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

                            THE CURRENT STATE OF THE
                              U.S. REFUGEE PROGRAM

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2020

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-77

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    44-567                     WASHINGTON : 2021

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                   MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

    ZOE LOFGREN, California              DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas                Member
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Wisconsin
        Georgia                          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    KAREN BASS, California               JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana        KEN BUCK, Colorado
    HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
    DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
    ERIC SWALWELL, California            MATT GAETZ, Florida
    TED LIEU, California                 MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
    JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
    J. LUIS CORREA, California           GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
    SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              BEN CLINE, Virginia
    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
    LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
    GREG STANTON, Arizona
    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

            PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
                    BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

                         ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chair
                    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington, Vice-Chair

    J. LUIS CORREA, California           KEN BUCK, Colorado, Ranking Member
    SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida      DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
    MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania

                        DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Chief Counsel
                        ANDREA LOVING, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               February 27, 2020

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on
      Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California.......     1
    The Honorable Sylvia R. Garcia, a Member of the Subcommittee on
      Immigration and Citizenship from the State of Texas............     2
    The Honorable Ken Buck, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
      Immigration and Citizenship from the State of Colorado.........     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Barbara Strack, Advisory Committee for Church World Service,
      Immigration and Refugee Program
      Oral Testimony.................................................     6
      Prepared Statement.............................................     8
    Most Reverend Mario Eduardo Dorsonville-Rodriguez, Chair of the
      Committee on Migration of the United States, Conference of
      Catholic Bishops, Auxiliary Bishop of Washington
      Oral Testimony.................................................    24
      Prepared Statement.............................................    26
    Biar Atem, Nevada Delegate and Board of Directors Member for
      Refugee Congress
      Oral Testimony.................................................    35
      Prepared Statement.............................................    37
    Lora Ries, Senior Research Fellow for Homeland Security, Sarah
      Allison Center for Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation
      Oral Testimony.................................................    41
      Prepared Statement.............................................    43

               STATEMENTS, LETTERS, MATERIALS, ARTICLES SUBMITTED

    Articles submitted by the Honorable Veronica Escobar, a Member of
      the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State
      of Texas for the record
      An article entitled ``Abbott tells Trump administration Texas
        won't participate in refugee resettlement,'' The Texas
        Tribune......................................................    58
      An article entitled ``Federal Judge Blocks Policy that Allowed
        Gov. Greg Abbott to Ban Refugees in Texas,'' The Texas
        Tribune......................................................    61
      An article entitled ``Federal Judge Blocks Policy that Allowed
        Gov. Greg Abbott to Ban Refugees in Texas,'' Government
        Executive....................................................    63
      An article entitled ``Will Texas Be Allowed To Refuse New
        Refugee Resettlement?'' Texas Public Radio...................    65
      An article entitled ``Response to Texas Governor Abbott's
        refugee refusal--What's Your Point?''........................    67
      An article entitled ``Judge halts Trump refugee order,
        jeopardizing Abbott move to block settlement in Texas,''
        Statesman....................................................    75
      An article entitled ``Refugees can still resettle in Texas, for
        now, as judge halts Trump's executive order,'' Ft. Worth
        Star-Telegram................................................    79
      An article entitled ``Federal Judge Halts Policy That Would
        Allow Gov. Greg Abbott to Ban Refugees From Texas,'' San
        Antonio Current..............................................    83
      An article entitled ``Judge Halts Trump Order On Refugee
        Resettlement After Gov. Abbott Was 1st To Sign On,'' 21CBS
        DFW..........................................................    84
      An article entitled ``Federal judge blocks order Gov. Greg
        Abbott used to reject refugees,'' KXAN.......................    87
      An article entitled ``Leading Observers Praise Federal Judge's
        Injunction Blocking Refugee Executive Order and Blast Texas
        Gov. Abbott,'' America's Voice...............................    90
      An article entitled ``Judge blocks Trump policy allowing states
        to refuse refugees'' Houston Chronicale......................    93
      An article entitled ``Opinion: We all lose when Texas rejects
        refugees'' Statesman.........................................    97
    An article entitled ``Trump policies stop the flow of refugees to
      Syracuse, once aresettlement magnet,'' Syracuse.com, submitted
      by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Vice-Chair of the Committee
      on the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania for the record.   103
    Items submitted by The Honorable Sylvia R. Garcia, a Member of
      the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State
      of Texas for the record
      Statement from Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAAJC........   118
      Statement from Bethany Christian Services......................   125
      Statement from Church World Service (CWS)......................   127
      Statement from Episcopal Church Office of Government Relations.   128
      Statement from Franciscan Action Network.......................   129
      Statement from Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS).............   130
      Statement from Interfaith Immigration Coalition................   132
      Statement from International Refugee Assistance Project........   136
      Statement from The International Rescue Committee..............   175
      Statement from Leadership Conference of Women Religious........   183
      Statement from Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service........   184
      Statement from National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW).........   185
      Statement from National Immigration Law Center.................   186
      Statement from Refugee Congress................................   190
      Letter from more than 85 U.S. Mayors in support of refugee
        resettlement.................................................   195

                                    APPENDIX

    Statement from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the
      Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of
      Texas for the record...........................................   200
    Statement from the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York for the
      record.........................................................   202
    Letter from Bill de Blasio, Mayor, New York, submitted by the
      Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............   209
    An article entitled ``No Matter Trump's Agenda, Refugees Remain
      Welcome in New York City,'' Gotham Gazette, submitted by the
      Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............   210
    Statement from Community Change Action and the Fair Immigration
      Reform Movement (FIRM) Action, submitted by the Honorable Zoe
      Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and
      Citizenship from the State of California for the record........   212
    Statement from the American Federation of Government Employees
      National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council 119,
      submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the
      Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of
      California for the record......................................   214

