    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

               A GLOBAL CRISIS: REFUGEES, MIGRANTS, AND ASYLUM SEEKERS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                     Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
              Global Human Rights, and International Organizations

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 26, 2019

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 116-5

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                                docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    35-363PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
    gpo@custhelp.com.

                         COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                       ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman

    BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York               Member
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey		     CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia	     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida	     JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    KAREN BASS, California		     SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts	     TED S. YOHO, Florida
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island	     ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    AMI BERA, California	             LEE ZELDIN, New York
    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas		     JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
    DINA TITUS, Nevada		     ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York	     BRIAN MAST, Florida
    TED LIEU, California		     FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania	     BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota		     JOHN CURTIS, Utah
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota		     KEN BUCK, Colorado
    COLIN ALLRED, Texas    		     RON WRIGHT, Texas
    ANDY LEVIN, Michigan		     GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
    ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia	     TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania	     GREG PENCE, Indiana
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey	     STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
    DAVID TRONE, Maryland		     MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
    JIM COSTA, California
    JUAN VARGAS, California
    VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
                   Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director

                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
                          International Organizations

                        KAREN BASS, California, Chairman

    SUSAN WILD, Pennslvania              CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
    DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota                 Ranking Member
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota		     JIM SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania	     RON WRIGHT, California
                                         TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Ruiz, Hon. Raul, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      California.....................................................     9
    Buwalda, Annigje, Executive Director, Jubilee Campaign, USA......    20
    Mace, Ryan, Grassroots Advocacy and Refugee Specialist, Amnesty
      International..................................................    34
    Schwartz, Honorable Eric, President, Refugees International,
      Former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees,
      and Migration..................................................    45

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    69
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    70
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    71

            A GLOBAL CRISIS: REFUGEES, MIGRANTS, AND ASYLUM SEEKERS

                               February 26, 2019

                              House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                         Washington, DC

