir. We have had a couple cases where people have--we
have had a couple cases, sir, where people have missed--have
attempted to portray their information incorrectly to RSC
members, but in all cases that I am aware of----
Mr. Labrador. I would like to see a report of what kinds of
frauds. I thought that was the purpose of this hearing. I am a
little bit dumbfounded that we don't have that information. So
I would like to know--that is what we are trying to figure
out--what is happening with this program, and I would like that
information.
Mr. Cissna, can you please explain why the decision was
made to concentrate on asylum cases as opposed to refugee cases
this fiscal year?
Mr. Cissna. Well, as I started to say earlier but then ran
out of time----
Mr. Labrador. Yes.
Mr. Cissna. USCIS is facing a backlog of about 300,000
asylum cases. And the way we look at it, the asylum work that
we do is complementary to the refugee work. These are all
vulnerable populations; these are people seeking relief under
the same standard. And the backlog is untenable. We can't have
that backlog persist because people are going years,
potentially, waiting for a court date to have their benefits
adjudicated. So we want to divert resources from refugee
processing to the asylum backlog to reduce that backlog.
Mr. Labrador. You are just trying to help with the
backlog----
Mr. Cissna. Yes.
Mr. Labrador. On asylum. It is not something nefarious that
you are trying to hurt people; you are actually trying to help
people.
Mr. Cissna. No, we want to help them.
Mr. Labrador. All right. Thank you.
The previous administration consistently told us that
refugees underwent the most rigorous vetting of any other
immigrants. But your testimony notes that several ways to
enhance the process for screening and vetting refugees have now
been identified. Apparently, that has been news to the previous
administration. Can you explain what some of those holes in the
process were and what changes have been made?
Mr. Cissna. Well----
Mr. Labrador. Do it quickly.
Mr. Cissna. I wouldn't call them holes, necessarily. I
would say that the processes that we have long had in place
could have been improved and will be improved. And some of the
things we are doing, we are enhancing and increasing the types
of information we are collecting from people. We are improving
our interview processes and the guidance to the people in the
field to conduct interviews, to root out fraud, and determine
credibility. And, finally, the types of checks we are doing on
people are also being expanded and enhanced to ensure that we
get the most possible value from those types of investigations.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much.
I now recognize the gentlelady from California, the ranking
member of the subcommittee.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I can't help but note that, yesterday, we marked up a bill
that would allow, you know, hundreds of thousands, maybe even
millions of workers paid sub-minimum wage come into the U.S.
with no vetting whatsoever. So, if I were a potential
terrorist, I think I might look at that route instead of the
extensive route that you are describing.
Mr. Labrador. Well, thanks for letting them know how to do
it.
Ms. Lofgren. Moving right along. I would like to ask you,
Mr. Lloyd, about policies relative to the rights of asylees in
your custody. I know that we are all aware that so-called Jane
Doe, a 17-year-old immigrant woman in ORR custody, was blocked
from accessing an abortion and forced to continue a pregnancy
against her will. She is a minor, but a court had decided that
she had the maturity to make the decision on her own, and yet
she continued to be blocked from this constitutional protected
healthcare. She wasn't asking the government to pay for her
care or to transport her to a doctor, just to get out of the
facility so that she could access a constitutional right that
she had to terminate her pregnancy. Obviously, as a 17-year-
old, she could not legally consent to the--I don't know whether
she was violently raped or it was a product of statutory rape,
she was finally released because the Court did intervene.
So I would like to ask you about your general belief about
the rights of women and girls who are in ORR's custody. Do you
believe that women and girls in your custody have
constitutional rights like other people who are in America? Or
do you think that constitutional rights, for example, to due
process and privacy, depend on immigration status?