                            THE CURRENT STATE OF THE.
                              U.S. REFUGEE PROGRAM

                                  ----------

                          Thursday, February 27, 2020

                            House of Representatives

                  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:08 p.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
    [chair of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Lofgren, Jayapal, Correa, Garcia,
    Neguse, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Jackson Lee, Scanlon, Buck,
    Biggs, Lesko, Armstrong, and Steube.
        Staff Present: Ami Shah, Counsel; Joshua Breisblatt,
    Counsel; Rachel Calanni, Legislative Aide/Professional Staff
    Member; John Williams, Parliamentarian; David Greengrass,
    Senior Counsel; Andrea Loving, Minority Counsel; James Rust,
    Minority Counsel; and Andrea Woodard, Minority Professional
    Staff Member.
        Ms. Lofgren. The Subcommittee on Immigration and
    Citizenship will come to order.
        Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
        We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on the
    current State of the U.S. refugee program.
        Today's hearing is a timely one for many reasons. A few
    weeks ago, from now marks the 40th anniversary of the Refugee
    Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that established the
    U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and initiated America's
    commitment to refugee resettlement.
        This fiscal year also marks the lowest refugee admissions
    number since the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, at a scant
    18,000--a fraction of the historic average of 95,000 refugees
    per year.
        The Trump Administration's drastic decrease in refugee
    admissions, the cut in referrals from UNHCR, and the provision
    to allow States and localities to so-called ``veto'' the
    resettlement of refugees in their jurisdiction has jeopardized
    the future of the U.S. refugee program and the United States'
    longstanding commitment to refugee resettlement.
        I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and their
    perspectives on the current State of the U.S. refugee program,
    its impact on the future of the program, and the importance of
    refugees to our committee.
        Now, without objection, I had endeavored to make sure that
    freshmen Members of this Committee had an opportunity to step
    forward, help organize a hearing, and preside over that
    hearing. I am pleased that my colleague, Sylvia Garcia of
    Texas, will preside over the remainder of this hearing.
        Without objection, I now yield to her for her opening
    statement and ask her to take the chair.
        Ms. Garcia. [Presiding.] Thank you, Chair Lofgren. I am
    honored to be able to chair this very important hearing today.
        Next week, we will be celebrating the 40th anniversary of
    the bipartisan Refugee Act of 1980, signed into law by
    President Reagan. Since the passage of the Refugee Act, the
    United States has welcomed an average of 85,000 refugees each
    year from around the world--85,000 people who were given a
    chance at the American Dream.
        Refugee resettlement has always been a bipartisan effort, a
    responsibility that the U.S. accepted with pride as a beacon of
    hope for all who yearn for a better life. More importantly, the
    American people have supported refugee resettlement. Pew
    Research finds that 73 percent of Americans believe refugee
    resettlement is an important goal for our country.
        Yet, all this changed when this Administration politicized
    refugees, guided by lies, and slashed the number of refugees
    admitted to the United States each year. The lies spread about
    the refugee community are simply not true.
        There are roughly 37,000 individuals who, at the very
    least, have received a DHS interview, in many cases having gone
    through extreme vetting, and have been cleared to travel to the
    U.S. Yet, they've been held back by the Administration's policy
    change.
        These individuals should be admitted to the country as
    refugees this year. Delay in resettlement means that families
    cannot travel together and must wait a long time before being
    reunited--yet another form of cruel family separation.
        Refugees arrive from all corners of the globe and resettle
    across the country. I am especially proud that my hometown of
    Houston resettles more refugees than almost any other city in
    America. After arriving, 90 percent of refugees reach self-
    sufficiency in only 6 months--a truly impressive feat given all
    the barriers that come with living in a new country. Some do
    this by starting a business and eventually employing others. As
    we know, refugees start businesses at a very high rate, higher
    than citizens.
        Helping refugees along their journey are nonprofit
    agencies. Some of these organizations have been doing this work
    for over 40 years, ever since refugees started coming to the
    United States from Vietnam and Cambodia. Agencies in Houston,
    like Catholic Charities, YMCA International Services, and The
    Alliance, have grown with the number of refugees, developing a
    solid infrastructure of support for newly arrived refugees.
        Now, because of efforts to drastically limit the refugee
    program, we risk losing these agencies' systems that cannot
    simply start up again once a new Administration restores the
    previous resettlement numbers.
        The Administration recently issued an Executive order
    giving States and localities veto power over refugee
    resettlement. Governor Abbott of my home State of Texas then
    made the misguided decision of becoming the only Governor in
    the country to veto refugee resettlement under the Executive
    order. Fortunately, that order has been stopped by the courts,
    and we're hopeful that it will end there.
        The world is experiencing the worst refugee crisis in
    history, with an estimated 25.9 million refugees worldwide, and
    we cannot abandon our longstanding tradition and leadership in
    welcoming them. It is good for our economy, for our national
    security, but, most importantly, it is fundamental to our
    values as a Nation. For many of us, it's fundamental to our
    closely held religious beliefs. After all, it's about people
    and doing what's right.
        Today, we are faced with a choice. We can either allow the
    Administration to undo the will of the American people over the
    last 40 years, or we can use this hearing to reset our
    bipartisan refugee efforts and work together to welcome the
    world's most vulnerable to the land of freedom and opportunity.
    The choice, to me, is clear, and I hope my colleagues will join
    me in saying that refugees are welcome in America.
        It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of
    this subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Buck, for
    his opening statement.
        Mr. Buck. I thank the chair.
        The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program has helped people from
    all over the world escape brutal persecution in their home
    country and find a new life and new beginning in the United
    States. America's commitment to and participation in this
    program has been a crucial part of our humanitarian and
    diplomatic leadership. I believe we must honor this important
    commitment.
        However, as with any government program, this program has
    problems that we must address. Those most in need of
    humanitarian assistance have been forced to flee their homes.
    They may be displaced, living in refugee camps. Their home
    country is often war-torn or the government has collapsed. The
    tragic reality is that the circumstances that give rise to a
    refugee crisis are also the same reason why it can be so
    difficult to vet refugees.
        We heard time and again from the Obama Administration that
    refugees were the most vetted of all foreign nationals seeking
    to come to the U.S. That same Administration and national
    security experts also told us that security checks are only as
    reliable as the databases used for vetting.
        Case in point: Earlier this month, a man named Ali Ahmed
    was recently arrested in Arizona. He received refugee status in
    2008. He has scars on his body from bullet wounds that he used
    to claim persecution. We now know the truth of how he obtained
    these wounds: He was a member of an al-Qaida hit squad in Iraq.
        A 2018 report detailed how over a 4-year period almost
    1,000 people had been killed or injured in 32 separate
    terrorist attacks in Europe involving asylum seekers or
    refugees. A majority of the terrorists had direct connections
    with ISIS, and two-thirds were recent arrivals admitted under a
    humanitarian program, such as the refugee program.
        I want to be clear: Most refugees present no danger to the
    United States or our European allies. At the same time, we need
    to continue to evaluate this program to ensure that we admit
    only those persons truly deserving of assistance.
        Maintaining this delicate balance is not only critical to
    protecting the national security interests of the United
    States, but also necessary for maintaining public support for
    the refugee program to ensure its continued existence.
        This is why the Trump Administration took steps to increase
    vetting of refugees and other foreign nationals seeking
    admission to the U.S. These policies do not reflect racial bias
    or religious animus but show a concern for the security of our
    country and the safety of its residents.
        Another concern is whether States and localities are being
    consulted prior to resettlement. While Federal law requires
    this, previous Administrations never took the obligation
    seriously. Under the leadership of the current Administration,
    States and localities are finally being consulted.
        I also understand that the Administration has lowered the
    refugee ceiling to 18,000 this fiscal year. I appreciate the
    fact that asylum claims draw on the same finite resources and
    personnel as the refugee program. The spike in asylum cases has
    strained these resources.
        I personally would like to see a greater commitment to
    helping people truly in need of assistance. The way to do this
    is for Congress to work with the Administration to curb
    frivolous asylum claims. Doing so would allow us to target
    resources to process legitimate refugee and asylum claims,
    prioritizing help for those most deserving of assistance.
        Finally, I would note that, when we consider all the U.S.
    does in terms of humanitarian programs, there can be no doubt
    that we are doing our part.
        I thank the chair for holding this hearing and look forward
    to hearing from our witnesses.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Garcia. It is now my pleasure to introduce today's
    witnesses.
        Barbara Strack is a former Chief of the Refugee and Asylum
    Division of USCIS and currently serves on the Advisory
    Committee for Church World Service Immigration and Refugee
    Program.
        Barbara Strack retired as Chief of the Refugee and Asylum
    Division in 2018 after 12 years as its head and spent a total
    of 27 years in Federal Government service. During her time
    there, Ms. Strack was responsible for overseas refugee
    interviews as well as related antifraud, national security,
    quality insurance, and training initiatives. She also
    frequently testified before both chambers of Congress on the
    topic of U.S. refugee admissions.
        She is a longstanding advocate for the importance of the
    U.S. refugee program and continues to do so in her current role
    with Church World Service. She received her bachelor's degree
    from Brown University and her J.D. from the University of
    Michigan.
        Next to Ms. Strack is Bishop Mario Eduardo Dorsonville-
    Rodriguez. The Most Reverend Mario Eduardo Dorsonville-
    Rodriguez is an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of
    Washington and is the current chairman of the U.S. Conference
    of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration.
        Bishop Dorsonville was born in Colombia and was ordained to
    the priesthood there in 1985. He received his bachelor's degree
    in philosophy and sacred theology from the Major Seminary of
    the Archdiocese of Bogota, a licentiate in sacred theology from
    Pontificia Universidad Javeriana de Bogota, and a doctorate in
    ministry from the Catholic University of America.
        Bishop Dorsonville is a longstanding advocate for
    immigration reform, refugee resettlement, and critical programs
    like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Temporary
    Protected Status, the latter of which he testified about before
    this very Committee last year. We welcome him back to the
    Committee and look forward to his testimony.
        Next is Mr. Biar Atem. He is a Sudanese refugee who came to
    the United States in 2001 and became a U.S. citizen in 2007.
    Since arriving to the United States, he has received his
    bachelor's degree from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and
    his MBA from Regis University and currently works as a contract
    audit manager at a Las Vegas casino and resort company.
        He is a Nevada delegate to the Refugee Congress, the
    founder of a local refugee support nonprofit called South Sudan
    Center for America and is engaged with mentorship programs at
    the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Hotel College in his local
    school district.
        Mr. Atem has been honored by Fortune magazine and the
    American Red Cross for his contributions to his community. We
    thank him for sharing his story with us today and his continued
    advocacy for the importance of refugee resettlement to the
    United States.
        Lastly, Lora Ries. Ms. Ries is a senior research fellow for
    homeland security at The Heritage Foundation. She has over 23
    years of experience in the immigration and homeland security
    arena.
        Ms. Ries twice worked at the Department of Homeland
    Security on management and immigration policy and operation
    issues. She has also worked in the private sector as a homeland
    security industry strategist and in government relations. She
    previously worked for this very Committee as a counsel for the
    Immigration Subcommittee.
        She started her career at the Justice Department's Board of
    Immigration Appeals and the former Immigration and
    Naturalization Service. She received her bachelor's degree and
    J.D. from Valparaiso University in Indiana.
        Welcome to all the witnesses.
        If you all would please stand so we can swear you in. We
    welcome all our distinguished witnesses, and we thank them, and
    if you would raise your right hand.
        Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
    testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
    of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
        Let the record show the witnesses all answered in the
    affirmative.
        Thank you, and please be seated.
        For the witnesses, please make note that each of you have
    provided written statements, and some of them were a little
    lengthy, so we will ask you to please summarize your testimony
    to 5 minutes. You will each have 5 minutes.
        To help you stay on time, there is a time lighting device
    on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow,
    you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light
    turns red, guess what that means? We stop. It signals to you
    that your time has expired.
        With that, we'll go ahead and begin with Ms. Strack. You
    can begin with your testimony.