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in
    Room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Karen Bass
    (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Ms. Bass. Good afternoon, I welcome everyone to the first
    hearing of the 116th Congress for this subcommittee.
        I want to welcome the new members of our subcommittee.
        This hearing is now called to order. Without objection,
    members have 5 legislative days in which to submit their
    statements and materials for the record.
        Since I do not have a gavel, I will just knock on the
    table. So given that there are many new members on this
    subcommittee, I wanted to take time for the first few hearings
    to really do an overview of the jurisdiction. I mean we are
    blessed to have our ranking member here who has been on this
    committee and working in the subject area for more than 3
    decades, but for the new members that are here we really wanted
    to take time and review all of the different subject areas. So
    delving into U.S. policy toward Africa, having a hearing on
    global health, looking at international organizations. And we
    will do this through a series of hearings.
        I also wanted to invite the members to a meeting that we
    are going to have on March 11th, which will be with all of the
    Ambassadors from the African continent. In April we will do a
    congressional delegation to Africa, looking at the role of the
    U.S. military on the continent. This specific hearing focuses
    on the intersection of global health, human rights, and
    international organizations.
        The world is experiencing what many experts say is an
    unprecedented humanitarian and displacement crisis. I am sure
    many of us have seen images flash across our TV screen that
    include massive numbers of citizens displaced from Syria,
    Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Yemen and
    others. But we also have to acknowledge that this is also
    happening right here on our own doorstep.
        According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in
    2017, more than 68 million people were forcibly displaced
    worldwide. Those displaced included 25 million refugees, 3.1
    million asylum seekers and 40 million IDP's are internally
    displaced persons.
        People leave their countries for a variety of reasons, but
    most are forcibly displaced due to armed conflict, widespread
    or indiscriminate violence, human rights violations and/or
    persecution. Another category of displaced people includes the
    millions affected yearly by natural disasters, such as
    earthquakes, storms or drought.
        We can all imagine that the choice to leave one's home
    cannot be easy. After escaping some of the most challenging
    circumstances in their home countries, these migrants,
    refugees, and asylum seekers endure difficult journeys that
    often puts them at risk for exploitation.
        While there are many more cases, including people displaced
    from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and South Sudan, the situations
    I have referenced highlight that there are numerous root causes
    for why people are forced to leave. This is why it is critical
    for the United States to continue to support the State
    Department and USAID, given that their programs are often aimed
    at investing in women, girls, and youth. It is better to
    address the root causes for why people have to leave their
    countries.
        I would be remiss if I did not mention that the United
    States is also confronting our own challenges on how to engage
    with refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers. As we watch images
    of these vulnerable populations making their difficult
    journeys, we have to ask the same questions that we were asked
    if it were the Rohingya, arriving exhausted, hungry and sick,
    after walking for days through jungles or mountains or braving
    dangerous sea voyages. This is important because we should also
    hold ourselves accountable. It is also important because it
    gives us more credibility in the world as we attempt to tackle
    the important issue of displaced persons around the world.
        I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses as
    we attempt to understand the magnitude of this crisis. I want
    to thank the witness, especially our colleague Representative
    Raul Ruiz.
        I yield to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        Madam chair, congratulations to you on taking over the helm
    of this very, very important committee. It has been my
    privilege as you said to be on it as either chairman or ranking
    member since the 1990's. So it is great to be with you and we
    have worked very well together over the last several years. I
    deeply appreciate that.
        We have been bipartisan on so many important issues, we
    have traveled together to places, we have been denied entry,
    for example DR Congo, but we did get into certainly Ethiopia.
    We have been to as well to South Sudan and had some very
    contentious meetings with Salva Kiir, very much deserved for
    his dropping the ball, particularly when it comes to refugees,
    IDPs, and basic humanitarianism.
        Today's hearing is an interesting and a complex topic, a
    very important topic. I think it is right that we focus on
    refugees, and IDPs. I would like to side step some of the
    politics and focus instead on one category of people. But
    before I do I would note, and I think it is worth noting, that
    according to CRS the U.S. continues to be the largest donors of
    humanitarian assistance worldwide, providing nearly one-third
    of the total global contributions, more than 7 billion in 2016,
    9.3 billion in 2017 and 9.4 billion in 2018.
        The U.N. Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
    anticipates that in 2019 more than 132 million people worldwide
    were requiring humanitarian assistance and protection as a
    result of conflict and disaster. Moreover, the U.N. High
    Commissioner of Refugees says that in 2018 more than 68.5
    million people were forcibly displaced worldwide due to war and
    conflict, widespread or indiscriminate violence and human
    rights violations. A huge number of people of great, great
    burden on each of these individuals and their families. The
    government that often are inadequate because of resources to
    care for them, putting an even more burden on the developed
    countries to step up and to assist.
        I would point out that, you know, we--the last Congress I
    introduced H.R. 390 to assist those men and women who were
    escaping from ISIS. I chaired no less than 10 congressional
    hearings on their plight. There were 70,000 strong who made
    their way into Erbil. Every one of them a survivor of ISIS'
    genocide. And I am happy to say that the bill was signed into
    law in December, and it is designed to assist those individuals
    who went largely unassisted during several years of genocide by
    ISIS.
        I do believe that there are a large number of people who
    are people of faith all over the world, including the people in
    China, who are kind of internally displaced, given that they
    are in concentration camps. Put there deliberately, the Muslim
    Uighurs because of Xi Jinping's horrific crackdown on religion,
    he called it Sinification. It is an effort to say that
    everyone, whether you be Falun Gong, Christian Tibetan
    Buddhist, or a Muslim Uighur, or anyone else need to comport
    with and conform with the communist ideology or else. You go to
    a gulag, you become internally displaced and you are just
    harassed and in many cases tortured.
        In the last administration we did have trouble with
    allowing Christians from Syria to come into the United States
    and I held hearings on that as well. It was less than one half
    of 1 percent who came as refugees. I think that was
    unfortunate. It could have been rectified. I never got to the
    bottom as to why that was the case.
        There was reliance on the UNHCR, which I greatly admire and
    respect as an organization. But frankly, there are a lot of
    Christians who simply will not go there. If they did the women
    would be harassed, sexually abused, raped in many cases and the
    men would be beaten. So they chose another route, many went to
    Lebanon, many went to Erbil in the case of the Christians who
    escaped, and again I went and visited, talked to those people,
    and they wondered where was the United States? Why were you not
    helping us? That is being rectified.
        Anna Eshoo who is the cosponsor of my bill, we had a number
    of bipartisan cosponsors, including the gentlelady who is now
    the chair, really is making the difference to reach out to
    those people who were persecuted and so maltreated.
        We also need to continue to help the Rohingya in Burma who
    are persecuted, the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan who are considered
    apostate by the Sunni majority and are in greater need of
    asylum as well. Again to underscore, the Muslim Uighurs this
    number approximates what we saw in the second world war. With
    so many people being put into concentration camps.
        Last year, I had 2 hearings on this. One woman Mihrigul,
    who is a Muslim, Tursen testified and said she was tortured in
    the chair, a hideous device used by the Chinese Government and
    was hoping for death. She goes, I wanted to die, it was just so
    painful. And why was she--she asked her jailer, why am I being
    so maltreated? He said, because you are an Uighur and because
    you are Muslim. Those two things.
        I think the whole world has to speak up even more
    aggressively to this carnage being visited upon people of faith
    and others who do not conform to the communist dictatorship of
    Beijing. And again we need to do more, always more for
    refugees, IDPs, because they are--and I do see my old friend
    who used to be at the National Security Council for the Clinton
    Administration, who when we had a problem with people who were
    being forced back to Vietnam, pursuant to the comprehensive
    plan of action and I thought it was a very major mistake on
    some but in the Clinton Administration to do so, we had a
    friend and ally in Eric Schwartz, in fighting.
        I offered an amendment on the floor of the House to deny
    any funding for forced repatriation. It passed unexpectedly,
    people thought it would not. Now I am working with Eric and
    other like mind, but he took the lead within the
    administration. We were able to get rereviews of these
    refugees. 20,000 people who were originally told you do not
    qualify came to the United States. So thank you Eric.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Ranking Member.
        Let me introduce our first witness, U.S. Representative
    Raul Ruiz, grew up in the community of Coachella, California.
    Where both of his parents were farm workers. Dr. Ruiz graduated
    from UCLA. He went on to Harvard where he earned his medical
    degree as well as a masters of public policy from the Kennedy
    School of government and a masters of public health from the
    school of public health, becoming the first Latino to earn
    three graduate degrees from Harvard University. He completed
    his residency in emergency medicine. And during his training he
    served as a consultant to the ministries of health in both
    Serbia and El Salvador.
        In 2010, Dr. Ruiz started the Coachella Valley Healthcare
    Initiative which brought together stakeholders from around the
    region to address local healthcare crisis. In 2010 Dr. Ruiz
    flew to Haiti immediately following the 2010 earthquake and
    served as the medical director for the Haitian relief
    organization.
        The U.S. Army's 82d airborne awarded him the Commander's
    Award for public service. We appreciate you coming in to
    testify and please begin.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL RUIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Dr. Ruiz. Good morning Chair Bass, and Ranking Member
    Smith. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
    subcommittee to discuss a critical and urgent matter, the
    treatment of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. It is a
    topic I am moved to discuss, because frankly our Federal
    Government needs a lesson on the humanitarian standards that
    should govern our treatment of the individuals in our custody.
        Some background on me, I am an emergency medicine
    physician, and a graduate of Harvard Medical School. I am also
    a graduate of the Harvard School of public health where I
    specialized in humanitarian aid and disaster response and
    completed a fellowship in the international emergency medicine
    with the Harvard humanitarian initiative.
        In 2010, I traveled to Haiti immediately following the
    devastating earthquake where I worked alongside the 82d
    airborne division as the medical director of the largest camp
    of approximately 70,000 internally displaced Haitians in
    Petion-Ville Port-au-Prince. Caring for individuals in life or
    death situations is not new to me in the emergency department
    or as medical command or out in the field after a humanitarian
    disaster.
        I am very familiar with the international humanitarian
    norms that guide our treatment of individuals affected by
    humanitarian crisis. As this committee knows well after the
    atrocities of the Holocaust and World War II, the international
    community came together many times to establish the
    conventions, covenants, and declarations to establish basic
    humanitarian standards. Some of these include the Universal
    Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
    Civil and Political Rights and the convention against torture
    and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.
    The implementation of these standards make up the basis of
    humane treatment of all human beings.
        There are also specific guidelines for the humane treatment
    of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. This Sphere
    Handbook, internationally recognized for its use in the
    evaluation, planning, and delivering of humanitarian operations
    set forth guidelines for health, shelter, nutrition, hygiene,
    water supply, and sanitation. International organizations such
    as the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the
    International Committee of the Red Cross have also established
    standard of care for asylum seekers and detention.
        The United States is currently not meeting these minimal
    basic standards. Following the death of Jakelin Caal, the 7
    year old Guatemalan girl who died in Customs and Border Patrol
    custody last year, I visited the CBP facilities where she was
    held before her death. The conditions I witnessed were
    heartbreaking.
        Women, infants, toddlers and the elderly packed and piled
    on top of each other in a cold windowless concrete room, so
    many bodies you could not see the floor. Open toilets in
    crowded cells without any privacy. Visibly sick children
    coughing on one another. The facility lacked lifesaving
    equipment and basic medications for infants and toddlers, no
    diapers, no baby food, no formula, no feminine products
    available. In short, they were understaffed, underequipped, and
    unprepared to provide meaningful health screenings to
    individuals in their custody, let alone respond to medical
    emergencies.
        We are the wealthiest Nation on Earth, but the conditions I
    saw were worse than those I saw in Haiti after their most
    challenging and devastating disaster. It is clear to me that
    these deficiencies put children and our agents at risk. As a
    public health expert I know that if Border personnel had access
    to the necessary resources, training and medical backup, they
    could triage and prevent more tragedies. This is not just about
    treating individuals in our custody in a humane manner, it is
    also a matter of law, both the U.S. law and international law
    give individuals the right to seek asylum.
        In the event that the Federal Government restricts the free
    movement of an individual, including their detainment by U.S.
    Customs and Border Patrol, then it is the Federal Government's
    responsibility to provide for these basic rights and to ensure
    the protection of their humanity throughout the asylum process.
    That is why I am drafting legislation that would implement a
    basic set of uniformed humanitarian standards that guide the
    way CBP cares for detained asylum seeking children, families,
    and high-risk individuals that reflect our humanitarian values.
        First, to prevent deaths in CBP custody we need to
    meaningfully address the health needs of individuals entering
    our borders, especially through vulnerable populations like
    infants, children, pregnant women, elderly, and the disabled.
    That requires an initial medical screening including vital
    signs and a basic physical exam to identify risks, signs and
    symptoms of life threatening vulnerabilities.
        Second, we need a better response to emergencies by having
    emergency medical equipment available for patients of all ages
    and trained medical personnel to administer emergency medical
    care.
        Third, we need to provide individuals in temporary custody
    with safe, hygenic and humane temporary shelters to address
    public health and uphold human dignity. These are
    straightforward reforms based on the international standards
    outlined previously in my experience working in the emergency
    department and alongside disaster medical assistance teams and
    the U.S. Army in Haiti. They will bring humanity back to our
    treatment of women and children seeking asylum and prevent
    needless loss of live.
        Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers around the world have
    the courage to leave the devastating and often dangerous
    conditions in their home countries and travel to find safety in
    a better future for themselves and their families. That was the
    case with the men and women who founded our Nation, seeking
    freedom, refuge, and a better life.
        I look forward to work, with you and CBP to bring the
    conditions that children and families are held under here in