Mr. Lloyd. I think, and you are referring to the
unaccompanied alien children program, where we provide shelters
in a number of locations throughout the country. I think
anybody who comes into the United States comes with the
potential to become a full U.S. citizen with full rights to all
the freedoms we enjoy, including the freedom to move freely and
the right to bear arms and to vote and others. That is always
subject to a process. Whether they come through as a UAC or
they come through as some other means, it is a process where,
as the person moves through the process, then they gain
additional rights.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, let me interrupt you because the due
process clause applies to everybody who is here. I believe. I
mean, that is what I learned in law school. That is what the
case law seems to say. Do you agree with that or not?
Mr. Lloyd. The due process clause does, yes.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you in terms of moving forward
prospectively. The Washington Post reports--and you know, we
don't know if this is true or not, which is why I am asking
you--suggested that you have personally intervened to try and
persuade minors not to have abortions.
I would like to know, did you have direct contact with the
young woman in this case that was in the paper? Do you have
direct contact with other pregnant girls in the care of ORR?
And do you have any medical training?
Mr. Lloyd. Forgive me, but, some of the answers to the
questions that you are asking are--my ability to answer them
fully is limited by a number of factors, including the court
orders and also our duty the protect the individual.
Ms. Lofgren. I am not asking for a name. Have you ever
contacted any anonymous young girl in your care trying to talk
her out of having an abortion?
Mr. Lloyd. As the Director, I run the UAC program, the
repatriation program, and the Refugee Resettlement Program, and
I am out in the field in many of our locations and I meet with,
dozens, and even perhaps hundreds of the people who we serve.
Among them, I am certain that some of them were pregnant at the
time.
Ms. Lofgren. I am disturbed that you won't answer the
question.
And my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Labrador. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman
from Iowa for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses for your testimony.
And just listening to the gentlelady from California's
dialogue here, and I would say, first, that what has been
created by that decision of the unelected judge is an
unconditional right to an abortion to a minor who can sneak
into the United States and is still subject to the adjudication
of deportation.
She had a full right--a full ability, I should say, rather
than a right--to go back to her home country willingly and
subject herself to the laws of her home county.
And so I think this is a terrible precedent that has been
set by this judge, and I hope that this full Judiciary
Committee one day soon addresses the rogue judges that we have
in this country, and this includes Judge Watson out in Hawaii
and the judge in Washington, that seem to be the venue shopping
people that decide that they are going to challenge the
statutes of the United States duly passed by the United States
Congress and signed into law by the President of the United
States, and for them to turn that completely upside-down.
And so I would like to turn first to Mr. Cissna with regard
to that. And there has been discussion about the executive
orders. And I would expand it to the challenges to the
executive orders that have taken place in the courts, and I
read the statute, and I don't have them in front of me, but it
is very clear. Congress has granted the President the authority
to determine who comes and who goes from the United States of
America with the security interest of America in mind. And it
doesn't say that a judge anywhere can look over his shoulder
and determine that his judgment is flawed and their judgment is
superior.
So I would ask if you have any opinions upon that statute
after I have expressed mine, Mr. Cissna.
Mr. Cissna. Well, with respect to the refugee statute,
section 207 of the Immigration Act, it is pretty clear that the
authority to let refugees in is totally discretionary. So the
authorities that we are now using to restart the program after
the suspension was lifted comply with that. And the types of
checks we are doing, all those things that we are doing that we
talked about earlier, are in full compliance with that.
Mr. King. And you discussed enhanced biometric collection.
Could you expand on that a little for us, please?
Mr. Cissna. In answer to that question, as with many other
questions along those lines, I probably wouldn't be able to get
into big detail because of law enforcement sensitivities.
But I can say that the types of--the classes of people from
whom biometrics will be taken, it is intended, shall be
expanded in certain cases. So more people--we will get
biometrics from more people. And the types of databases against
which there are checks will also be expanded----
Mr. King. Are we talking fingerprints?
Mr. Cissna. Primarily, yes.
Mr. King. Are we doing digital photographs, facial
recognition?
Mr. Cissna. We have always done that. We have always taken
photographs.