                      TESTIMONY OF BARBARA STRACK

        Ms. Strack. Thank you very much, Chair Lofgren,
    Congresswoman Garcia, Ranking Member, and distinguished
    Members.
        Ms. Lesko. Turn the mike on.
        Ms. Strack. Oh, I am sorry.
        Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today.
        I am the former Chief of the Refugee Affairs Division at
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, where I served as a
    career civil servant under the Bush, Obama, and Trump
    Administrations.
        To briefly set the stage, a refugee is a person outside of
    his or her country of origin who is unable or unwilling to
    return to that country due to persecution or a well-founded
    fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
    Membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
    Today, there are approximately 26 million refugees in the
    world.
        There are three avenues to end refugee status. These are:
    Voluntary repatriation to the home country, local integration
    in a neighboring country, or resettlement in a third country.
    Resettlement is the scarcest option. Fewer than 1 percent of
    the world's refugees are resettled to any third country on an
    annual basis.
        The U.S. traditionally took half, and the rest of the world
    took the other one-half of 1 percent. The Trump Administration,
    however, has dramatically departed from these norms and set the
    lowest refugee resettlement ceiling ever, at only 18,000 for
    fiscal year 2020.
        There is no justification for this.
        First, the USRAP, U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, is
    operationally secure. The U.S. decides on both the number of
    refugees to be admitted and who they are. Refugee applicants
    are interviewed in person, and they're subject to the most
    rigorous level of screening of any category of traveler to the
    United States. This has been an iterative process of adding new
    checks, both biometric and biographic, since 9/11.
        One of the Trump Administration's early initiatives was to
    institute a 120-day review of the security check regime for
    refugee applicants, followed by an additional 90-day review for
    certain nationalities. As a result of these reviews, new
    screening processes were implemented, and refugee admissions
    resumed for all nationalities by September 2018.
        The Administration has argued that we should prioritize
    assistance to refugees overseas in lieu of resettlement, but
    this misses the point that 99 percent of refugees always remain
    in host countries close to home. Resettlement is specifically
    to help those most vulnerable refugees, those who can't return
    home or aren't safe in that country of first asylum.
        Finally, there are no sound foreign policy reasons for such
    a dramatic cut, and, in fact, reducing refugee admissions hurts
    U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.
        While I have been talking about the admissions ceiling in
    numerical terms, it's critical to remember that each number
    represents a person and each slot in the U.S. resettlement
    program is a unique and important humanitarian resource that
    should not be squandered.
        What I particularly want to highlight today is that the
    situation for refugee admissions is dire. The program is not on
    track to meet the 18,000 ceiling. At this point in the fiscal
    year, concerted congressional oversight is crucial if there is
    any hope to close this gap.
        The Administration has adopted several self-imposed
    roadblocks and speed bumps that are suppressing refugee
    arrivals.
        The Administration took an unusual approach to subdividing
    or allocating the refugee admission slots to different groups
    of refugees. Instead of the usual approach of using broad
    geographical categories, the Administration set narrower
    criteria. These are harder to administer, and they don't
    properly align with the pipeline of cases already in the U.S.
    system.
        These narrow categories actually represent cuts for the
    groups that are purportedly prioritized. This is true for both
    the religious persecution category and for Iraqis, those who've
    worked closely with the U.S. Against the allocated ceiling of
    4,000, only 53 Iraqis have been admitted as of mid-February. I
    would like to repeat that: As of mid-February, 53 Iraqis have
    been admitted to the United States.
        The Administration also decided to make it much harder to
    reallocate slots between these narrow categories, creating a
    burdensome four-department approval process, for no apparent
    reason other than to stall processing and reduce admissions.
    Based on my years of experience, the flexibility to use
    resettlement slots within the broad categories and to
    reallocate them is a crucial factor in being able to meet the
    refugee ceiling.
        This is an area ripe for congressional oversight, and time
    is of the essence to allow for backup planning. Reallocations
    need to happen now and on a continuing basis.
        The need for congressional oversight is particularly stark
    because the Administration is not just temporarily cutting
    refugee numbers. The changes it has made will have long-lasting
    ramifications, dismantling a program that Congress has
    supported and invested in over decades. It will take years to
    recover.
        The current politically charged debate around refugee
    resettlement is a historical anomaly. For most of the program's
    existence, it has enjoyed bipartisan support. I'd like to say
    thank you, in particular, to Ranking Member Buck for
    spearheading a letter signed by 17 Members of Congress to
    Secretary Pompeo.
        This is the moment to harness this bipartisan support, to
    provide effective oversight of an Administration that is bent
    on dismantling this critical, lifesaving program.
        [The statement of Ms. Strack follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
        Bishop?

       TESTIMONY OF THE MOST REVEREND MARIO EDUARDO DORSONVILLE-
                               RODRIGUEZ

        Bishop Dorsonville. Subcommittee Chair Lofgren, Ranking
    Member Buck, Representative Garcia, and House Judiciary
    Subcommittee Members, thank you for giving me the opportunity
    to speak with you today about refugees, the lifesaving U.S.
    refugee resettlement program, and its importance to the
    Catholic Church as well.
        My name is Mario Dorsonville. I am one of the auxiliary
    bishops of the Archdiocese of Washington and Chairman of the
    U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration.
        I am here to offer my perspective as a naturalized
    immigrant to this great country. A bishop of the Catholic
    Church and community leader, I am personally an example of the
    possibility of the American Dream.
        Originally from Colombia, I have had the opportunity to
    live here in the United States for close to 30 years,
    naturalized, and achieve my calling to work as a bishop with
    the Catholic Church. For this, I am blessed.
        I have been a priest for 35 years, and for 10 years I've
    had the opportunity to work with Catholic Charities' Spanish
    Catholic Center here in the Archdiocese of Washington. Through
    this experience, I have encountered many immigrants and
    refugees who have come to the United States and thrived. I have
    met many individuals, including refugees, who are building
    lives here so that they can serve others.
        I have also worked with parishes in the archdiocese whose
    lives have been touched and improved by their work assisting
    refugees' families.
        In 2013, our Holy Father, Pope Francis, chose as his first
    official trip as Pope to travel to the community of Lampedusa
    to acknowledge the deaths of migrants and refugees who had lost
    their lives drowning in the Mediterranean in an attempt to flee
    persecution and find a better life.
        In that visit, the Holy Father stated that the loss of
    sacred human life felt like a thorn on his heart. Pope Francis
    asked us at Lampedusa, ``Where is your brother? Where is your
    sister?''
        He stated, ``This is not a question directed to others; it
    is a question directed to me, to you, to each of us. These
    brothers and sisters of ours were trying to escape difficult
    situations to find some serenity and peace. They were looking
    for a better place for themselves and their families, but
    instead they found death. How often do such people fail to find
    understanding, fail to find acceptance, fail to find
    solidarity?''
        Today, I am here to echo the Holy Father's message, to
    recognize that we must, at all times but particularly in these
    moments of great global turmoil, recognize the most vulnerable
    and welcome them to the extent we are able.
        As a naturalized and proud American citizen, I can say
    without hesitation that my adopted country is able to welcome
    and integrate refugees in a safe manner. In this respect, we
    have been a leading country to the international community.
    Other countries are following our example.
        Refugees are individuals who are among the most vulnerable.
    As you can read in my written testimony, the Catholic Church,
    for more than 50 years, has long supported refugees and refugee
    resettlements in this country. I am sometimes asked, why is
    welcoming immigrants and refugees so important to Catholics? A
    very simple answer: We believe that welcoming refugees reflects
    our belief to uphold and protect the sacredness of every human
    life. And beyond this point, let us remember ``Catholic'' means
    ``universal.''
        Through our Catholic Charities around the country, we are
    heeding Pope Francis's call to accompany and integrate refugees
    into our communities, dioceses, parishes, and lives.
        Despite the cuts to the resettlement program and the
    reduction of refugees being allowed into the United States, I
    urge you to recognize that we need to welcome refugees now more
    than ever. It is also important to note--
        Ms. Garcia. Your time has expired. If you could just wrap
    it up. Your time has expired.
        Bishop Dorsonville. Oh. God bless you for listening to me.
    I will say, in a very small closing point, our community really
    needs our attention, our compassion, and our solidarity.
        Thank you so much for your time.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Bishop.
        Bishop Dorsonville. Thank you.
        [The statement of Bishop Dorsonville follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Garcia. Next, Mr. Atem?

                         TESTIMONY OF BIAR ATEM

        Mr. Atem. Good afternoon, Chair, Ranking Member, and
    Members of the subcommittee.
        I am Biar Atem, a former refugee from South Sudan and
    member of the board of directors for the Refugee Congress. In
    2014, I also started the South Sudan Center of America, a local
    nonprofit that assists refugees.
        I sit here before you on behalf of myself and on behalf of
    the refugees across this great Nation. It is my great honor to
    appear before you to not only share my refugee experience but
    also our gratitude to the American people for welcoming us into
    the United States. This country has been a lifesaving force for
    us, and the fact that you are willing to hear from someone like
    me is a further testament to the decency and goodwill of this
    country.
        Let me tell you a little bit about myself. In the 1980s,
    when I was 7 years old, my village in South Sudan was violently
    attacked during the second Sudanese civil war. This was a
    brutal ethnic-religious conflict and ultimately took over 2
    million lives and displaced millions.
        My village was firebombed, in part because we refused to
    give up our Christian faith. When we were attacked, I was in
    the field with my father's cattle and had to flee for my life
    with other children. We became part of the so-called ``The Lost
    Boys of Sudan,'' the 30,000 kids between the ages of 5 and 11.
        We walked over a thousand miles to get to a refugee camp in
    Ethiopia and Kenya. When we reached the refugee camp in
    Ethiopia, only one in three boys survived the journey. Some
    died of starvation. Others died of malaria. Still others were
    eaten by a lion and other animal attacks. Of course, many died
    from gunfire.
        One time, the Ethiopian soldiers chased us out of their
    country, forcing us to swim across the Gilo River, which was
    infested with crocodiles. Many kids did not make it out of the
    river. They were either eaten or shot.
        This childhood experience made me and many like me
    especially grateful to the United States. In 2001, nearly 4,000
    Lost Boys of Sudan were resettled across the States as
    refugees. It was the single greatest blessing of our lives.
        Unfortunately, just a few months after we arrived,
    September the 11th happened. One consequence of that was the
    al-Qaida attack. The U.S. Department of State--the U.S. State
    Department reduced the number of Sudanese refugees who were
    resettled for some years.
        So, I was sent from a refugee camp in Kenya, where I spent
    nearly 10 years staying in the camp, going from five different
    plane rides, from Nairobi to Belgium, to New York JFK, to St.
    Louis, and then to Las Vegas at 10:30 p.m. at night.
        Coming from a place where the only light I had was the
    daylight, so when I was going to school, I had to make sure
    that I got my homework done during the day, but in Las Vegas I
    could do my homework at 2:00 a.m. in the morning on the street.
        Osama bin Laden was actually supporting the Sudanese
    Government, and that was the reason why we couldn't go to
    Sudan. This had impacted us for so many years. So, I often
    think about, when I became a U.S. citizen in 2007, I couldn't
    wait for a day when I was going to go back to the refugee camp
    and bring my mother back to Las Vegas. Especially, I wanted her
    to meet my future wife and attend our wedding in Minnesota.
        That trip instead turned into the one to attend her
    funeral. My mother died of malaria in the refugee camp after
    she was denied a visa to come and attend my wedding in the U.S.
    Her death and life in the camp was ultimately the result of the
    tragic and the fearful times that we lived in.
        Therefore, it's not an exaggeration to say that I sit here
    today because my family and my community are the victims of the
    same terrorism that struck the United States on September 11th.
        My question that I would like to ask today is, why do the
    vast majority of Americans want to welcome refugees into this
    country? I am going to share three perspectives.
        Refugees bring the spirit of gratitude to this country.
    Sometimes people who are born here--I am just going to wrap it
    up.
        So, the second thing is that refugees are often the most
    talented of their communities--
        Ms. Garcia. Mr. Atem, just in one sentence, because your
    time also has expired.
        Mr. Atem. All right. I thank you so much.
        So, refugees are the most talented Members of their
    communities. Refugees are the great ambassadors for America.
        Thank you so much for having me here today.
        [The statement of Mr. Atem follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Garcia. Thank you for your testimony.
        Ms. Ries?