    the United States in line with the basic humanitarian standards
    observed in even the most dire and severe circumstances across
    the globe.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Ruiz follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much Dr. Ruiz. We expect votes to
    be called in the next 10 minutes so I am going to keep us--we
    do not have a clock here, but I have my stopwatch, so I will
    keep us to asking questions for 5 minutes. And I will be brief
    to give more opportunity to my colleagues.
        Dr. Ruiz, given that I do not see the situation ending any
    time soon, on our border, and looking at resources that might
    be proposed by this committee in legislation and you just
    mentioned legislation you were talking about as well, what
    resources, what should we ask USAID or other governmental
    entities to provide on the border?
        I am also thinking about the people. I hope at another
    hearing we could look at addressing the root causes of why so
    many people were coming from Central America. I mean we are
    providing aid to Central America. But I do not know that that
    aid that we are providing is really getting at the root causes
    so that people do not make the journey in the first place.
        So I think that is for another hearing. But if you are
    thinking about the people after they leave on that journey,
    what type of aid should we be giving to those countries so that
    once they leave they are dealt with safely? And also when they
    are at the border, what would you recommend?
        Dr. Ruiz. In terms of aids to the other country or the
    needs of our own country to address----
        Ms. Bass. Right. Both. I am actually referring to both.
        Dr. Ruiz. So let us go ahead and first start with the aid
    to other countries. First of all, we know that many, and the
    vast majority, of the asylum seekers were fleeing violence and
    threats, oftentimes due to drug cartel or gang members that
    exist within in what I would refer to as a failed State in a
    nontraditional way in the sense that their own governments
    cannot provide law, order and safety for their communities.
    Oftentimes they are the villages in the remote areas,
    indigenous communities who are socially isolated without the
    social capital to gather and protect themselves that are preyed
    upon.
        What we can do to provide assistance to create that order
    and safety and security for their populations would be very
    helpful. There are many who come as economic migrants and
    building the opportunities for microloans for example for women
    and children. Studies have shown that that has helped in places
    like India and Africa to foster a community development at a
    grassroots community level, which will give them hope
    opportunity and the means to provide for themselves and their
    family.
        In terms of the United States, my legislation and my focus
    is on the what, creating these basic humanitarian standards and
    allowing CBP and Department of Homeland Security to determine
    the how, because they will need flexibility to meet these
    specific needs. So what is in the what. For example, I think
    that they need to be able to have partnerships or have more
    individuals who know how to conduct a questionnaire, and vital
    signs, and a rudimentary physical examination, especially
    starting with vulnerable populations like infants, toddler,
    pregnant women, elderly and the disabled. And then once
    identified an abnormality to be able to consult with an
    emergency care professional who can then triage and determine a
    short, medical plan of observation or treatment or even
    immediate evacuation.
        If that was done in Antelope Wells, where Jakelin Caal was
    detained, then she would still be alive today, because no child
    looks healthy 8 hours before they die of septic shock. Right?
    They do not look healthy. If you had just done a rudimentary
    vital signs on the child, you would have found most likely,
    temperature, fast heart rate, and that would have alerted to
    you that there was something wrong with the child.
        Ms. Bass. They did not have the resources. They were not
    medical people.
        Dr. Ruiz. They did not have the resources and they did not
    have the care. So resources making sure that there is medical
    equipment for infants and toddlers, which there was none. You
    need resources like basic formula, baby food. Oftentimes
    families and individuals were given a box with a burrito,
    infants, neonates, toddlers that is not what they eat so they
    do not eat that. Being able to provide an sufficient amount of
    clean water, as well as nutrition caloric intake of an adult
    and age specific weight based for children is important.
        Other things like soap, and toothbrush, and toothpaste. And
    a facility where they can wash their hands or bath daily will
    go a long way with public health. When you pile individuals in
    a concrete room that is cold and you keep the lights on and
    people are awake all night, all day their immune system
    decreases. When you add the stressors of what they have gone
    through, including being exposed to people coughing and
    sneezing on them, you are going to infect everybody and--with a
    common cold or what other virus that may exist that they
    acquired at that facility.
        Being able to have enough private clean toilets, latrines
    for a certain amount of people in the international
    humanitarian norms. It is usually one latrine for 15, 20
    individuals. We work with international organizations to
    provide that amount of latrines in Port-au-Prince in Haiti.
        So those are some of the equipment for example,
    temperature, adequate clothing, and blankets, and bedding. What
    I saw at the Border Patrol station were very thin aluminum
    sheets and they pretty much tried to sleep on the floor,
    oftentimes they would make accommodations so that their child
    could sleep on their arm, or on their chest so they wouldn't
    have to sleep on the floor.
        These were the--diapers for babies was also very important,
    because a child's feces is more infectious than an adult's
    feces. If you do not provide diapers or a disposal area where
    you can throw them away and wash your hands afterwards, then
    you are risking exposure to everybody and that is just basic,
    basic public health.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you. Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much doctor for your testimony.
        Let me just ask you, you said the U.S. border facility in
    Lordsburg was understaffed, underequipped and unprepared to
    provide meaningful health screenings to people in their
    custody, let alone emergency medical services. Has that
    changed?
        Dr. Ruiz. The CBP has requested some change after our
    encounter. They requested more fundings through the
    appropriations to be able to contract with healthcare
    professionals.
        When I went to the border, the agents were still devastated
    from the death of Jakelin Caal. They are humans, they are
    fathers as well, and mothers so they were in sorrow. They often
    expressed anxiety and fear of now dealing with families and
    children where they have no experience and no training to do
    so. They are welcoming these resources and these norms.
        Mr. Smith. When were you in Lordsburg?
        Dr. Ruiz. I think it was in December I believe. It was
    Antelope Wells in December. I went as a delegation with the
    congressional Hispanic Caucus.
        Mr. Smith. So like in January, do you know if any of it has
    been fixed?
        Dr. Ruiz. There are certain areas that they are focusing
    more bringing in these resources, but I cannot tell you to the
    full extent whether or not the systemic problem has been fixed.
    They have not started training----
        Mr. Smith. But you and your staff recontact like a month
    later----
        Dr. Ruiz. Sure.
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. Did they tell you, we got this
    fixed? We are doing health training we are doing----
        Dr. Ruiz. No. We have been following up with the
    commissioner and task forces within CBP. I have been advising
    the task force for CBP on these humanitarian and public health
    criteria and standards. They are still developing their
    recommendations for the Secretary of DHS. So this is a work in
    progress. It has not been fixed.
        Mr. Smith. But given, you know, the very dire picture that
    you paint, it seems to me by the next week they should have
    been moving heaven and Earth to get this fixed. That is not the
    case?
        Dr. Ruiz. Well I agree with your assessment that they
    should have been moving heaven and Earth to meet those
    criterions. They started looking into how to do it, but I do
    not believe these standards have been met.
        Mr. Smith. OK. Is Lordsburg the exception or is it the rule
    for these facilities?
        Dr. Ruiz. Well, I think that the facilities that we visited
    were one of the most remote and rural areas. So it was probably
    one of the more worse case scenarios. However, the problem that
    we see is that the conditions or the current treatment is very
    vague and inconsistent throughout the different Border Patrol.
        Part of that is a lack of fundamental understanding of how
    to respond to the humanitarian needs of asylum seeker which our
    laws permit and which we have been accustomed to within the
    international humanitarian community. So what we need is a
    systematic way to bring in these humanitarian norms and
    standards and have training for our agents and those within the
    agency so we can meet those requirements.
        Mr. Smith. Doctor, is this a new problem or does this
    predate this new administration?
        Dr. Ruiz. I believe we have had----
        Mr. Smith. If I could, I have had hearings in the past and
    I asked questions previously, many questions about whether or
    not for example neglected tropical diseases were being screened
    for since there are many who could be carrying worms or other
    parasites and I got a big, we do not know. And we followed up,
    and we keep asking. My question would be, you know, is this
    something that happened within the last 2 years or does this
    predate this administration?
        Dr. Ruiz. Well, the movement of asylum seeking migrants has
    been going on for several years and predates this
    administration.
        Mr. Smith. Right. But in terms of the crisis and the lack
    of providing essential medical healthcare to those in need, is
    this brand new?
        Dr. Ruiz. This is an issue that has not been addressed,
    period. So----
        Mr. Smith. Even before this administration?
        Dr. Ruiz. Even before, yes.
        Mr. Smith. It is important, because we want to be fair to
    all players.
        Dr. Ruiz. See, I think it is important to understand.
        Mr. Smith. We want to get it right.
        Dr. Ruiz. This is something we have been talking to CBP
    about. And they recognized that they were not designed to
    address the humanitarian needs of families and children. And
    that is why this is a great opportunity for us as legislators
    and experts in the field to come together in a bipartisan way
    to help the CBP reform so that they can address the
    humanitarian needs of asylum seekers.
        Mr. Smith. But again, I just wanted to make clear for the
    record that it does predate the Trump administration. Yes?
        Dr. Ruiz. Yes, the lack of humanitarian norms within a
    system has never been in our CBP.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. If I could ask one more followup question----
        Ms. Bass. Oh, sure.
        Mr. Smith. Unaccompanied minors was absolutely, you know, a
    great focus as it should be, I went to one of the shelters and
    there were staff from one of my centers who was there as well,
    that is in New Jersey. And frankly I was shocked on the upside
    just how well they were being treated.
        Dr. Ruiz. Where?
        Mr. Smith. They do not us to tell you. I will tell you off
    the record, because they do not want people knowing where it
    is, but it is in New Jersey. And there must have been 40 young
    people there and they were very well treated. Now there could
    be others where they are very poorly treated. Cory Booker's
    staff was there with ne and Leonard Lance was there, and I was
    there. We stayed for hours asking questions, talking to young
    people who were there.
        So I always wanted to get it clear, one, if this is all
    brand new, because I think it is long-standing, because we have
    had hearings in this Congress that predated Trump. And there
    has been a call for significant increases in humanitarian aid
    by the administration.
        Dr. Ruiz. Yes.
        Mr. Smith. I think that is a good thing and I think we need
    to provide that. So you would agree with that.
        Dr. Ruiz. And also I just want to make it clear that
    unaccompanied minors are detained in several situations. They
    are not--they are with ICE and that is one set of facilities,
    and then they are also in the care of the Office of Refugee
    Resettlement under the Department of Homeland Security. And
    they oftentimes contract with nonprofits and community agencies
    which provide homes and programs and education.
        So what we are not--we are not seeing that model which I
    also visited a location in Los Angeles throughout the whole
    system and there are unaccompanied minors that do not get
    treated or have the services like those that are under the care
    of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Ms. Bass. I am going to move on. Mr. Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Chairwoman Bass. And greetings to
    my esteemed colleague. I celebrate your extraordinary position
    for this work. I am grateful to you.
        My first question is relative to funding and the White
    House has acknowledged that we have a humanitarian crisis at
    the border, asked for funding. We approved I think $414 million
    if I recall correctly. Do you believe that is an adequate
    amount to fulfill the response to the humanitarian
    responsibilities?
        Dr. Ruiz. No, I do not think that that is sufficient to
    meet the what that we need to address. But that is a very good
    first step. Those conversations occurred within the appropriate
    appropriations subcommittees. And we have been working with the
    appropriations subcommittees of Department of Homeland Security
    to identify these humanitarian norms.
        So right now there is a working relationship to get the
    requests inline with what these humanitarian norms are and that
    was the 2019 appropriations bill that we just passed. In 2020
    there will be another step to bring them in line to the
    humanitarian standards that should exist in CBP custody.
        Mr. Phillips. OK. I know we have to run, one more quick
    question if I might. Are you familiar with the country around
    the world that does this better than we do, and if so that we
    should look to as a source of best practices?
        Dr. Ruiz. You know I think that the source of best
    practices would be within the international humanitarian
    community. If you look at organizations that manage large
    internally displaced camps and refugee camps throughout the
    globe, ICRC and some practices from the U.N. commissioner for
    refugees and Doctors Without Borders who do this day in and day
    out, oftentimes at risks of their own life in the most dire
    disasters in the most impoverished countries. And they are able
    to meet the nutritional water needs to provide a camp that is
    reflective of human dignity. And so I think that working with
    them and realizing what their standards are would be a very
    good idea.
        Mr. Phillips. And employing that in their home country.
        Dr. Ruiz. Yes.
        Mr. Phillips. I appreciate it.
        Dr. Ruiz. Yes.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much. I really appreciate you
    coming as our expert witness. I appreciation your input, I look
    forward to joining you on your legislation.
        Dr. Ruiz. Thank you.
        Ms. Bass. So votes have been called. I am going to recess
    subject to call of the chair and I would encourage members to
    return. I believe we have two votes so we should be back in
    half hour, 45 minutes. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Ms. Bass. Could I call the panel forward? Eric Schwartz,
    Ryan Mace, and Annigje Buwalda.
        Thank you very much, thank you for your patience. Sorry we
    were pulled away for votes, but we are going to go ahead and
    get started.
        Eric Schwartz has been the president of Refugees
    International since June 2017. He has a 3 decade career focused
    on humanitarian and human rights issues. Between 2009 and 2011
    he served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Population
    Refugees and Migration. As assistant secretary he was credited
    with strengthening the State Department's humanitarian advocacy
    around the world initiating and implementing critical
    enhancements to the U.S. refugee settlement program and raising
    the profile of global migration issues in U.S. foreign policy.
        Ryan Mace is the grassroots advocacy and refugee specialist
    for Amnesty International. He works to mobilize constituent
    pressure to advance AI USA major advocacy initiatives, in
    addition to lobbying Congress to protect and advance the rights
    of refugees and asylum seekers.
        Our third witness and I am sorry if I mispronounce your
    name. Miss Buwalda. From 1991 through the present time Ann
    Buwalda has served as executive director of Jubilee Campaign
    USA, focusing on international religious freedom, advocating
    for the release of prisoners of conscious and resettlement of
    refugees combatting trafficking for the protection of children
    and providing support to victims, in practice since 1992, Ms.
    Buwalda founded the law firm Just Law International in 1996, a
    firm handling all aspects of immigration law, including asylum
    and refugee cases.
        Thank you very much and you can begin your testimony. And
    we have your full statement so if you could summarize in 5
    minutes, that would be greatly appreciated.
        And I will keep a clock here.