Mr. King. That would be pretty much the sum total of
biometrics we are discussing when----
Mr. Cissna. I think in general for now. But that doesn't
preclude other biometrics----
Mr. King. DNA I hope one day. It is cheap to get and cheap
to keep. So that is my recommendation. Thank you.
I would like to turn to Ms. Gambler. In your report, some
questions came to mind to me on the U.N. High Commissioner on
Refugees and cooperation with them that is referenced in your
report. Can you tell me, does the U.N. High Commissioner on
Refugees, do they do background checks on any of the lists that
they maintain and pass over to us for potential refugees?
Ms. Gambler. We can follow up and see what specific
information we have on that, Congressman King, and get back to
you. I do know there are, under the framework of cooperation
that exists between the Department of State and UNHCR, I know
that there are some feedback loops back and forth on that. We
would be happy to followup and get any additional information.
Mr. King. And I would appreciate if you could do that, but
it would be--my understanding would be that, at this point, you
are not aware of what background checks might be done, if any,
by UNHCR.
Ms. Gambler. We will follow up with you on that. The other
thing I would say, though, is that the U.S. Refugee Admissions
Program is designed to be a multistep process. And so, once
referrals are made from UNHCR to the Department of State, that
is when the Federal Government adjudication and security check
process begins.
Mr. King. But as far as we know--and I want to say as far
as I know--the information that is referred to us from UNHCR
doesn't really have a background check. It is simply a file
that gets passed on to us and takes time for them to move
through the file, maybe as long as 2 years.
So, in the background checks that we do have that we are
relying upon for this ubervetting process that the President
has described, if there is no legal existence of that
individual in their home country or none that can be uncovered
by the record, then if it comes up empty, we are just stamping
them ``USA-approved'' and moving them into the country. Would
that be a fair representation?
Ms. Gambler. As we noted in our report, Congressman King,
government officials have stated that the security checks are
reliant on the information that the U.S. Government has.
Mr. King. And if there is none available, then we are
relying upon empty--Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
for one more short question, please.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think I have forgotten the question. But it was that--
with the vetting process that we have and the lack of
biometrics that we have--you know, I am just going to suspend
that because I don't think it is well-enough thought out. And I
would yield back and thank you for attention, though, on the--
--
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield the time to the ranking member of this
subcommittee--of the committee, entire committee.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate the discussion that has been generated.
Let me start off by observing that, since the Trump
administration has come into being, briefing requests submitted
by Democratic Members' staff have been repeatedly denied,
ignored, or delayed.
Do each of you promise to respect and satisfy the briefing
and other requests staffs make from both the Republican and
Democratic Members alike?
Mr. Cissna, are you okay with that?
Mr. Cissna. I am okay with providing any technical
assistance or briefings you want from my agency.
Mr. Conyers. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Lloyd, are you okay with that?
Mr. Lloyd. Yes, certainly.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. Mr. Henshaw.
Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. Okay. Fine. What I wanted to observe is that
my district has benefited greatly from the economic
contributions from the refugee community. Refugees from around
the world live and reside in and own businesses in the Detroit
area that I represent, and I welcome these hard-working
refugees and think that my opinion--and think that my community
is better as a result.
And economists have also found that refugees have higher
entrepreneurship, make significant contributions to the
economy, and, on average, pay more than $21,000 in taxes than
they receive in benefits. And I have got a couple of studies
that back it up. I would like consent to include them in the
record, Mr. Chairman, the New American Economy, ``Struggle to
Resilience,'' as well as the ``Economic and Social Outcomes of
Refugees in the United States.'' And I ask unanimous consent to
enter them into the record.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection, they will be entered into
the record.
This material is available at the Committee or on the
Committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
JU01/20171026/106540/HHRG-115-JU01-20171026-SD003.pdf
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
Is there general agreement among all of our witnesses that
there have been great benefits of these refugees that make
communities like mine better as a result? Is there general
agreement with that from all of you here this morning?
Mr. Cissna. I don't disagree that many refugees do make
enormous contributions to our country, yes.