                         TESTIMONY OF LORA RIES

        Ms. Ries. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren,
    Congresswoman Garcia, and Ranking Member Buck, for the
    opportunity to speak to you today about the current State of
    the U.S. refugee program.
        My name is Lora Ries, and I am the senior research fellow
    for homeland security at The Heritage Foundation. The views
    expressed here are my own and do not reflect an institutional
    position for The Heritage Foundation or its board of trustees.
        I have spent my career involved in the immigration and
    homeland security arena, including the Department of Homeland
    Security, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. House of
    Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. As a former counsel
    on this subcommittee, I am honored that this is where I am
    testifying at a congressional hearing for the first time.
        The United States has a long, proud humanitarian tradition
    of admitting refugees into this country. The U.S. refugee
    program supports U.S. interests by rescuing some of the world's
    most vulnerable people, asserting American leadership and
    strengthening U.S. public diplomacy.
        I will discuss three areas of improvement needed for the
    Refugee Admissions Program. The first area has to do with
    refugee vetting.
        There is no way to design a foolproof vetting system, but a
    successful refugee program should be honest about security
    risks and make sure to mitigate them. Periodic reassessments
    are necessary to identify and combat fraud patterns, maximum
    information-sharing among agencies dispersed across
    departments, and leverage newer technology.
        An effective tool to achieve this is developing a person-
    centric system. The status quo of the relevant databases
    involved in this program are characterized by scattered
    information systems among agencies gathering limited-purpose
    data that is difficult to coordinate across agencies. The U.S.
    immigration agencies and intelligence community should be
    employing a person-centric system which would link encounters
    based on biometrics and provide a person's complete travel to
    and from the U.S. and immigration history to allow an
    adjudicator to determine eligibility for any immigration
    benefit.
        As we think about vetting, we should also consider upstream
    benefits. Resettlement is not the solution to mass
    displacement. By assisting countries on the front lines, we can
    stretch resources furthest to help the largest number of
    refugees.
        The second area of improvement is ensuring refugee program
    integrity. An aspect of the U.S. refugee program that needs
    attention is continuous vetting of recently resettled refugees
    to determine whether a refugee returns to the same country from
    which they asserted they were being persecuted. If a refugee
    voluntarily returns to his home country, he may lose his
    refugee status. To maintain the integrity of the program, the
    U.S. should ensure that those who apply for and those who have
    received refugee status have a bona fide claim of fear.
        Another aspect of program integrity is that U.S.
    immigration law states that a refugee should apply for
    adjustment of status, or a green card, 1 year after admission
    as a refugee. However, there is currently no follow-up by the
    U.S. Government to ensure a refugee submits the adjustment
    application. As a refugee's 1-year anniversary approaches, DHS
    should contact the refugee with a reminder to apply for
    adjustment of status. This will not only assist the refugee's
    integration into U.S. society with a more permanent immigration
    status, it is importantly also provides the U.S. Government
    another look at the refugee regarding progress towards that
    permanent status.
        This brings me to my third area of improvement, and that is
    refugee assimilation. Unfortunately, subsequent radicalization
    of refugees in the same or later generations has occurred in
    the U.S. and other resettlement countries, and this new
    phenomena warrants having the U.S. Government assess current
    assimilation efforts and success.
        Assimilation is key to reducing this risk. Learning
    English, gaining an education--and gaining an education helps
    immigrants build an American identity and the knowledge, skill
    sets, and social capital that increase their sense of belonging
    in American society.
        Patriotic assimilation does not require that refugees
    forget their history. Rather, the goal is that immigrants
    embrace the principles of the United States and develop loyalty
    to the U.S. and fellow Americans. We need a comprehensive
    assimilation plan in which our schools emphasize civics
    education more, English proficiency occurs more quickly, and
    greater civil society is more involved in the resettling of
    refugees. Involvement by individuals, even sponsors from the
    local community, can facilitate refugees' entry into mainstream
    society. This helps build civic pride and patriotic attachment
    to other Americans.
        Finally, as we think about our refugee program, we should
    always view it as a segment of our whole immigration picture
    and remember that managing borders is central to a nation's
    sovereignty, which is exercised by every country in this world.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Ries follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
        We will now proceed under the 5-minute Rule with questions
    for the witnesses, and I will begin by recognizing myself for 5
    minutes.
        My first question is for Ms. Strack.
        Ms. Strack, you described in your oral testimony the
    situation for refugees as ``dire'' for this program. You make
    reference to the 18,000 ceiling as being too low. I think you
    mentioned that we're not quite even there yet, with half the
    fiscal year. My understanding is that the fiscal year, it looks
    like, halfway through, we're only at about 5,000.
        Do you think the Trump Administration could handle more
    refugees and do more on this? What is it you think that we
    could be doing to make sure that we achieve that 18,000
    ceiling, low as it is?
        Ms. Strack. Thank you.
        I am very concerned about the particular subcategories,
    what we call the allocations of refugees, and that it's going
    to hamper the Administration's ability to reach the 18,000
    ceiling.
        If you actually look at the number and estimate monthly
    arrivals, the situation doesn't look too bad. You would see a
    path to get to 18,000 if you increased monthly arrivals by a
    reasonable amount. The problem is, though, suballocation.
        So, for example, of the 18,000, 4,000 numbers are reserved
    for Iraqis. Fifty-three Iraqis have arrived so far, this fiscal
    year. My concern is that there is not a path forward to go from
    53 arrivals to 4,000 arrivals.
        I strongly suspect that my former colleagues at the State
    Department and USCIS have those data. They could share them
    with you and show you a pipeline report of who is in the
    pipeline and what's the likelihood they could travel this
    fiscal year. If they can see already that those cases are not
    going to travel this fiscal year, what I am suggesting is those
    numbers should be reallocated to another category where there
    is a backlog of refugees who could travel this year. That could
    be the religious minority category. It could be the ``other''
    catchall category.
        The statistics are there, and the knowledge and experience
    is there in the programs to be able to project with a fair
    degree who is likely to be able to travel this year. The
    categories where there is going to be a shortfall, those should
    be flipped to another category where individuals are more
    likely to be able to travel this year, consistent with the
    priorities that have already been set by this Administration.
        Ms. Garcia. All right.
        The Administration claims that it's had to reduce the
    Administration's goal to focus the resources on the southern
    border. So, is it a resource issue, or is it a funding issue,
    or is it this category flipping and wrong targets for the wrong
    group of people, to put it another way?
        Ms. Strack. The refugee and the asylum program are legally
    and operationally distinct. I believe that the reference to the
    southwest border is largely a post-hoc rationalization for an
    Administration that chooses to have a smaller Refugee
    Admissions Program.
        I think one piece of evidence for that is that, when they
    set the ceiling at 18,000 for this fiscal year, there were
    already approximately 40,000 refugees in the pipeline who had
    already been interviewed by DHS officers. I think that's the
    argument there, that there's a scarcity of officers to do the
    interviews. These were interviews where USCIS officers had
    already been overseas, interviewed them, and those cases were
    conditionally approved. So, there's no offset with the asylum
    program in that situation.
        The other thing I want to say is, my experience as a
    government official and in the last 12 years as really an
    operational person, policy drives resources, not the other way
    around. So, when there is a policy will to admit refugees,
    resources follow. It's not the other way around.
        Ms. Garcia. Okay. Thank you.
        Bishop, thank you again for your support on this issue. I
    know that we've talked about the Texas Governor, using that
    veto power, decided not to do the refugee resettlement programs
    in Texas. What has been the reaction from your colleagues in
    Texas and the Catholic community about the Governor's decision?
        Bishop Dorsonville. Well, we have been, first, working with
    other religion groups and denominations. I guess that we expect
    that it might be a rectification, if it's possible, advocating
    and continue to try to find the real ways to support, to
    welcome, and to integrate into the parish and diocese life, the
    refugees would be a very important point.
        I guess that advocating, praying with them, trying to work
    with them, it would be, like, the main point. Surprise and
    disappointment always come from the ones who have to face, day
    by day, the drama, the human drama, of many people, but still
    we move with much faith and hope that we know that perhaps
    there might be other ways to face this kind of crisis.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Bishop.
        Bishop Dorsonville. Sure.
        Ms. Garcia. My time has expired. I'll now recognize Mr.
    Biggs of Arizona.
        Mr. Biggs. I thank the gentlelady, the chair.
        I thank each of you for being here to testify before us
    today in this important hearing.
        Ms. Ries, you talked about coordination of data across
    agencies. I am wondering, in the world of refugees and,