       STATEMENT OF ANNIGJE BUWALDA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JUBILEE
                             CAMPAIGN, USA

        Ms. Buwalda. Thank you. I would like to thank Chairwoman
    Bass----
        Ms. Bass. If you could turn your microphone on.
        Ms. Buwalda. I would like to thank Chairwoman Bass, Ranking
    Member Smith and members of the subcommittee for providing the
    opportunity to address the panel on the crisis of religious and
    ethnic minority refugees and asylum seekers in Thailand and
    elsewhere.
        The U.S. has traditionally been a beacon of hope for the
    oppressed and persecuted suffering around the world. And even
    in one of his statement Ronald Reagan said, quote ``Can we
    doubt that only a divine providence place this land, this
    island of freedom here for as refuge for all the people who
    yearn and breathe to be free.''
        It is a sincere hope that today's hearing will contribute
    to renewing the calling that the divine Providence has placed
    on this land. Jubilee campaign seeks to draw the subcommittee's
    attention to the need to protect and aid religious minority
    refugees. Under both international refugee law and domestic
    asylum law, one of the five grounds of protection is a well-
    founded fear of persecution on account of one's religion. At
    times religious refugees have been placed behind other types of
    refugees, indeed that was one of the reasons that the
    International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 was so needed and
    it has been a remarkably effective tool since then and we are
    very pleased with many of the provisions within it.
        Those provisions I think need to be applied as it relates
    to refugees and refugee processing. My testimony today seeks to
    expose the circumstances in Thailand pertaining to a vulnerable
    refugee population, those seeking asylum from Pakistan.
    Verifiable statistics are difficult to obtain but we currently
    estimate that there are 3,000 to 4,000 Pakistani Christians in
    Thailand who fled religious persecution and whose cases are
    pending, some of them are approved and awaiting resettlement,
    but some cases are closed and affording them with no place to
    go.
        I would like to feature in today's testimony the case of
    Michael D'Souza, who on account of his denial by the UNHCR in
    Bangkok, Thailand of his case, he was forced to stay in their
    immigration detention facility in deplorable conditions, so
    much so after 1 year of suffering through that and no hope, he
    returned to Pakistan. Michael D'Souza was brutalized by the
    very people he feared would persecute him. His case should not
    have been denied and he remains stranded in Karachi, Pakistan.
        I use his case to demonstrate the fact that cases that are
    putting forward their claim as believers in a faith should be
    provided with opportunities to have their cases heard more--
    with more reasonableness. We have found with many of the cases
    within the UNHCR in Bangkok, there are denials because there is
    an unreasonable standard and burden of proof placed upon them.
        We have many cases, as do colleagues of ours who assist
    with this refugee processing where it clearly appears to us
    that the UNHCR in Bangkok has placed a higher burden of proof
    on Pakistani Christian asylum seekers. This is something which
    we have attempted to place attention on. We have approached
    UNHCR, they are sympathetic, but the conditions in terms of the
    interviews have not changed and we wish to see that change take
    place.
        We also wish to point out that the conditions in the
    immigration detention centers within Bangkok and Thailand are
    absolutely deplorable. We want to mention the Montagnard asylum
    seekers from Vietnam who are stranded also in Bangkok. There is
    upwards of 500 of them. They are in the horrible situation at
    the IDC detention center where they are actually mothers are
    separated from their children and not allowed to even give them
    breastfeeding. So the conditions there are horrible. This is a
    very vulnerable religious minority community of Montagnards
    that need help there.
        There are many issues and reasons for why this is taking
    place that we have submitted within our written submission for
    my testimony today. And it is my hope that we can enable the
    UNHCR in Bangkok to do a better job of paying attention to
    religious minority asylum seeker cases.
        And finally, I wish to mention that we desperately need
    additional numbers for refugee resettlement to the United
    States. We do not believe that there is sufficient attention
    placed on this vulnerable population of refugees. And we wish
    to see that the United States admissions program would accept
    more of them. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Buwalda follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much. Mr. Mace. Hold on 1 second.
        Go ahead.

        STATEMENT OF RYAN MACE, GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY AND REFUGEE
                   SPECIALIST, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

        Mr. Mace. Thank you for having us here. Chairwoman Bass,
    Ranking Member Smith, and members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for inviting us to this hearing. You have my submitted
    testimony so I will be summarizing it today.
        My name is Ryan Mace and I am a refugee specialist At
    Amnesty International, USA global human rights movement. Last
    November I joined an AMNESTY delegation traveling to Jordan and
    Lebanon where we had the opportunity to hear from dozens of
    refugees. As global displacement has reached historic highs,
    affecting every region of the world, we must remember, this is
    a global crisis, but people are at its core. Refugees are human
    beings with human rights, rights that are at risk.
        Unfortunately countries around the world have responded
    with restrictive policies and fail to offer permanent
    protection on a scale that even begins to match the need. This
    is born out with the drastic reduction to refugee resettlement
    globally and an increase and detention used to deter and punish
    people who seek asylum. We are now helping lead this race to
    the bottom. Whether it is the Muslim refugee or asylum bans,
    increased detention of asylum seekers or targeting NGO human
    rights defenders, these policies can rightly be viewed as a
    violation of human rights. It is no exaggeration to say that
    the ability of people to seek safety and enjoy lasting
    protection is not only at risk, it is in crisis.
        I would like to tell you about a Syrian refugee family that
    has been living in Lebanon since 2013. Mr. Amari, father of
    four children aged 4 to 11 shared his two priorities with me.
    His first is the education of their children. Sadly more than
    half of refugee children in Lebanon attend no school at all.
        His second is to ensure they do not have to rely on others
    generosity to get by. In late 2016 they were notified they
    would be resettled to Richmond, Virginia. They packed up their
    bag and were ready to go. With the announcement in January 2017
    of the Muslim ban their dreams were shattered, they would not
    be going to Richmond. We come in peace, he said to us. We are
    looking for security and safety. We are asking for your help.
    The U.S. refugee program has long been a partnership between
    the Federal Government, local communities and private
    investments built up over decades.
        Today it is needlessly at risk. At its peak the program
    admitted over 200,000 this year we will be lucky if we get to
    20,000. The dramatic decrease in resettlement has put untenable
    pressure on refugee hosting countries around the world,
    countries including Turkey, Uganda, Jordan, and Lebanon all
    whose significant populations of refugees straining their
    social service programs.
        In recent years many countries have designed policies to
    keep people from ever even accessing their borders, putting up
    barrier after barrier to keep them out. States are violating
    their right to seek asylum. Forcing them to wait for weeks or
    longer in unsafe conditions or make the terrible decision to
    take dangerous routes to safety.
        Since 2016, European governments have practically shut down
    Mediterranean sea routes that refugees have used in the past
    with devastating results.
        In the U.S., Amnesty International has documented the
    dangerous trend of pushing back asylum seekers at the U.S.
    southern border in a recent report titled You Don't Have Any
    Rights Here. The report titled quotes a CBP official speaking
    to a Brazilian mother in Texas last year as they separated her
    from her child. That is the message that our frontline
    officials are communicating to those in search of safety.
        Unfortunately, many migrants and asylum seekers around the
    world are detained, often in appalling conditions and for
    indefinite periods. In Libya, migrants and refugees in
    detention centers are routinely exposed to torture, extortion
    and rape. In the U.S., over 40,000 people are held in detention
    any given day. Everyone should have the right to freedom from
    arbitrary detention and detention should always be the last
    resort.
        The assault on refugees and asylum seekers has now reached
    such heights that even advocates are targeted. An increasing
    number of countries are enacting policies to limit refugee
    rights organizations from doing their critical work. Here in
    the U.S., asylum advocates have reportedly been targeted by
    authorities, including facing criminal prosecution for
    providing water to exhausted migrants in the desert.
        Here we are, 2 years later and the Amari family is still in
    limbo, without a permanent home, despite one waiting for them
    in the U.S. As an advocate, I feel powerless, but the members
    of this committee have the power to change this family's life
    and others like them.
        These are our recommendations, first the U.S. should
    restore its commitment to refugee resettlement. Second, this
    cannot be the last time this subject is before this committee
    or this Congress. I am glad to hear that that will be the case.
    Third, this Congress must support legislation that overturns
    destructive policies that target these populations. And
    finally, our government has long been a leader in helping
    displaced populations around the world and we must continue to
    play that role.
        In closing, the world is rightly wondering if the U.S. is
    still an active partner in offering protection for those who
    need it most. We need to listen to refugees and asylum seekers
    and from those directly working with them.
        I thank the committee and look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mace follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Schwartz.

     STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC SCHWARTZ, PRESIDENT, REFUGEES
        INTERNATIONAL, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
                  POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION

        Mr. Schwartz. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    these critical issues. Members have referenced the numbers at
    the end of 2017. There were nearly 70 million people worldwide
    confronted by persecution and by human rights violations and
    24.5 million of those people were refugees, those outside their
    countries of origin, and about 40 million were internally
    displaced.
        According to the well respected organization, Development
    Initiatives, governments and the private sector spend over $27
    billion annually in humanitarian aid. The United States is the
    largest donor. But as a percentage of GDP, we are not near the
    top. And U.S. aid amounts to less than 1 percent of the Federal
    budget.
        So what are some of the key issues on refugees and
    migration confronting this Congress? First, there is the issue
    of support for refugee solutions, solutions that have been
    overwhelmingly endorsed by governments in a recently adopted
    Global Compact on Refugees, solutions which are reflected in
    international programs supporting education and employment of
    refugees, in countries like Jordan, like Turkey, like Uganda,
    like Ethiopia and others.
        The United States had been at the forefront of this
    solutions effort, but frankly, policies have shifted. With the
    Trump administration pressing for dramatic cuts in humanitarian
    aid, opposing the Global Compact on Refugees, and slashing U.S.
    refugee resettlement. Congress has a role to push back against
    these measures. And the dramatic decrease of refugee
    resettlement, in particular Muslim majority countries, should
    be the subject of careful oversight.
        On the challenge of global forced migration generally, and
    despite the administration's decision to boycott another set of
    negotiations around a new agreement, or compact, on global
    migration that was also overwhelmingly endorsed by governments,
    Members of Congress should press for substantial increases in
    support, in funding, for key initiatives that were envisioned
    in that global migration agreement. These include efforts to
    minimize drivers of forced migration in countries of origin,
    measures to ensure respect for migrant rights, enhanced
    pathways for regular immigration and alternatives to migrant
    detention.
        On another critical issue, the rights and well-being of
    refugee women and girls, Congress should seek to lift
    restrictions on aid for sexual and reproductive health
    services, and on services related to response to gender-based
    violence, restrictions that have been imposed by the
    administration. And those should be particularly alarming in
    light of violence against women and girls in places like Burma,
    otherwise known as Myanmar, South Sudan, and the Democratic
    Republic of the Congo. And Congress should reject actions that
    politicize humanitarian aid. In 1984, it was the Reagan
    Administration that declared that a hungry child knows no
    politics. And we should be deeply concerned by departures from
    this principle, reflected for example by the administration's
    decision to end humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians due
    to the political positions of Palestinian leaders. This has had
    serious consequences for life sustaining assistance and
    Congress should protect aid to civilians at risk without
    discrimination.
        Finally, Congress cannot ignore refugee protection at home,
    where we have recently witnessed measures that dramatically
    limit the ability of Central Americans to make claims for
    asylum. Beyond enacting legislation to ensure that the
    administration acts consistent with U.S. law and values,
    Congress could legislate, should legislate a special refugee
    and humanitarian resettlement program to address humanitarian
    challenges at our southern border. We have done it with Soviet
    Jews, we have done it with Cubans, we can do it with Central
    Americans.
        The consensus--the consensus in our country for respect of
    refugee rights--that is a consensus that has always been a
    fragile one, with loud voices of intolerance often appealing to
    our fears, rather than to our ideals and our interests. And
    this is precisely why at this moment in history the voices of
    Members of Congress are so critical. I urge that you use those
    voices in Washington and beyond the beltway to ensure a
    brighter, a more affirming, and a successful future for all
    Americans.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartz follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much. I appreciate your patience
    through our voting and the recess that we took. And would like
    to ask questions that focus on recommendations for what you
    think that we could be doing, how we could direct our
    assistance.
        Mr. Mace, you talked about restoring the refugee
    resettlement piece. I would like for you to elaborate a little
    more on that. You also spoke about the Muslim ban. And knowing
    that that is a policy that I do not see changing at any time,
    but what can we do in terms of as Congress as we put
    legislation forward to support refugees in terms of resources
    that we could give. What are some examples?
        And I would ask that of all of the witnesses, but will
    start with Mr. Mace.
        Mr. Mace. Sure, thank you for the question. On resettlement
    first, just in terms of the recommendation itself, our ask
    would be to see if restored this cannot be a new normal. The
    goal is 30,000 for this Fiscal Year and as I said we will not
    even get to 20,000 if we continue at this rate. We cannot let
    that be a new normal. We cannot let that be a new normal now
    and in future administrations as well.
        And would encourage Congress to through appropriations make
    that clear, make that clear to the administration that that is
    not what we want. In terms of the Muslim ban, and in terms of
    Syrians in particular I spoke of the Amari family from Syria.
    There are 5.7 million people, Syrians, refugees and UNHCR has
    actually said that they are one of the populations in highest
    need of resettlement. The U.S. has settled 40, to date, four,
    zero this fiscal year. I think that anyone could say we can do
    better than that, especially when we are faced with such need.
        And I would echo others on the panel that we should really
    call as in times past the Congress has said we are in an
    emergency, we are in an urgent situation, we need to recognize
    that, it does not matter, we do not need to wait for the end of
    the Fiscal Year to do that. I understand the President has a
    lot of power with setting the refugees' admissions goal, but
    Congress has power too and should reassert that.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Ms. Buwalda.
        Ms. Buwalda. I would like to make a comment to that. I do
    not see it as a Muslim ban. I see it as a ban specific to
    countries because we represent Christians in the very same
    countries that have the same--that are suffering under the same
    plight of being unable to come to the United States. And these
    are minorities within those countries that are subject to the
    ban.
        And so I wish to make that point for the record. Thank you.
        Ms. Bass. Mr. Schwartz.
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes, I appreciate the question and in my
    testimony, it was very important that every part of my
    testimony had a section on what Congress can do. And let me
    talk a little bit about some ideas there.
        First, oversight is really important. In 2016, we resettled
    more than 9,000 Somalis. In 2016, we resettled more than 12,000
    Syrians. As of January 31, those numbers were respectively 14--
    not 14,000--14 and 13. Since 9/11, we have resettled 1 million
    refugees more or less. In those years since 2001 there is not
    one case, there is not one case of an American citizen being
    killed in an act of terror perpetrated by a resettled refugee.
        In 10 years we had more than 250,000 people killed by gun
    violence. We have resettled 1 million refugees since 9/11, not
    one case of a refugee being responsible for an act of terror
    that led to the loss of an American life. Yet, we have gone
    from 9,000 Somalis in 2016 to 14 Somalis in 2018-2019. So that
    requires oversight. You need counterterrorism experts who are
    not in the government to get in here and talk about evidence-
    based policy. So oversight is critical.
        Second, I think the Congress can legislate a refugee
    resettlement program. The President, yes, under our current
    program has the authority to determine the number of refugees
    who come in. But if you want to resettle 100,000 Central
    American refugees, and humanitarian cases and family cases,
    over a 5 year period, you can legislate that. And why not? To
    create a more orderly process at our border. To practice at
    home what we are preaching abroad to so many other
    governments.The President himself in 2017 at the United Nations
    declared that countries should take care of refugees who are
    close to their homes. Well, Central America is at our border
    and are pretty close to their homes.
        So you could legislate, coming from this committee, the PRM
    Bueau could implement it, a refugee resettlement, program.
        Ms. Bass. Did you say PRM?
        Mr. Schwartz. The State Department's Bureau of Population
    Refugee and Migration.
        I will just give you a couple of other recommendations: you
    could legislate support for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency
    for Palestine Refugees--an agency that by all impartial
    accounts, including a General Accounting Office report, has
    diligently sought to implement humanitarian assistance. Yet all
    of that aid was cutoff by the Trump administration. You could
    legislate programs that have been cutoff on the protection of
    women and girls in humanitarian situations; you can do all of
    that and much more.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you. Before I go to my esteemed colleague
    here, my ranking member, it was interesting what you said about
    Christians minorities in those countries when the ban was put
    in place, the target was the Muslim population, I think it is
    unfortunate that Christians are being--there is consequences
    for them as well, but remember that was the original intent. It
    was changed to be countries for it to follow the Supreme Court.
        Mr. Ranking Member.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
        Thank you all for your testimoneys, it provides a great
    deal of guidance and wisdom I think for the subcommittee, it is
    deeply appreciated and all of your work for decades in most
    cases.
        Let me just ask a couple of questions. You know, your
    point, Mr. Schwartz, I think was very well taken about people
    not being killed by refugees but there are threats out there as
    we all know, and maybe there have been some but they were not
    identify by police or whatever as refugees. And your point on
    gun violence I thought it was very well taken as well.
        There is right now in the news we hear about the so-called
    ISIS bride from Alabama who has called for sleeper cells with
    ISIS to kill Americans, especially during patriotic holidays
    such as Veterans Day, Memorial Day. I remember during the
    Balkan war, I was there frequently in Bosnia and Croatia. And
    when the fighting went into Kosovo, was in Stankovich refugee
    camp in Macedonia, met with many of the people there and
    frankly the open door welcoming for people from that camp to
    the United States. Many of them disembarked in my district.
        They came to McGuire Air Force Base. Many of us went out to
    the airplanes and met them. Some of those people I am sure I
    met when I was at the camp because I was there for hours. But
    there was one guy who became part what they called the Fort Dix
    Five who had become radicalized at some point. And they were
    trying--because he lived at Fort Dix, which is adjacent to
    McGuire.
        Mr. Smith. And he was the weapons procurer, and they
    planned on a mass killing of servicemembers and their families
    and Fort Dix. They originally intended on bringing pizza and
    with it AK-47s and other--to just kill people wantonly and
    horribly. Luckily, that was thwarted by the FBI and by--so
    there are threats.
        And I am just wondering, you might speak to it. How do we
    mitigate those threats? How does the vetting process become
    even more aggressive? I know when we had the last
    administration here, they talked about very high degrees of
    vetting. And I know the current administration is doing the
    same.
        Second, if I could, Ms. Buwalda, you speak very eloquently
    about the crisis in Thailand, and it is Christians, it is Falun
    Gong who are being sent back to China, it is Montagnard, the
    500 who are being mistreated there, Christians. But your 10 to