Mr. Conyers. Sure.
Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Mr. Conyers. Uh-huh.
Mr. Lloyd. I concur.
Ms. Gambler. Yes.
Mr. Conyers. All right.
Now, let me get to the question or observation raised by
Mr. Lloyd.
How do you think refugees are doing on the question of
assimilating? Do you believe refugees are currently
assimilating or not assimilating?
Mr. Lloyd. In any question like that, I think it is a case-
by-case basis, but that is one of the goals of our program.
Once they have arrived in the U.S., we provide job placement
services, and English language courses which are going to help.
Mr. Conyers. I know it is going to be on a case-by-case
basis, but, I mean, in general. Do you think they are--that
currently assimilation has come along okay or not?
Mr. Lloyd. Generally, from what I have been able to see, I
think so, yes.
Mr. Conyers. Uh-huh. Any other views that anyone wants to
recommend on this question that I have asked? Is assimilation a
problem, or is it working okay?
Mr. Cissna. Well----
Mr. Conyers. Can I get the response?
Mr. Labrador. You can respond.
Mr. Cissna. At USCIS, we do look at assimilation issues
with respect to our citizenship and grants programs. And with
regard to refugees, that is something I think we want to look
at more carefully in this fiscal year. So we want to look at it
as well.
Mr. Conyers. Anybody else want to chime in on this? My time
has expired, but we can answer the question.
Mr. Henshaw. I would just add, sir, that we concentrate on
self-sufficiency, and we have good results in many refugees
becoming self-sufficient and contributing to society in
America.
Mr. Conyers. Good.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Lofgren. May I ask for unanimous consent to put in the
record a letter from 24 national and State-based religious
groups opposing the ORR obstructive policy on abortion?
Mr. Labrador. Without objection.
This material is available at the Committee or on the
Committee repository at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
JU01/20171026/106540/HHRG-115-JU01-20171026-SD002.pdf
Mr. Labrador. And I now recognize the gentleman from
Louisiana for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here.
Director Cissna, prior to now, what information was not
being shared between State and DHS that is now going to be
shared to enhance the safety of the refugee program?
Mr. Cissna. I think that would squarely fall within the
universe of kind of law enforcement sensitivities that I don't
feel comfortable discussing in an open forum.
Mr. Johnson. Fair enough. Can you explain to the committee
how the Department of Homeland Security modified its training
of DHS refugees officers to account for serious and potential
threats of bad actors who try to abuse the refugee program?
Mr. Cissna. Historically, the training of refugee officers
has always been very robust. They have weeks and weeks of
training that all adjudicators have, but then they have an
additional 5 or 6 weeks on top of that. And then they have
country-specific training that focuses on the types of fraud
and other country conditions.
But in the wake of the working group that implemented the
executive order, we are going to further increase and improve
training so that the officers are able to even better assess
credibility, which is the key element in interviewing the
people, and determining whether the person is inadmissible
under the law. So sometimes they have criminal offenses or
other things that make them inadmissible, and we are trying to
train our adjudicators to make even better assessments of that.
Mr. Johnson. Speaking of the credibility determination, do
you think now would be a good time for us to review our asylum
standards, meaning that would it be wise for Congress to
tighten the standards for credible fear determinations, for
example, to ensure our system is not abused, especially in
light of this backlog of 300,000 cases?
Mr. Cissna. I do. I think that--and this is actually one of
the immigration priorities that the administration advanced a
week or--2 weeks ago or so. One of the many things that we
proffered was that the Congress examine that exact issue.
I think the question would be whether the credible fear
standard is actually clear enough to be implemented properly,
and I don't think it is. I think it could be clarified so that
those assessments are made better and the people that don't
meet that standard get weeded out.
Mr. Johnson. I am glad to hear you say that. We have been
working on legislation to help with that.
Ms. Gambler, can you speak to the fraud that has occurred
at the resettlement support centers. I think Mr. Henshaw didn't
quite answer it completely. What is your thought on that?