    basically, sometimes the upheaval that is causing the movement
    of peoples, how would you suggest that we acquire information?
    You mentioned biometrics, for instance. How would we transmit
    that across agencies and coordinate better in the United
    States?
        Ms. Ries. So, there are two parts to that. One is UNHCR,
    the biometrics that they collect, and having them share
    information with the resettlement countries.
        Also, the other side is within USCIS. For example, having
    the intel communities who must do security checks, which can
    take a long time, be able to, along with the immigration
    agencies, get a complete picture of all the data that does
    exist on a person to make sure is this person eligible, grant
    the benefit; if they're not eligible, don't. It would add a lot
    of efficiency.
        Mr. Biggs. So, Ms. Strack testified in both her written and
    oral testimony that 40,000 refugees have been interviewed in
    the pipeline, but we've only allocated for 18,000. Is an
    interview the only vetting process that goes through before we
    admit a refugee?
        Ms. Ries. My understanding with that group is they are
    awaiting security checks. As I said, that can take a long time.
        Mr. Biggs. With regard to the vetting system, I think
    everybody here is going to agree that there is no foolproof
    vetting system available at this time. Have improvements been
    made during the Trump Administration to mitigate risks of
    either fraud or those who pose a national security risk?
        Ms. Ries. Yes. So, both refugee and asylum process needs
    periodic reassessments. This was done after 9/11. Over time,
    applicants can game the system, and so that is why another
    assessment is needed periodically.
        Coming into the Trump Administration with very high numbers
    and radicalization appearing in some of these cases, both in
    the U.S. and abroad, it was time to do another reassessment. So
    that is what occurred at the beginning of the Administration.
    It has involved using newer technology, making sure
    information-sharing is occurring among all the right agencies,
    and the like.
        Mr. Biggs. So one of the things that you testified to is
    that DHS doesn't provide--at the end of a year, a refugee comes
    in, they are not providing a notice to the refugee that it is
    time to apply for a change of status.
        So, I am going to ask Mr. Atem, do you recall receiving any
    kind of notification from DHS when your year status was up to
    apply for a change of status?
        Mr. Atem. No, I never got a call from the DHS. When I
    arrived here, I knew that after 1 year I can apply for a green
    card, which I did, and then applied for U.S. citizenship. So,
    it was a process.
        Because when you come as a refugee, you get a I-94, which
    is only good for 1 year. After 1 year, that document is not
    valid, so you have to become a resident and get your green
    card. Then, you can become a citizen or continue to renew your
    green card every 10 years.
        Mr. Biggs. So, on the front end, you knew that within a
    year you were going to be able to apply for the green card, the
    change of status?
        Mr. Atem. Right, because the initial document is only good
    for 1 year.
        Mr. Biggs. Right.
        So, I guess I would ask anyone on the panel this question,
    because I think this is an interesting question. We talked
    about repatriation and the three--well, let's just put it this
    way. After you received either refugee status or do we know if
    there is any repatriation? Do people head back to their
    original Nation after the period of danger has passed? Do we
    keep statistics on that at all?
        By your silence, I would say--Ms. Strack, do you want to--
        Ms. Strack. If I may. I would agree, I don't believe there
    are any comprehensive statistics on that.
        I would like to note that sometimes there are very
    legitimate reasons for refugees to return to their homeland. I
    think my fellow witness mentioned one might be going back to
    visit a relative, a sick relative, try to dispose of a family
    business or family property. So those are typically short
    visits done somewhat stealthily.
        My understanding is that, at the airport, very often
    inspectors, CBP officers at the airport, if they recognize that
    someone has refugee status and they recognize that they have
    returned to their homeland, they have the discretion--and I
    understand that it is used on occasion; I don't know how
    regularly they will invite that refugee into a secondary
    conversation to explore those issues.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
        My time has expired.
        Ms. Garcia. The chair now recognizes the Subcommittee
    chair, Ms. Lofgren of California.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
        Thanks to each witness for being here and sharing your
    information with us.
        Mr. Atem, you had a longer statement, and I know that the
    chair is enforcing, as she is required to do, our 5-minute
    rule, but I wanted to hear the rest of what you were going to
    tell us. So, tell us your success story.
        Mr. Atem. Thank you so much for that opportunity.
        So, when I came to the U.S. here, I knew that I had to get
    a job right away after spending nearly 14 years in a refugee
    camp. You pretty much live off the ration that is provided by
    the United Nations.
        So, when I first arrived in Las Vegas, it took me about 6
    weeks to be employed. Within the first few weeks when you come
    to the U.S. as a refugee, you get cash assistance, so it was
    $335 a month. There is a one-way airplane ticket that you get
    to pay back as a loan, so I gladly paid that back after I was
    employed.
        So, getting a job right away, really working hard to better
    yourself, and then getting an education. That is what I had to
    do, coming to the U.S. here. That is what refugees are doing in
    this community.
        Some of the refugees that I know, they have really done
    well for this country. Some have died in the service in Iraq
    and Afghanistan. Some have graduated from Ivy League
    universities, and we have some who are Foreign Service
    officers.
        So, my story of when I became a U.S. citizen, I really
    wanted to go back to Sudan and be able to be reunited with my
    family after 21 years of separation. When my mom was denied a
    visa, I just felt that, as an American citizen my rights didn't
    matter. Because I was going to take care of her in Las Vegas. I
    owned a beautiful home in Nevada, went to college, been
    successful. My mother was denied the opportunity to be united
    with my family and my children, so we never had the opportunity
    to be blessed by her.
        A lot of work that I do in the community, I do a lot of
    speaking engagements, sharing the refugee story with our kids
    in the school district, whether I am speaking at a community
    college or just a local middle school. So, the message that I
    get from the kids is that, ``Before hearing your story, I used
    to doubt myself that I could actually accomplish my academic
    goals, but after hearing what you went through, if you can do
    it, I can do it.''
        We are really inspiring kids in the community and also
    helping refugees to integrate into the American community, so
    providing job training. That is what we are doing in the
    community, being able to help them so that they become self-
    sufficient.
        As a refugee, you are only being assisted for 90 days,
    within 90 days you can get a job and pretty much be on your
    own. So, the first thing that you do, make sure that refugees
    get employed as soon as possible. Then after that, they are
    going to be happy taxpayers.
        Ms. Lofgren. That is great to hear. What you went through
    as a child is just shocking to even hear. I am glad that you
    are now my fellow citizen.
        Mr. Atem. Thank you so much for this opportunity. I
    couldn't be prouder to be an American, because what really
    inspired me to be an American, when I was growing up in a
    refugee camp, when we got the ration, they said it was provided
    by the United Nations, USA. So, I wanted to be here so I can be
    the one assisting those kids in the refugee camp. Hopefully
    they will have an opportunity to be settled so they can achieve
    all the things that I have done for myself here in the U.S. I
    am proud to do that any day.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Strack, we have our refugee consultation once a year
    with the Secretary of State, and we did that last fall. One of
    the issues raised by Senator Graham--and we followed it up with
    a letter to the Secretary of State--was that there are
    thousands of refugees who had done everything--they had been
    screened, the security check, they were waiting with their
    airplane ticket--and then were not able to come because of the
    change in the numbers, some of whom were translators who had
    helped the American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Obviously, the low number is for all of this year. They
    going to have to go through that entire process from scratch
    over again if they wait several years?
        Ms. Strack. It is a complicated question.
        I guess the first thing I would like to say is, I agree
    that periodic reviews of the security vetting system for
    refugees are very important and didn't just happen after
    September 11 and with the Trump Administration.
        Ms. Lofgren. Sure, I know that.
        Ms. Strack. It really is a continuous process.
        Ms. Lofgren. They have happened due to fraud issues and the
    like.
        Ms. Strack. I certainly think that the moratorium that
    accompanied the 120-day review at the beginning of the Trump
    Administration was unnecessarily cruel. They were in transit
    and who had given up all their possessions, were in a camp, and
    were ready to head to the airport at midnight. That was not
    necessary.
        The answer, though, is some people, because of those
    enhancements, do need to go through additional processing.
    Whether it is every step or only an incremental addition, they
    do have to go through those. It is likely that some other
    checks will expire in the meantime, and those may need to be
    repeated as well.
        Ms. Lofgren. Correct.
        My time has expired, so I am going to yield back to the
    gentlelady from Texas.
        Ms. Garcia. She yields back.
        The gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Armstrong, is next.
        Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Ries, the President issued an Executive order to ensure
    that States and localities were adequately consulted before
    refugees were resettled in their jurisdictions. What kind of
    just State and local resources do refugees utilize?
        Ms. Ries. So, it could involve some that Mr. Atem had
    mentioned--job services, school programs, medical assistance,