    30 percent of the Pakistani Christians that are granted refugee
    status is appalling. And I am wondering, you know, what do you
    recommend we do to hold UNHCR accountable, I have sent letters
    to them. I have talked to officials, we have talked to the
    UNHCR and we seem to get nowhere.
        Is it a very poor staff on the ground, and Human Rights
    Watch has spoken about this as well, or is it something
    different that we are talking about, you know, there is just
    not enough people?
        But what is the problem and how do we fix that? Because
    that is seems to me to be a huge, huge problem. And your
    elaboration of the case of Michael D'Souza after being beaten,
    goes to Thailand seeking help, comes back to Pakistan, and
    then, as you point out, his two sisters-in-law were beaten as
    well. If that is not well-founded fear of persecution, I do not
    know what is.
        So hopefully the UNHCR will do a far better job. You know,
    many of us have been very concerned with them over the years.
    The secretary general who used to be the head of the UNHCR, I
    met with him many times when they were sending women who would
    make their way out of North Korea into China, many of whom
    would be forced into human trafficking. And as you know, I
    wrote the laws on human trafficking, including the Trafficking
    Victims Protection Act. We had women testify here in this room
    who they were sent back by the Chinese Government in clear
    contravention of the refugee convention to which they are
    signers of. I mean, maybe you guys want to speak to that as
    well because I find that appalling as well.
        And just briefly, maybe Eric you could speak to--you know,
    many of our concerns with UNRWA is the fomenting of anti-
    Semitism and anti-Americanism, but particularly anti-Semitism.
    I have hearings on that as well. The textbooks, maybe you can
    speak to whether or not they have been in all cleaned up to get
    rid of all the anti-Semitic hate that are then inculcated into
    the minds and the hearts of young children pursued under UNRWA.
        On the humanitarian side, food, medicines, I am with you,
    just get it to whoever is in need, period. But if you could
    speak to that.
        Mr. Schwartz. Well, should I respond?
        Mr. Smith. You can start, yes.
        Mr. Schwartz. You raised a couple of important issues
    Congressman Smith, and thank you. And thank you for your kind
    words before. I am very grateful for the opportunity to have
    worked with you on that and other issues through the years.
        First, let me say that my concern about the UNRWA decision
    was that it was explicitly and demonstrably an unprincipled
    decision. The President tweeted 1 day that, you know, if
    Palestinian political leaders do not--I do not have the quote,
    but essentially--do not toe the political line, we are going to
    stop aid. And then the next day the U.N. Ambssador to the
    United Nations, in response to a specific question about UNRWA,
    alluded to the same issue that the President alluded to. If the
    political leaders do not toe the line, that aid ends.
        Now, whatever your views about UNRWA, that is obnoxious,
    unacceptable, and in conflict with the American commitment to
    the Good Humanitarian Donorship Principles, to which we have
    subscribed. That aid should be based on need, and the political
    opinions and views of political leaders should not impact
    whether or not----
        Mr. Smith. Can I interrupt for a second? How do we get the
    educational piece fixed----
        Mr. Schwartz. OK. I am going to get to that. So my point
    was that that decision was an unprincipled decision.
        My second point is that I would refer you to the General
    Accounting Offices, I believe it was 2017, or the General
    Accountability Office, their name has changed; the 2017 report
    on UNRWA. And I think what it demonstrates is this is an
    organization which is doing the very best it can--and doing
    good work in trying to ensure that principles of tolerance and
    impartiality are promoted in its materials--under very
    difficult circumstances. And if UNRWA was not doing that,
    nobody would.
        And so I would refer all Members of Congress to that GAO
    report, because from my perspective, it reveals that this is an
    organization that is operating in a difficult environment and
    doing very good work in trying to push principles of tolerance,
    impartiality, aid-based on need, human rights promotion, in
    circumstances where they are using, you know, national
    curriculum, et cetera. So they are pushing against efforts at
    discrimination and bias. That does not mean that they are
    completely successful in eliminating it, but they are pushing
    in the right direction.
        Should I address your security question, because I do not
    want to--I can wait.
        Ms. Bass. Why do not we have the other two people respond.
    We are quite a bit over time, and I want to give my other
    colleagues a chance to ask questions.
        Ms. Buwalda. I would like to speak to your question with
    regard to the UNHCR's adjudication. And I believe that there is
    definite need of improvement. One of the reasons for why it
    occurred in terms of denial rates being so high is that they
    have an unbalanced burden of proof placed upon them, a
    skepticism. We had a UNHCR official describe how--just the
    basic skepticism of Pakistani Christian asylum seekers there
    that demonstrated that they are probably systemwide within
    Bangkok not effectively handling these cases.
        From 2016 to 2017, there was an effort to bring backlogs
    down. What they did was rush cases through. The fastest way for
    doing that is to deny them. And that also came with adverse
    credibility claims. With an adverse credibility claim you have
    almost no chance on any appeal and you are left hopeless. The
    anecdotal evidence we have and information we have is
    significant in terms of the numbers.
        I would also like to point out that the UNHCR--their own
    reports are demonstrating that Pakistani Christians suffer
    persecution. One of the examples I gave in my testimony I
    submitted is that of Talib Masih. Talib Masih was listed in
    their own report prior to them denying his case for asylum in
    Bangkok. And we worked very hard. His case has been reversed,
    but now he has no place to go. He cannot come--he has not been
    referred to any country at this stage, 1 year later, for
    resettlement. So we are remaining concerned about him and
    others that should be resettled.
        Mr. Mace. And if I may, briefly, just on UNRWA, I will say
    that when I was in Jordan and Lebanon, we also went to
    Palestinian refugee camps, it was one of the first places we
    went. And I just echo what you said, Congressman, that
    ultimately it is about ensuring this aid gets to those who need
    it most.
        A Shatila camp we were in in Beirut, it was one of the most
    over-crowded places just--and because of the Syrian refugee
    crisis, it is the numbers--it is just the density is extreme.
    And we asked people at UNRWA about what do these cuts tangibly
    mean? Education was one of the first things they said. And
    that, you know, they have--other donors have helped fill in the
    gaps, but they were very worried about what the years to come
    mean if the U.S. does not restore its commitment. And would
    certainly encourage them to come before this committee or the
    full committee to really hear from them because I definitely
    think that they would have much to say in response, to you.
        Just on the vetting, I just want to say that of refugees in
    general, the refugees who are resettled to the U.S. are by far
    and away the most vetted of any population, period. Probably in
    the world. And certainly we should always look to improve this
    program and make sure that this program is safe. We want this
    program to be safe. It is safe. And I think that this President
    and the previous Presidents have looked to that. And let's make
    sure this program works and is actually doing the goals that we
    set out at the start of the year, which it is currently not.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much.
        Representative Wild.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, madam chair. And thank you to all of
    you for being here to educate us about what I consider to be a
    very, very important issue.
        Mr. Mace, you sort of anticipated the question that I was
    going to ask Ms. Buwalda, but I was going to go ahead and ask
    her at this point. There is a perception, which is I believe
    not true, that refugees are not properly vetted. And this may
    be perpetuated by our administration, maybe it is not. But
    could you address, without going into exhaustive detail, the
    type of vetting that refugees undergo before they are allowed
    to come and live here?
        Ms. Buwalda. Yes, Congresswoman. The vetting system is very
    detailed and multilayered. There is actually a very in depth
    review that takes place. There are all kinds of background
    checks. There is even, as I understand it, DNA testing. In
    certain communities, such as in Syria, they go to the
    neighborhoods where the person claims to be from to determine
    whether those neighborhoods had terrorist activities, et
    cetera.
        There is a data base that, you know, overlap in terms of
    how vetting takes place. I am completely in agreement with my
    copanelists here that the vetting process is extensive. And I
    do believe that there is--you know, there may always be room
    for improvement, but I do believe the vetting process is
    extensive on this population. And, consequently, it is amongst
    the lowest populations that we would have a threat from.
        There are other types--I am an immigration attorney, there
    are other times of visas where there is no vetting. And so this
    is significant vetting that does take place.
        Ms. Wild. And how long does the process take, if you know?
        Ms. Buwalda. Due to the overlapping, it can be--the
    shortest is well over a year, and the longest ones because of
    overlapping, one will expire, another one start, it can be 2, 3
    years.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you.
        Mr. Mace, I have heard it said that the vast majority of
    people, wherever they were born, would prefer to stay in their
    home country if they can do so safely and receive adequate
    nutrition and so forth. Has that been your experience, and what
    you have observed?
        Mr. Mace. In terms of people wanting to go back to their
    home countries?
        Ms. Wild. Or--I guess my question is really based--and it
    is more of a statement, I suppose, that refugees are leaving
    untenable situations. Is that fair to say?
        Mr. Mace. Absolutely. And I think it is important to note
    that no one wants to leave their home, but if you are forced to
    based on what you believe, a war, violence, that is not a
    choice. And, you know, when we were in Jordan and Lebanon, we
    met well--almost 100 refugees throughout the course of our
    trip, and we would always ask, Syrians in particular, we would
    ask, do you feel comfortable to go home? Every single one said,
    no, not right now. Some would say, I would like to go back, but
    the conditions are not right right now. And then some said, I
    will never be able to go back. If I go back, I have nothing to
    go back to. If we go back, my son will be conscripted into the
    army. My name is on--these are just different things that
    people--my name is on a list, and if I go back, I will die.
    Someone point blank said that.
        So I think it just goes to the point that, yes, some people
    do want to go back, but the conditions are not right. And,
    unfortunately, these crises that we are talking about, they
    just go on and on, and we are seeing people who live in
    protracted displacement, intergenerational refugees. I mean, I
    met children of refugees who were born in the country that they
    are in now. So, yes.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you.
        I want to ask you a followup to that, and it may sound like
    a rhetorical softball question, but it is actually one that I
    would like to hear you articulate about, and Mr. Schwartz and
    Ms. Buwalda, also if you care to. And that is, why is it
    important for the United States to lead the way in this
    humanitarian crisis?
        And I ask you that from the perspective of a legislator who
    has a district where a number of my constituents may very well
    articulate the idea that we should just be taking care of what
    is happening right here in America, and why do we need to get
    involved with people from around the world who are suffering
    through these humanitarian crises.
        So give us some words of--some pearls of wisdom of what we
    can say to address that to people who express that.
        Mr. Mace. Sure, I would love to speak briefly and hear from
    my colleagues here.
        First of all, when the U.S. leads, others follow. And, you
    know, we do not have to look that far back when we were the
    leader. We are not the leader in resettlement anymore, period.
    And last year, in 2018, not the calendar year, there were 55--a