Ms. Gambler. Yes. As part of our audit work, we did
identify that, while infrequent, there were some cases of fraud
that occurred at the RSCs. So we give some examples in our
report. In one case, RSC staff were soliciting bribes on
promise of being able to help expedite applications. There was
another case in which interpreters were seeking bribes as well.
To, I think, State's credit and the RSC's credit, in response
to those instances of fraud, they did take action to respond
and strengthen their processes going forward. But there have
been some cases of fraud identified as it relates to RSCs.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you for that.
Mr. Henshaw, back to you. As you know, the U.S.
consistently admits per year vastly more UNHCR-referred third-
country resettled refugees than any other county in the world,
and you mentioned that. What diplomatic pressure or other
incentivizing measures are being used to push these other
countries to admit more of those refugees?
Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. We participate in worldwide meetings
of resettlement countries and push other countries to take
additional refugees. We use that in diplomatic meetings, in
humanitarian meetings, and other meetings around the world to
urge other countries. We have also pushed countries that
haven't been in the resettlement business before to get into
that business. And one of the alternatives that we have pushed
for countries that aren't regular resettlement countries is to
look for alternative methods for people to enter their
countries on different kinds of working visas or such.
Mr. Johnson. Well, as you also know, refugees are provided
loans to cover the cost of travel to the U.S., and funding for
the loans is provided by your agency. So I am curious to know
about the loan repayment rate and if you have steps that are
being taken to ensure prompt repayment of those loans?
Mr. Henshaw. Repayment rate is very high. It differs among
populations, but it is generally well over 75 percent and, with
many populations, significantly over that. And we continue to
look for ways to improve payment of those loans--repayment of
those loans.
Mr. Johnson. I have got 15 seconds, but what are the
repercussions to a refugee who doesn't pay back a loan? What
about that 25 percent?
Mr. Henshaw. I believe it affects their credit rating, but
I would have to get back to you on the other details on how it
affects them.
Mr. Johnson. Would you give us that information?
Mr. Henshaw. Yes, I can do that.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
And I yield to the gentlelady from Washington.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me pick up on the questions of our ranking member of
the subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren.
Mr. Lloyd, do you believe that a woman's constitutional
right to abortion depends on her immigration status?
Mr. Lloyd. I think that any entrant into the United
States----
Ms. Jayapal. It is a yes-or-no question, Mr. Lloyd. Do you
believe that a women's constitutional right to abortion depends
on her immigration status, yes or no?
Mr. Lloyd. A number of rights----
Ms. Jayapal. That is not a yes-or-no question--that is not
a yes-or-no answer, Mr. Lloyd.
Mr. Lloyd. My answer is that any number of rights depend on
where they stand in terms of our immigration system.
Ms. Jayapal. I do not understand that answer. Is that a yes
or a no?
I will take that as a no. So do you believe that immigrants
have constitutional rights?
Mr. Lloyd. Once again, if somebody wants to come into the
United States and----
Ms. Jayapal. I will take that as a no.
Mr. Lloyd, do you have medical training of any kind?
Mr. Lloyd. If I need advice regarding any medical situation
regarding any of the populations I serve, I consult the medical
team----
Ms. Jayapal. So the answer is, no, you don't have medical
training of any kind.
Mr. Lloyd. No, I don't.
Ms. Jayapal. Are you trained to provide counseling services
to young people, Mr. Lloyd?
Mr. Lloyd. If counseling services are called for, then I
rely on the team of counseling professionals to advise me in my
role.
Ms. Jayapal. So, Mr. Lloyd, what expertise makes you
qualified in this Jane Doe case to override the determination
of a Texas State court that Jane Doe is mature and competent
enough to make her own decisions?