    and childcare. There are a host of--
        Mr. Armstrong. Community buy-in is obviously important to
    have proper refugee resettlement?
        Ms. Ries. Yes, it is very important. The more that
    individuals in the community are involved, the more assimilated
    the refugees can become, the more they develop an affinity for
    their fellow community Members.
        Mr. Armstrong. Just like with anything else, because
    refugees utilize local resources and require the community to
    buy in to the resettlement program, it is important to consult
    with local jurisdictions, isn't it?
        Ms. Ries. Yes.
        Mr. Armstrong. What do you think it says about the program
    that 43 States consented to resettle refugees before the order
    was enjoined?
        Ms. Ries. So, it was already required in the law that the
    resettlement agencies work with State and locals before
    resettling. My understanding is that was maybe done
    inconsistently. Some States or localities were not pleased with
    the lack of consultation that was occurring, so I believe that
    was the reason for the Executive order that was issued.
        The fact that the vast majority of the States agreed to
    continue to resettle continues their commitment and the faith
    in resettling refugees and the benefits of the program.
        Mr. Armstrong. In North Dakota, we have primarily three
    communities that do this--Fargo, Grand Forks, and Bismarck. We
    are proud of our refugee communities. We are proud of our new
    American communities. They are fantastic. In two of those
    communities, through this whole process, it went by as
    seamlessly as possible.
        In the third community, it actually turned into quite a
    contentious deal before they actually voted to accept them. As
    is often the case with issues like this, it turned into a
    binary fight, which I don't think was really accurate. I think
    a lot of people weren't frustrated with the refugees and the
    resettlement so much as the lack of transparency from the
    agency that was in charge of helping resettle these refugees.
    The legislature had previously asked for a report on these
    things in a couple years prior--we weren't asking for phone
    numbers and addresses and those types of things. Through the
    course of this, we recognized that they were fairly
    uncooperative in the type of data they provided.
        So, the integrity of the program has to be in place in
    order to ensure the successful future of the program. It is
    really more of a statement than a question, but, how do we
    ensure that the agencies we are working are working with the
    communities, so they know that the information they are getting
    is correct?
        Ms. Ries. Well, this E.O. was a bit of a forcing function,
    to make what the law required happen. Hopefully, going forward,
    there will be more consistent, consultation with the States and
    localities before resettling.
        Mr. Armstrong. To that end, I would be the first person to
    testify in favor of responsible and reasonable refugee
    resettlement, but I don't entirely know why the appropriate
    place for that isn't in a State legislature or in a county
    place, where the resources in the community is the one that is
    going to accept them and going to welcome them in and continue
    to work with them.
        So, with that, I yield back.
        Ms. Garcia. The gentleman yields back.
        We will now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
    Mucarsel-Powell, for her 5 minutes.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
    for holding this hearing today.
        I think that it is clear--and we see this every day--that
    the world, not just the United States but the entire world, is
    facing the worst refugee crisis in history. There are millions
    of people that are being displaced not just because they are
    fleeing political persecution, corrupt governments, violence,
    but also because of scarcity of resources and the effects of
    climate change, like what we have seen in Guatemala.
        Under this Administration, the number of refugees admitted
    into the safety of our country has dropped dramatically. These
    new policies disregard the real human beings that are fleeing
    these brutal dictatorships like what we are seeing in Venezuela
    right now. 5t seems to me that the Administration, with these
    new policies, are completely disregarding the fear, the
    persecution, and the people that are escaping these countries,
    like in Nicaragua.
        It is incredible for me to see that the country has cut
    from the fiscal year 2016, the number of refugees that were
    admitted were 85,000 refugees in 2016. In 2020, we have only
    admitted 18,000, a 79-percent decrease and the lowest level in
    the history of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
        This is a complete contradiction of everything that the
    United States stands for. It ignores our place on the
    international stage as a beacon of hope. Even at the lowest
    levels of refugees that this Administration is letting in, it
    doesn't even allow for the smallest percentage of refugees from
    around the globe that are trying to obtain freedom, asylum, and
    protection.
        This is not only a blow to our refugee policy, but the
    President has also issued an Executive order requiring States
    and localities to consent to receiving refugees before they can
    be placed there by the government. While this order was put on
    pause by the courts, my own State of Florida has not yet
    consented to receiving refugees.
        South Florida, I represent an area that is incredibly
    diverse in my district. It has a very rich history as a place
    for refugees for tens of thousands of Cubans who have fled
    dictatorship in search for a better life. Because we have
    welcomed those in search of freedom, it seems like now they are
    being punished for it.
        I immigrated here when I was a young girl, when I was 14,
    from Ecuador. I was not a refugee seeking asylum, but during
    the Reagan years, the immigration policies were completely
    different, and there was a path for us to request legal status
    for those of us that were looking for freedom and opportunity.
    I know that my life has changed incredibly because of the
    opportunities that were allotted to me.
        My story is not unique. We continue to be a Nation of
    immigrants. We continue to be the opportunity for those that
    are fleeing violence and persecution.
        So, my first question, to Mr. Atem: Refugees clearly
    benefit from coming here to the United States. This is not a
    one-way street, and we really don't discuss this enough. Can
    you describe how refugees are vital to the economic health of
    small communities across the country?
        Mr. Atem. Thank you.
        So, the opportunities that refugees bring to the
    community--refugees are often the ones doing the job that
    nobody wanted to do. For example, when I arrived in Las Vegas,
    I was a janitor, and no young man wanted to do that kind of
    job. You have to be a refugee to be excited about doing that
    job. So, the way we look at things, whatever first opportunity,
    the first job--it could be working in a meat factory or working
    on a farm or food processing in Alaska or working as a server
    in a casino somewhere in the U.S.
        Those are the ways in which refugees do really help those
    communities. So, they are providing cheap labor and then, in
    turn, they are building their communities.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Yeah.
        Mr. Atem. They work their way up through the system,
    getting better jobs and moving on and then creating
    opportunities, too, for the communities. Like myself, I am a
    real estate developer in Las Vegas. I own an apartment complex
    on top of working as an audit manager for a casino, for a
    corporation.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Atem. So, those are the benefits that we do bring to
    these communities.
        What we really need as refugees, we just want to be water,
    we need water, and then we are going to blossom and give you
    flowers and food.
        The temporary assistance for 3 months, that is all we are
    asking for, because for refugees, it doesn't take long to get
    an opportunity, and we are really not afraid to start at the
    bottom. Although, some may come from their home communities
    with advanced degrees, but to come to America, you start at the
    bottom, so refugees are really grateful for those
    opportunities.
        So, they can not only make the difference here in the U.S.,
    but helping peoples in their home countries as well.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you so much, Mr. Atem.
        I am out of time. I wish I had more time, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Garcia. Well--
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Maybe next time.
        Ms. Garcia. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize my colleague and friend from Texas, Ms.
    Escobar.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
    hosting this very important hearing.
        You and I are from the same State, and you mentioned
    earlier that our Governor has chosen to openly reject refugees.
        My esteemed colleague, Mr. Armstrong, just moments ago,
    talked about the need for local governments and for States to
    express whether they want to accept refugees or not. I want to
    first say that I have much respect for Mr. Armstrong, so this
    is not against Mr. Armstrong; this is against that perspective.
        In my State, unfortunately, our Governor has adopted the
    same tactics that many others in his party have adopted, and
    that is using migrants and refugees as scapegoats, trying to
    portray them as people to be feared, even people to be hated.
        In fact, I represent El Paso, Texas, a community that on
    August 3 suffered through one of the most horrific targeted
    attacks against Latinos in our Nation's history when a gunman
    drove over 600 miles to--literally, he confessed to wanting to
    go slaughter Mexicans and immigrants.
        The anti-immigrant sentiment and the pervasive xenophobia
    that is pushed by leaders at our highest levels of government--
    I hold them responsible for helping fuel the hatred and
    ultimately the violence. In fact, the day before the attack,
    the Governor sent out a fundraising letter denouncing
    immigrants, using the same hateful rhetoric that the killer
    used in his own manifesto and trying to raise money off that
    fear.
        So, it is no surprise that, months later, the Governor
    announced he wanted to close the door, shut the door on
    refugees. In fact, I would like unanimous consent, please, to
    enter into the record almost a dozen articles about the
    Governor's efforts to shut the door on refugees.
        Ms. Garcia. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