    little over 55,000 people who resettled, not to the U.S.,
    globally. And 22,000 or so of which was in the U.S., so we are
    not even the leader anymore.
        A few years ago it was well over 100,000. There are 1.4
    million people who need access to resettlement. I think anyone
    can say the U.S. can do better. And, importantly, on our U.S.
    refugee admissions program, it is a program that started in
    1980 with the 1980 Refugee Act, it is a program that has been
    built up, like I said, with communities like yours, all across
    the country, and it benefits our communities. It is such--it
    revitalizes--refugees are--they are everything and anything
    because they are just like us.
        So I just do not understand anyone who says that refugees
    do not contribute to the United States. And we have seen that,
    not only here in the U.S., but all around the world.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you.
        I am going to actually ask you, Mr. Schwartz, but rather
    than going into that question because I saw something in your
    written testimony that I did not hear talked about today, and
    that is what the effect of the global gag rule is on this
    crisis. And you mention it in your written testimony, and I
    would just like to hear from you briefly on it.
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes, the restrictions against provision of
    these services to women if the organizations concerned provide
    abortion-related services, even if they are not being done with
    U.S. funds, is a significant problem.
        Now, the State Department and USAID emergency assistance is
    exempted. However, there is a lot of assistance that goes to
    the building of resilience that is critical for humanitarian
    emergencies that is cutoff. And also of significant concern is
    the complete cutoff of support for the U.N. Fund for Population
    Activities, which includes, you know, critically important
    assistance for services related to sexual and reproductive
    health, for prevention and response to gender-based violence.
        But I also want to comment on your last question. I mean,
    nobody suggests that the world--that the United States or the
    countries of the global north--will resettle the majority of
    the world's refugees. Even at 1.4 million, you are at about 4
    percent, 4 or 5 percent--maybe 4 or 6 percent. But the
    Government of Turkey is hosting 3 1/2 million refugees, the
    Government of Jordan is hosting upwards of a million refugees,
    the Government of Bangladesh is hosting a million refugees, the
    Ethiopia is hosting 900,000 refugees or more, and we are going
    around the world saying to these governments, this is what you
    must do. This is your responsibility.
        How in heaven's name can we not demonstrate that we have
    skin in the game, that we are going to demonstrate a modicum of
    leadership by saying, perhaps we will resettle 100,000
    refugees, which is a drop in the bucket. And so it is really
    critically important we do that.
        Finally, I ran the U.S. refugee resettlement program. I do
    not want to take too much of your time, but I would be happy to
    talk about the security issues----
        Ms. Bass. We need to move on.
        Ms. Wild. Madam chair, my time is up, and it is my fault
    for asking very extensive questions. I pass to----
        Ms. Bass. Representative Omar.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairwomen Bass.
        Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for being part of this
    important discussion. It is interesting to hear people say, I
    wonder what this process is or what refugees are like in the
    United States. But as a refugee and as someone who has gone
    through the process of vetting, I know the many years my family
    waited in a refugee camp to be able to resettle in the United
    States. And I know with certainty the kind of anxieties that a
    lot of families have as they await the opportunity to get
    resettled and start a new life.
        I just wanted to kind of look at and follow with the line
    of questioning that Congresswoman Wild had around what happens
    when we lower the refugee cap here, and how that could lead to
    other countries following pursuit and lowering the cap of
    refugees that they welcome into their own countries, and we are
    at risk of that because when we lead others follow. And I think
    we are setting a really bad example around the world right now.
        But I wanted to also up lift what these particular policies
    that this administration has, it is really all about--according
    to the refugee processing portal, 68.1 percent of the 22,491
    refugees admitted in 2018 were Christians, 15.5 were Muslim,
    9.3 were animists, Buddhists, or Hindu. Only 369 refugees were
    admitted from the countries included in the modified travel ban
    or the Muslim ban.
        The breakdown is as such. From Chad, only one refugee was
    admitted who was Muslim, and in totality only one person. In
    Iran, 41 were admitted. Of that 41, 23 were Christians, 8
    Muslims, 5 Baha'i, and 3 Siberian Mandaeans, 1 Jewish, and 1
    had not declared a faith. From Libya, we only admitted one
    person, and that person was Muslim. From North Korea, we
    admitted five, four Christians, one Buddhist. From Syria, we
    admitted 62, 42 were Muslim, 20 were Christians. From Somalia,
    we admitted 257. Venezuela is zero. And two from Yemen.
        So when we think about--and we consider the harsh crack-
    downs on asylum seekers from Central America, the policy that
    is the Muslim ban and the sharp drop in the refugee
    resettlement during this administration, do you, Mr. Schwartz,
    agree that the President's immigration policies are not really
    based on whether we favor legal or illegal, whether it is about
    safety and security, but it is rather about the kind of people
    that we think we should be welcoming into this country?
        Mr. Schwartz. I am deeply concerned, Representative Omar,
    as a former dean of a public affairs school that sits in your
    district, that hosted at our school many Somali students. I am
    concerned about the dramatic decline in resettlement of
    refugees from Muslim majority countries. I think it merits the
    scrutiny of the Congress, and it is a source of concern.
        This is not a mystery. President Trump has said that he
    does not really want the United States to be resettling very
    many refugees, I mean, it is what it is. The reason I think
    this happens, and this relates to the security question, is,
    look, security screening is very important, and the FBI is
    involved in it, the intelligence community is involved in it,
    the Department of Homeland Security is involved in it.
        It can be a complete obstacle to resettlement of refugees
    from Muslim majority countries or it does not have to be, and
    the difference is leadership. If the President of the United
    States said to those agencies, ``this has to work, and I am
    going to throw the resources necessary in terms of
    adjudicators, in terms of intelligence, et cetera, to meet the
    objective of resettling reasonable numbers of these
    populations", it would happen.
        But it is not happening because this administration, is
    just not interested in that outcome, so it is not prepared to
    devote the resources necessary to get through the process. That
    is what is happening. And I think it is very unfortunate.
        As a practical matter, the way Congress can address the
    resettlement issue, at this point in this administration
    because of the plenary authority of the President to decide how
    many refugees are coming in every year, the way you can address
    it is the way I suggested in my testimony. Get consensus on a
    Central American refugee resettlement program or some
    resettlement program, and legislate it. And that is how you can
    effect it.
        But with the President's posture on this issue and his
    untrammeled authority to decide how many people are going to
    come in, the Congress is not going to significantly alter that
    process. It is just not going to happen. And it is a tragedy,
    and it speaks poorly about who we are as a country, but it is
    what it is.
        Ms. Omar. So sometimes there are a lot of conversations we
    have that are not really rooted in fact. There are people
    within my home State of Minnesota who will say there are
    thousands of Somalis coming in every single day being resettled
    without your knowledge. The President himself was unfortunately
    in my State and said something to that regard. And in the last
    year, one Somali family was resettled in our State.
        But I also want to go back to a statement that was made on
    the committee and just kind of have some facts be used to
    address that. You know, the ISIS bride was mentioned, and it is
    a fact that the ISIS bride was not a refugee that was resettled
    in this country. It is a fact that she was not an immigrant,
    but an American born to a family of diplomats. And so I would
    love to hear from you, Mr. Schwartz, or any of the panelists,
    when you state earlier that the refugees are the most vetted
    and have not been part of causing terror or taking American
    lives in this country.
        Can you actually address that with some actual facts? Do
    you have numbers or some things to help us cleanse us of this
    hateful rhetoric that we have developed in thinking that people
    who are coming to this country to seek a new life are the ones
    that are causing us harm, and one that is making our
    communities unsafe and turning us against each other because,
    you know, for the most of Minnesotans who are of refugee
    background, most of us came as children, and we went through
    years of vetting and went through the process of becoming a
    citizen. I mean, we have been fingerprinted, tested, more than
    any American has ever been who was born in this country.
        And so it saddens me and it is frustrating really and
    angering to hear people say that we are a threat to society
    when we are tested and policed and surveilled more than any
    member of our society.
        So can you please help me out and put some facts to this?
        Ms. Bass. Well, actually, we have gone over on time, so if
    one of you want to briefly respond, and then I want to make a
    few comments before I move on to Ms. Houlahan.
        Mr. Schwartz. Well, just very briefly. I think security
    screening is legitimate. But I also think policy has to be
    evidence-based. I think if you have an immigration program, and
    we have an immigration program, you know, some of the people
    who come into your country are going to commit crimes, at lower
    rates than native Americans, but that is going to happen, so
    policy has to be evidence-based. And I think we have durable
    and responsible screening procedures.
        The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank in
    Washington, estimated that between 1975 and 2015, the
    likelihood of an American losing their lives at the hands of a
    refugee was one in 3.64 billion, which means almost
    nonexistent. And so I think policy has to be evidence-based. We
    have to have responsible screening procedures, but policies
    have to be evidence-based.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you. So before we move on to our last
    member, let me just say that in this hearing we went over
    beyond 5 minutes because it is difficult when one person does
    it then not to allow everyone else. In the future, though, I do
    want our hearings to stick to 5 minutes, and then after
    everybody has had a chance to speak, if there is time left,
    then we can have people return for a second round.
        Representative Houlahan.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. And thank you to my colleagues as
    well for their impassioned conversation and to you all for
    coming today, and to Mr. Mace and Mr. Schwartz for spending
    time with me last week on the phone, and bringing me up to
    speed on this.
        I am the daughter of a refugee who came here 70 years ago,
    and these issues are critically important to me as well. I am
    trying to find a solution, just like I think everyone here, to
    being the Nation that we have been promised and the Nation that
    has given us so much, as both of us sitting here on the stage--
    many of us here.
        And so what I am trying to figure out though also is--I am
    also from a community that is struggling right now, they have
    jobs that are open and they cannot find people to fill those
    jobs. They are in danger in the case of one industry in
    particular of literally going out of business, five generations
    of people have farmed mushrooms in my community, we no longer
    can find the labor who would like to do this, and those
    businesses are going under.
        What I am trying to understand is in a world where we have
    these caps, which are not being met. In a world where we have
    these jobs, which are being unmet as well, how do I help as a
    legislator to match the supply and the demand without being,
    you know, crass about human lives, I am just trying to figure
    out how it is that we can figure out how to match what is
    clearly a group of people who would desperately like to fill