Mr. Lloyd. I am not going to comment on any individual
case. In any case that comes across my desk, we are going to
look at the totality of the circumstances that may affect their
case, and that may include legal considerations, and it may
include policy considerations, medical needs, social
considerations and welfare considerations. We have a team of
experts and staff who are well equipped to advise me on any
number of those things. In terms of what outcomes we are going
to come to or what decisions we are going to make, it is going
to come from a totality of that advice and the facts on the
ground.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Lloyd, is anybody able to review or
override your decision, or are you the ultimate decision maker
with regards to a woman's ability to exercise her
constitutional right to abortion?
Mr. Lloyd. The Office of Refugee Resettlement is situated
within the Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families. I answer to the
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families and to the
Secretary of HHS.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Lloyd, is it your intent to block
unaccompanied minors from accessing abortion care, or will you
instruct providers to deny minors other types of reproductive
healthcare, like contraception or information on contraceptive
methods? How far is your jurisdiction over this issue going to
extend?
Mr. Lloyd. Any time or any circumstance is going to depend
on the totality of facts that any individual case brings before
us. It is always going to be a case-by-case determination.
Ms. Jayapal. It is extremely troubling to me, Mr. Lloyd,
what is happening. I think you are far overreaching over your
expertise or your jurisdiction.
Mr. Henshaw, from the beginning, America has been a refuge
for the persecuted. And in keeping with our past--with our
values, past Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have
championed refugees and regarded the refugee program as core to
the Nation's identity. And, in fact, to 20 national security
leaders, including Henry Kissinger, Michael Chertoff, Madeleine
Albright, wrote in a 2015 letter, and I am quoting, that:
``Resettlement initiatives help advance U.S. national security
interests by supporting the stability of our allies and
partners that are struggling to host large numbers of
refugees.''
And yet this administration has repeatedly, and contrary to
evidence, characterized refugees as fraud, security threats,
and resource strains.
To what extent and why do you think that this
administration's view of refugees is so dramatically different
from the longstanding bipartisan tradition and fundamental
American values?
Mr. Henshaw. Security is our utmost concern with any
refugee program. And we have over the years often reevaluated
our program to make sure that the best security standards are
met, and that is what we are doing now.
I believe that the current plan to bring in up to 45,000
refugees this year is well within our past history of refugee
numbers and signifies that we are still the leader in refugee
resettlement in the United States--in the world, sorry.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for one
more short question.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much.
Mr. Henshaw, the White House has recently released
statement of immigration principles cited a misleading study
claiming to show that United States can resettle 12 refugees in
safe zones near their home countries for the cost of resettling
1 refugee domestically. Are you aware of who performed that
study?
Mr. Henshaw. No, I am not. I would just simply say that it
is always our number one option to resettle people back in--
voluntarily back in the country from which they fled.
Ms. Jayapal. Let me just say, and I will yield back my
time, that the source was the Center for Immigration Studies,
an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center has
designated as a hate group and found that it disseminated white
nationalist content on over 2,000 occasions. I am deeply
disturbed that the administration would be using that as a
source of anything in an official report.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the additional
time.
Mr. Labrador. The chair will yield time to the gentlelady
from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman.
And I really do--as I look, these are public servants, and
I thank you for your service. I would argue that the service
that each of your agencies are supposed to give really falls in
the category of mercy and sympathy and empathy for conditions
that refugees around the world are facing.
I am not sure whether that is possible, having the kind of
statements that are coming from the administration, and I,
frankly, believe the American people should realize that, when
people servants appear before us, they are, unfortunately, the
spokesperson of a cruel and ugly policy, as evidenced by the
administration.
So, having sat on the Immigration Subcommittee for many,
many years, I can probably, with great comfort, say that this
is probably the worst time in American history as it relates to
the rights of immigrants.
With that said, I would like to begin my line of
questioning on a general statement on Mr. Henshaw and Mr.
Lloyd. How do you treat Muslim refugees?
Mr. Henshaw.
Mr. Henshaw. We don't treat refugees any differently in any
way based on their religion.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And how is that possible when the
administration has fought consistently for a Muslim ban?
Mr. Henshaw. There is no Muslim ban. We are simply
reevaluating our security system country by country.