                           MS. ESCOBAR FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        My point in raising this issue about allowing local
    governments to have this kind of control is that we sometimes
    empower people who work against our Nation's values in that
    way. As a Nation, we are a Nation of immigrants, and we should
    continue to pursue the noble goal of protecting the most
    vulnerable.
        Ms. Strack, I want to make sure that folks watching at home
    understand just how vetted refugees are before they come into
    our country. Can you very briefly--because I have a couple
    follow-up questions--tell the American public what a refugee
    has to go through in order to enter into this country?
        Ms. Strack. Yes.
        I can say, in my former life, if the system that Ms. Ries
    described, that there was a single touchpoint for a person's
    record existed, that would have simplified the task. Since that
    doesn't exist, we went to multiple places in the government.
        So, refugees are vetted with biographic and biometric
    information. That is usually fingerprints. The State Department
    is involved, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, National
    Counterterrorism Center, and other elements of the intelligence
    community, also the Department of Defense.
        We are looking not only for criminal records or national
    security information, but there is information regarding
    identity to make sure that people are who they say they are and
    that their family is who they say they are.
        Also, we had, towards the end of my tenure, some very good
    initiatives with the U.N. refugee agency, UNHCR. In some cases,
    they have fingerprints and iris scans, and they were able to
    share them with us.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you. That describes a very thorough
    vetting process that refugees must go through, so I appreciate
    that.
        Ms. Strack, earlier, Ms. Ries mentioned, when the question
    was asked, about the backlog for the refugees. Of the 42,000
    who have been interviewed and conditionally approved, are they
    all just waiting on their security checks? How many who are
    conditionally approved would be denied?
        Ms. Strack. I cannot give you precise numbers on that.
        It is certainly true, as Mr. Biggs suggested, that there
    would be a discount in those numbers, of the 40,000. Some
    people aren't going to pass their security checks. Some people
    may not pass their medical checks. Those are probably the two
    biggest things that would be outstanding for that cohort of
    40,000 that I mentioned.
        It depends a lot on nationality. Some nationalities pass
    security checks at very high rates and don't have a lot of
    stumbles on their medical checks, and they travel quickly.
        The agencies know those numbers, those statistics, those
    average security-check-passage rates and travel times, and that
    is how they can construct a pipeline that meets the ceiling.
    So, last year, when the program succeeded in meeting the modest
    ceiling of 30,000, they were managing against those kinds of
    challenges.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Garcia. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington,
    Ms. Jayapal.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you all so much for being here and for your work.
        I wanted to start with you, Mr. Atem. I want to thank you
    for being here. I just had the pleasure of coming from Sudan on
    a congressional delegation and seeing the people's revolution
    in Sudan achieve some incredible results in overthrowing a
    dictatorship.
        I know this is a very difficult time. As we were there, the
    Administration announced a further ban that included Sudan in
    part, and I know what a terrible impact that had on the
    Sudanese people seeking to build a better future.
        This refugee program has been described by the National
    Association of Evangelicals as the crown jewel of American
    humanitarianism. I think that, for a long time, it has been a
    bipartisan program. I am deeply concerned that we are
    abandoning support for refugees when the world is in the midst
    of the worst refugee crisis in history.
        I wanted to ask you if you could say a little bit about the
    process that you went through. I have a number of questions.
    So, if you can just talk about what you had to go through
    administratively to get approved as a refugee to come to the
    United States. What did that involve for you?
        Mr. Atem. Thank you.
        So, for me, it took having to walk a thousand miles to get
    to a refugee camp in Ethiopia and Kenya. So, when we arrived in
    that camp in Ethiopia, it took the U.N. about 3 years to make
    that an official refugee camp.
        Some of the screening that was put in place was that you
    had to be identified that you were coming from, let's say, some
    tribe in southern Sudan. So, you would be identified by the
    United Nations, the UNHCR. Then that was the point where you
    were issued your identification.
        When we were attacked in Ethiopia and had to walk to come
    through South Sudan and then to Kenya, we already had our
    refugee's identification. To go through that process of
    becoming a refugee, you will be interviewed by the U.N.
    agencies there, along with the local authorities, to be
    identified as a refugee.
        For me, I was already a refugee since I was 7 years old,
    and then spending nearly 14 years in that refugee camp. So, the
    process of coming to the U.S. began in 1998, which I am going
    to talk a little bit more later when I get an opportunity, but
    the initial process took about 3 years. It took 14 years in a
    refugee camp to be identified as a refugee. I was there getting
    rations from the U.N. with the rest of the lost boys from
    Sudan.
        Ms. Jayapal. After walking a thousand miles to get there.
        Ms. Strack, based on your knowledge of the current State of
    the U.S. refugee program, what would be the likelihood of Mr.
    Atem successfully arriving as a refugee under current policy?
        Ms. Strack. I have to say it would be exceedingly small,
    for a few reasons.
        One is that the Administration has announced that it is no
    longer accepting referrals from the U.N. refugee agency, UNHCR.
    So, he would have to have been lucky enough to get in before
    the deadline was cut off for UNHCR referrals but for a few
    exceptions in Central America.
        Then, in addition to that, the way the categories have been
    drawn this year, Sudanese nationals would fall in the ``other''
    category, which is small. So, if he were lucky enough to be in
    the pipeline, he would be competing with many other qualified
    refugees for very, very few slots.
        Ms. Jayapal. So, a person who has walked a thousand miles,
    spent 3 years and then another 14 or 17 years--I forget which
    number you said--
        Mr. Atem. It was a total of 14.
        Ms. Jayapal. --14 years to get here and is now an
    incredibly successful contributor to our community and our
    country would have close to an impossible chance of getting in
    under current regulations.
        Ms. Strack. I think it is exceedingly likely that he would
    remain in the camp.
        Ms. Jayapal. Those are changes that have occurred in the
    current Administration, correct?
        Ms. Strack. Yes.
        Ms. Jayapal. Congress gave the President the power to
    determine refugee numbers under the assumption that the program
    would always be a priority regardless of political affiliation.
        Ms. Strack, I understand you worked in both the Bush and
    the Obama Administrations. Did you see a significant difference
    between a Republican Administration's approach to refugee
    resettlement and a Democratic Administration's prioritization
    of refugees?
        Ms. Strack. I did not before this Administration. I would
    say my prior experience working in the Bush and Obama
    Administrations on the one hand versus the Trump Administration
    is night and day.
        The Bush Administration was very supportive of refugees,
    also Secretary Chertoff and the leadership at USCIS. I note in
    my testimony, Secretary Chertoff has continued to support
    refugee resettlement because of its implications for foreign
    policy and national security.
        Ms. Jayapal. I see that my time has expired.
        I just wanted to make it very clear that this has always
    been a bipartisan program. In fact, my Governor, Dan Evans, in
    the State of Washington was a Republican Governor who really
    helped bring in Vietnamese refugees after the war. So, I am
    deeply distressed that this is where we are today.
        I thank you, Mr. Atem, and I thank all of you for your
    testimony.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Garcia. We thank you.
        The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Pennsylvania,
    Ms. Scanlon, and also vice chair of the Judiciary Committee.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
        As the conversation has been going on here, I have been
    struck by some of the commentary about refugee resettlement
    programs and why people have these programs. I know many, many
    of the faith-based communities in southeastern Pennsylvania,
    which I represent, are eager to have refugees to resettle.
    There has been a very broad network there of resettlement
    activities because of the humanitarian interests.
        I hail from northern New York, the Syracuse area. A couple
    years ago, when I was visiting, there was an article that I
    would ask unanimous consent to introduce in the record, ``Trump
    Policies Stop the Flow of Refugees to Syracuse, Once a
    Resettlement Magnet.''
        Ms. Garcia. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