    those jobs and desperately like to be part of the American
    dream, and a community that would desperately like to have them
    be there?
        I am wondering from you all, have you seen any programs
    that work, that can marry up these two groups with one another?
    Is there anything that you have seen either at the State or
    local level, or frankly, at the Federal level? We spoke about
    the idea of having this special Central American refugee
    policy, I was really intrigued about that. Can you put some
    bones to that kind of an idea? And that I think is largely--the
    large part of my question.
        Mr. Mace. I would just say briefly that, first of all, when
    I was in the region, one of the very first things people would
    say, besides education, if they had kids it was always
    education of their kids, and that I want to work. I want to
    have a meaningful job. And whether that is in the country they
    are in or if they are resettled, everyone wants to work, they
    do not want to be reliant on aid.
        In terms of that, I think that it is not surprising you
    have heard from people in your district. All across the country
    there are so many different industries and places that actually
    benefit from refugees, immigrants, asylees, refugee,
    immigrants, they contribute to our country in so many vibrant
    ways.
        I think the first thing I would say is in terms of a
    refugee programing, when we are talking about that, we just
    need to call for an increase in the program. I think that there
    is other ways of looking at it, and I would say that it might
    be worth exploring. You know, at Embassy International we have
    a community sponsorship program where we encourage amnesty
    members to sign up to be sponsors of refugees, aligned with
    their local resettlement agency, like LIRS, IRC, HIAS and I
    think that there is innovative things that we could look to to
    say maybe there are ways that we can work together.
        But I think it is important to note that what makes our
    program, the U.S. refugee admissions program such a good one,
    is that we do not value people based on their education, based
    on anything except to say who is most in need, who is most
    vulnerable, and that is where the U.S. refugee admissions
    program should always start.
        Mr. Schwartz. I presume you are not talking about the
    regular immigration law means of bringing employees in. And so,
    you know, what Mr. Mace said is true. The refugee program has
    been of pristine in that it has focussed on refugee admissions
    based on the five criteria related to persecution, and I honor
    that. But I would not oppose, and I think a special initiative
    focused on Central America, that broadens the categories to
    include other types of forced migrants.
        Not every forced migrant is a refugee. But people who feel
    they need to leave their homes, and who we all would agree they
    should be leaving their homes due to violence and other
    factors. Forced migrants, you know, are in need. And in this
    special situation, I think there are opportunities for special
    legislation that captures both refugees and other forced
    migrants.
        I would refer you to a Washington Post piece by Roberto
    Soro of USC and Alex Aleinikoff of the New School, the former
    INS legal counsel, that discusses this particular program in
    some detail.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you very much. I will yield back.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, I appreciate that. Mr.
    Smith, would you like to----
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, madam chair. And, again, thank you
    for calling this very important hearing. I did want to ask Mr.
    Schwartz, if I could, you know, you mentioned the GAO report,
    which I have read, but there was a declassified GAO report, as
    you know, that just came out, and that tells a different story.
    A profoundly different story with, of course, to UNRWA and the
    textbooks. It does point out that UNRWA and state have taken
    steps to identify and address potentially problematic content
    of textbooks used in UNRWA schools, and there is about 370 of
    those schools.
        But then it says, due to financial shortfalls, and this is
    before there was any cut, UNRWA officials told GAO that UNRWA
    did not train teachers or distribute the complimentary teaching
    materials. They point out in their report, this is GAO, again,
    that there was inaccurate information conveyed by the U.S.
    Department of State to Congress, and omitted potentially useful
    information, and bottom line, without a fuller explanation,
    Congress may not have the information it needs to oversee
    efforts to identify and address potentially problematic
    textbook content.
        So my concern is, are we talking about an initiative that
    looked good? Had a great deal of surface appeal, but when it
    came down to implementation, it was an absolute sham. This GAO
    report, the one that was just declassified, makes it pretty
    clear that there are really serious problems that--I have had
    hearings myself in this hearing room where textbooks that are
    used to train, to educate young Palestinian children, contain
    the most horrific hate against Jews imaginable. And, you know,
    that is absolutely unacceptable.
        Remember in that great South Pacific, Rodgers and
    Hammerstein, there is a famous song in there, You Have Got To
    Be Taught To Hate. That it needs, you know, it is inculcated in
    the minds of these young people. Well, if the textbooks are
    rife with anti-Semitic hatred, that needs to be called out and
    excised, and that is what we have been calling for.
        I met with the UNRWA board many times myself in the past
    and it kept calling for that. Now we have a GAO report that
    makes it pretty clear, still a problem. You know, they did what
    looked like on the surface was something, then it was not
    implemented at the school.
        I would just say this for the record, and I know we have a
    fundamental difference when it comes to the right to life
    issue. I believe that unborn children are--should be respected.
    That abortion is violence again children, whether it is
    dismemberment or chemical poisoning, the end result is the
    same. That child, that girl or that boy dies. I do believe that
    there are two victims in every abortion, both the mother and
    the baby.
        That said, in 1984 when Ronald Reagan announced the Mexico
    City policy, there were many people who said, nobody will
    accept these terms and conditions. I offered the amendment in
    1984 on the floor of the House to protect the Mexico City
    policy, and that argument was made over and over and over again
    by my very distinguished and respected colleagues, who I like
    and respect, but disagreed on this issue.
        Now, we found out during Reagan, Bush and Bush who had the
    Mexico City policy in place, that just about everybody accepted
    those terms and conditions because we do not want to be in the
    position of facilitating the killing of unborn children. You
    know, I know you know this, and I think most people know it.
    Just look at what first baby pictures are now all about. The
    picture of the child in utero, the ultrasound. And parents
    proudly send that out to grandparents and friends, and say,
    here is what the little girl or little boy looks like. Abortion
    is the antithesis of that because it either dismembers that
    little baby or kills that baby with chemical poisoning.
        We are, out of an abundance of concern for children, the
    New Protect Life policy in global health, it is designed to
    say, let's look at birth as an event. It is not the beginning
    of life, but as an event, and protect to the greatest extent
    possible those children. The original or the current analysis
    is almost every foreign NGO in the world, not all, but almost
    every one, has accepted the terms and conditions that have been
    promulgated by the administration.
        So the money is flowing, it is flowing to organizations
    that are doing the great work on the ground. So I, do believe
    some day people will look back upon us, and say, how could a
    country that so strongly protected other human rights could not
    see that those children had value and worth? I know we
    disagree, but that is where I am coming from. They are
    children, they deserve our respect, and hopefully our
    protection. And, minimally, not our financial facilitation of
    their demise. But if you could maybe speak to this one as well.
        Mr. Schwartz. Yes, I have to respond. I just have to
    comment. First of all, Representative Smith, you know how much
    I admire your commitment to humanitarianism and to the rights
    and well-being of refugees, it goes without saying. But we have
    some differences.
        On the UNRWA issue, I was referring to the classified
    report. I was not referring to an unclassified report. I have a
    different view on that report, because I believe that in an
    imperfect world we have an organization operating in an
    extremely difficult climate. I believe that organization is a
    force for positive movement on humanitarian issues, and I
    believe that their removal from that situation, which would be
    facilitated by a U.S. cut in aid, would have dramatic and
    negative implications for the Palestinian people.
        If I can take off my Refugees International hat for a
    second, I also believe it would have negative political
    consequences. I think it would strengthen the position of
    radicals in the region. So that is my first point on UNRWA.
        On the other issue, I am not advocating U.S. support for
    abortion-related services, but I am saying that I think this
    policy, because it prevents assistance to organizations that
    use other funds to undertake such activities, I believe this
    policy does more harm than good. And so we have a difference of
    opinion about that.
        Ms. Bass. So let me just before I close us out. Oh,
    Representative Omar?
        Ms. Omar. Could I?
        Ms. Bass. Sure.
        Ms. Omar. Sorry. Thank you. I just thought of--I had a
    round table on immigration issues for recess week in my
    district, and two of the participants were lawyers who went to
    go help in our southern border to assist some of the asylum
    seekers there. They were speaking about some of the things that
    they witnessed. I just noticed that, Mr. Schwartz, you had
    mentioned that in your testimony--and so I wanted to ask you
    about this policy of metering and whether it is within
    international law to do that.
        Then I wanted to ask you about our--what has our historic
    capacity at that border crossing has been and what does
    processing look like right now?
        Mr. Schwartz. Well, understanding the lateness of the hour,
    I will try to be very brief.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Schwartz. The testimony speaks for itself. I think that
    practices of the administration have run afoul of our
    commitments under the Refugee Convention and Protocol, and
    under U.S. implementing legislation around that.
        Criminalizing people who cross between ports of entry is in
    violation of Article 31 of the Convention because it says to
    somebody who crosses, we are going to put you in prison first
    and charge you, and then maybe we will consider whether or not
    you are a refugee. That is not the way to do it. So I have
    concern about that.
        I have a concern about a policy that returns people to
    Mexico in circumstances where the conditions in northern Mexico
    are very dangerous, where people do not have access to lawyers,
    where there is very little or no due process, and there is the
    risk of returning to situations where people's lives or freedom
    may be threatened.
        So for all of those reasons, I think Congress should be
    acting to legislate remedies here, and I think the policy is an
    unfortunate one.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much.
        Before I wrap up, I want to thank all of the witnesses for
    your testimony, for your time, and for your recommendations. As
    my colleague said, we do have differences of opinion. We have
    differences of opinion when it comes to a woman's right to
    choose. As a mother and as a grandmother, it is kind of
    difficult to hear the descriptions of what an abortion is or an
    abortion is not. What I worry about is is that when we have
    policies that try to govern what women do with their bodies, it
    really only applies to poor women, and that is my concern.
        I worry about women in other countries, that there is cases
    in Central America where women are criminalized, incarcerated,
    because they had a miscarriage, and it is not clear whether it
    was a miscarriage because of natural reasons or it was an
    abortion. So in 2019, the idea that many countries are still
    criminalizing women is of great concern to me. I just kind of
    hope when we move forward in this committee that, we
    acknowledge the differences, but sometimes I do not think the
    graphic descriptions are necessary for the point to be made.
        And with that, I adjourn.
        [Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]