Ms. Jackson Lee. There is a Muslim ban proposed by this
administration, as evidenced by the stance that the Attorney
General has been taking in the courts, although they have been
defeated.
So what you are saying to me is that you do not decipher
and/or reject Muslim refugees that may be in refugee camps in
Jordan and on the border of Syria?
Mr. Henshaw. Never, ever.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Mr. Lloyd.
Mr. Lloyd. Once they enter into our care, all
determinations about placement have already been made. This is
the Office of Refugee Resettlement where we administer
benefits. We treat Muslim refugees the same as we treat all
other refugees.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Will you submit to this committee your
statements in dealing with refugees who have come? I know the
process. The American people don't know the process. That is,
of course, that refugees coming out of areas are in a camp. I
think you work with United Nations. That is the process. It is
a long period of vetting, and then these individuals come to
the United States by way of your choice of them out of those
who are requiring or requesting the opportunity to come to the
United States. Is that not correct?
Mr. Lloyd. The initial determination and selection is made
by PRM in consultation with DHS.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. So provide me and this committee
with that whole process, and that includes those individuals
that may be coming from the areas of the Muslim ban, because
they do exist. So I would appreciate if you would do so.
Otherwise, the myth of taking in terrorists will continue to
abound in this particular administration.
I would like to pursue also the line of questioning dealing
with your treatment of refugees, having just visited the border
and seeing some of the detention centers. Although I appreciate
the service, again, of the Federal employees, it is not a
pleasant sight.
So, in particular, Mr. Lloyd, with Ms. Jane Doe, again, did
you have direct contact with Ms. Jane Doe or those advocating
on her behalf?
Mr. Lloyd. I cannot comment on individual cases.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you--I am not sure why you would not
indicate whether or not--did you have contact with the lawyers?
Did the agency have contact directly with the lawyers?
Mr. Lloyd. In any case where there are any lawyers
involved, we would be in contact with the lawyers, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you have a set policy that you are
pushing by way of the administration that opposes any young
women who are falling under a particular statistic that says
that 60 percent of those who are trying to flee oppression and
persecution coming from the southern border are generally raped
by their--by those who are trafficking them and, therefore,
might be in need of medical help? Are you familiar with that
statistic?
Mr. Lloyd. I am not familiar with that specific statistic,
but----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you ever any position on providing any
sort of humane response to an individual that may have been
raped and is pregnant, and that falls upon the laws of the
United States, which would allow an abortion?
Mr. Lloyd. We work in the best interest of all the UACs who
come into our care and in the confines of our statutory
requirements.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So then they would be covered by the
general laws about the ability to achieve an abortion based
upon being raped?
Mr. Lloyd. That would fall under the TVPRA, which we have
implemented with interim----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that a yes?
Mr. Lloyd. I am sorry?
Ms. Jackson Lee. They would have that right because of the
laws that allow women to secure an abortion because they have
been raped. Is that a yes?
Mr. Lloyd. With regard to the sexual----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like an additional minute for the
witness to answer the question.
Mr. Labrador. I will object. You have gone over a minute
already, so----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you finish the question, sir?
Mr. Labrador. You can answer the question.
Mr. Lloyd. With regard to sexual assault, we follow the
guidelines of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and have
implemented that into our policies.
Ms. Jackson Lee. In Jane Doe's case, you did not, however--
--
Mr. Labrador. The gentlelady's time has expired. I gave you
an additional minute, so thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, but this is
a serious issue. The treatment of refugees under this
administration has diminished. It has frankly deteriorated.
And I want to apologize to those who are seeking refuge in
this country under this administration.
Mr. Labrador. It is a serious issue. And that is why we are
trying to reduce the number of illegal people coming to the
United States because many of them do get raped trying to cross
a border, and that is what we are trying to stop.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. We should
at least treat them with decency when they come.
Mr. Labrador. This concludes today's hearing.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back.
Mr. Labrador. Thanks to all of our witnesses for attending.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or
additional materials for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]