                           MS. SCANLON FOR THE RECORD

    =======================================================================
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Scanlon. There were just some really interesting points
    in there. Syracuse and Buffalo are Rust Belt communities, where
    the population has been leaving. I think it speaks to Mr.
    Atem's statement that, often, refugees are ready to take the
    first job that comes along. But these are communities that had
    actively sought refugee resettlement because, they had a labor
    shortage and they were seeking ways to revitalize their
    communities.
        So, in this region, they went from having several thousand
    refugees resettled per year to a handful and now hardly any.
    So, as you might expect, there was an immediate drop in
    resources to the resettlement agency, so they had to lay off
    people. But it has been broader-based than that. We have
    clinics and dental clinics and healthcare clinics that have had
    to lay off people or close because they don't have the same
    population coming to them before. They have had landlords and
    real estate developers who have had to shutter projects and
    cease them because they don't have the same folks coming into
    the community.
        So, they have seen that refugees were filling labor gaps,
    they were buying vacant homes, and starting businesses. They
    did a study that showed that refugees and immigrants were
    adding $2 billion in spending power to this Rust Belt economy.
        So, we have the humanitarian reasons, which I think are
    undeniable, but we also have these economic reasons that this
    policy has really, really harmed.
        I wanted to also turn back to something--we were talking,
    Ms. Strack, about the claim that we had to reduce the refugee
    admissions goal to refocus on the southern border. You
    mentioned that these are two very distinct systems. Is that
    right?
        Ms. Strack. Yes, that is correct.
        Ms. Scanlon. Some of the big cuts to the refugee program
    came from people who were actually stationed overseas. Is that
    right? Or on this circuit?
        Ms. Strack. Yes. In general, refugee officers are based in
    Washington, but conduct trips overseas to interview refugee
    applicants that we traditionally call ``circuit rides.''
        In addition, USCIS had some overseas officers who were
    assigned permanently overseas for 3 years or so who were very
    helpful in the administrative support and also did some refugee
    interviews themselves, particularly small, far-flung caseloads.
        This Administration did decide to close those USCIS
    overseas offices. It was called ``International Operations.'' I
    understand there has been a bit of a reprieve and a few staff
    will stay overseas, but I do not think they will be working on
    refugee matters.
        Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
        Can you just speak to one element that I am not sure has
    been brought out? When people are resettled through the U.N.
    refugee program, they don't get to pick the country they are
    going to, do they?
        Ms. Strack. No, they do not.
        Ms. Scanlon. So, when people were being resettled in the
    U.S. through the U.N. program, after going through all those
    layers of verification that you stated, they weren't getting to
    choose the U.S., so there wasn't any kind of immediate
    terrorist threat or anything there, was there?
        Ms. Strack. No. The United States always is in control on
    the refugee program. That is a distinction from the asylum
    program. It is also a distinction from what many of us saw in
    Europe in 2015 that involved spontaneous arrivals.
        So, whether it is UNHCR or is a U.S.-designated program,
    the United States, traditionally through the State Department,
    determines which categories of refugees are candidates for
    resettlement to the United States. There is quite a bit of
    conversation between the U.S. and UNHCR.
        We largely, overwhelmingly, see eye-to-eye on who are good
    candidates, but there certainly are some particular
    characteristics that the U.S. is interested in and asks for,
    and there are other characteristics that we do not think are
    suitable for U.S. resettlement.
        So UNHCR is extremely helpful as a source and a filter on
    the front end, but the decision-making always lies with U.S.
    Government officials.
        Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
        I see my time has expired, so I yield back.
        Ms. Garcia. The gentlelady yields back.
        Now, the chair recognizes my colleague and fellow Texan,
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the chair for the leadership
    and for the importance of this committee.
        I almost don't know where to start, but let me move
    quickly, because time goes.
        I want to just put this statement on the record, and that
    is this statement of numbers. The United Nations High
    Commissioner for Refugees reported, at the end of 2018, there
    were 70.8 million displaced people worldwide, a record high,
    including 41.3 million internally displaced people, 25.9
    million refugees, and 3.5 million asylum seekers.
        I am going to go to you. I am very familiar with the lost
    boys of Sudan. Can you just give us the pain, the
    disorientation, the violence of being a refugee? When I say
    that, not necessarily the violence against your person but the
    violence on your life, your whole being, about being a refugee
    or an internally displaced person.
        Mr. Atem. Thank you.
        Being an internally displaced person--there are over a
    million South Sudanese being displaced in South Sudan now and
    maybe about 2 million in Uganda, and then another maybe 500,000
    or a million in Kenya.
        Growing up in refugee camp, the pain of going through that,
    you feel like you don't belong. I was a kid. You don't know
    that when you become the ``other'' as a refugee, you are what
    is known as the ``other.'' So, the pain of going through that,
    not having a home to go to and spending your entire life in a
    refugee camp.
        So, when we arrived in Kenya in 1992, in Kakuma, that is
    when we opened that refugee camp. 20 years later, that camp is
    still open. There are more people there now going to that
    refugee camp. Kids that are growing up in that camp, and they
    are going to have kids in that camp. You are talking about a
    camp of nearly 500,000 people with really no opportunities, so
    they just kind of live off the U.N. aid. Because of the
    conditions in Sudan or South Sudan, they couldn't go back home.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        Bishop, would you follow up with the pain of having a
    country that has policies that have been presently put in place
    by this Administration, that then goes to States?
        I know my colleague--I chaired a group called the
    Interfaith Ministries. The Houston-Galveston diocese was very
    involved. We were very active in taking refugees, proudly so,
    placing them, having apartment buildings, as they adjusted to a
    new life.
        Of course, our State has joined in the pattern of
    rejection. What is it like for a refugee--70.8 million people--
    that can't find any place to go?
        Bishop Dorsonville. There is something very important for
    all of us men and women of faith to read the signs of the times
    and to see that the worst thinking have been to humanities to
    move to indifference. Because we have a wonderful leader around
    the world, who is Francis, who is inviting us every day to move
    from indifference to the solidarity and compassion.
        I have been very disappointed for bishops in Texas for this
    position, because it is just closing the minds of those who
    have the power, if not to change things in this world, to make
    the difference. I really think that is powerful for a human
    person, to be able to create sense of hope and future, if not
    for everyone, for others.
        Bishop Dorsonville. In my testimony, if you allow me, and I
    will finish. I said, we have a strong responsibility to be
    leaders in the international community. Those who are watching
    us will follow our example. If we close the doors, we are
    isolating in a globalized world. Doesn't make any sense.
        Therefore, basically, that would be my reflection.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. A beautiful statement.
        Ms. Strack, what does capping--this ridiculous policy of
    capping refugees, in the experience that you have had, where
    refugees have been able to adjust, what does it do to the world
    order? As the bishop has said, others watching this country,
    with 70.8 million people, including people internally
    displaced, as refugees, what does it do?
        Ms. Strack. During my tenure with the program and for many
    years before that, the United States was widely recognized as
    the leader on refugee resettlement. We had the largest program
    in the world. We had the most diverse program in the world in
    terms of nationalities, in terms of case profiles. Some
    countries said, ``no big families'' or ``we only will take
    medical cases, but we don't want older people.'' The United
    States was renowned for taking those large numbers.
        It made a difference because we sometimes--at best, we
    could bring other countries to the table. So, we helped bring
    other resettlement countries to the table, beyond the
    traditional ones, by showing the example of doing that. It led,
    then, to the strengthening of American communities that people
    have been talking about here today.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Garcia. The gentlewoman's time has expired, and she
    yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Correa.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        First, let me welcome our witnesses here today, and thank
    you very much for shedding important light on this issue.
        Ms. Strack, I have some questions for you, if I may. You
    were the head of the Refugee Affairs Division at U.S.
    Citizenship and Immigration Services under a number of
    Presidents, including President Trump, correct?
        Ms. Strack. Yes, sir. I served for the first year of the
    Trump Administration before I retired.
        Mr. Correa. Would you say that, even before President Trump
    came to office, that refugees were the most vetted individuals
    who were coming to our country from overseas?
        Ms. Strack. Yes, they were. We was a pioneer in a number of
    security checks. We were able to form alliances with National
    Counterterrorism and other colleagues. A number of checks that
    we--
        Mr. Correa. Counterterrorism--with other groups around the
    country?
        Ms. Strack. I am sorry. Yes, here with our Federal
    Government colleagues, in particular, for example, the National
    Counterterrorism Center.
        As the intelligence community and national security
    colleagues got better and more proficient and were able to do
    additional types of vetting, often the refugee program was the
    prototype.
        Mr. Correa. Say that again. Your program, the refugee
    program, was a prototype for what?
        Ms. Strack. To pilot new security checks that were not
    previously in place for any category of traveler to the United
    States.
        Mr. Correa. So, would you say, then, you were pretty much
    here doing your job. Did you check with other international
    databases, or was it just U.S.?
        Ms. Strack. Our immediate counterparts were U.S. Government
    agencies, but some of those agencies were attached to
    international systems. So, for example, we had access to
    INTERPOL data through those other U.S. Government partners,
    yes.
        Mr. Correa. How long would it take to go through some of
    these background checks?
        Ms. Strack. It is very hard to answer. At certain points,
    there were backlogs, so it wasn't that the check itself was
    taking a long time; it was that getting to the front of the
    queue to be checked would take a long time.
        It really depends on what is found. There are times when
    all the agencies scour all the available data and there are no
    matches. Or there is a positive match, for example, someone
    who--an Iraqi who testified, ``I worked with the U.S. military
    in Iraq in such and such a place.'' We had access to
    fingerprint records, and we would find a DOD record that
    indicated, yes, that individual worked for us at DOD at the
    time and place that they said. So, that might happen very
    quickly.
        In other cases, if there was potentially derogatory
    information identified, then an analyst would sort through
    that. That took whatever amount of time was necessary to
    resolve.
        Mr. Correa. Let me focus on that point. Individuals as
    Iraqis and Afghanis, from other countries around the world
    which worked alongside our soldiers, covering their backs, so
    to speak, in war zones, are those individuals now subject to
    higher scrutiny?
        Ms. Strack. They are subject--I would say Iraqis, in
    particular, as far as I know, I have been out of government for
    2 years. The status quo that I know was they were subject to
    the same set of rigorous checks as other refugee applicants.
        Mr. Correa. So, at this point, what is going on today
    within the Administration, you wouldn't know whether that has
    changed at all?
        I am trying to figure out whether these individuals are
    less welcome or as welcome as they would normally be since they
    were part of our fighting forces.
        Ms. Strack. My sense is that they are equally unwelcome.
    With the ceiling set at 18,000, that is a very restrictive
    ceiling. Although 4,000 of those numbers are purportedly set
    aside for Iraqis, only 53 Iraqis have actually been admitted
    through the refugee program this year. So, there is a problem
    with the Iraqi program.
        Mr. Correa. There is a problem with these individuals that
    have fought alongside our soldiers, covering their backs,
    saving American lives, qualifying as refugees to the United
    States?
        Ms. Strack. Yes. As the Congress actually defined the Iraqi
    program, it is people who worked with the U.S. military, people
    who worked with U.S. civilians, say at the U.S. embassy, people
    who worked with American journalists and American aid
    organizations. There clearly is some sort of bottleneck in that
    program, with 53 arrivals so far this fiscal year.
        Mr. Correa. So, what are we sending these warriors, what is
    the message we are sending these warriors around the country
    about being allied with American soldiers in a battlefield?
        Ms. Strack. In preparing for this hearing, I found primary
    sources, former military individuals that I have quoted in my
    testimony. They indicate that we are abandoning our allies and
    we are sending a message for the future that we are not
    reliable.
        Mr. Correa. Madam Chair, I am out of time. Thank you very
    much.
        Ms. Garcia. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentleman
    from Colorado, Mr. Buck.
        Mr. Buck. I thank the chair. I will try to be brief, in
    less than 5 minutes, but thank you for your recognition. I am
    in favor of admitting more refugees to the United States. I
    think refugees follow the rules, and we should reward those who
    follow the rules.
        I have a big problem with what is happening on our southern
    border, and we need to find a way to address that, both through
    foreign aid to countries that are south of our border as well
    as with a better program. I see the two as linked. I understand
    they are in different offices. I see the linkage.
        I want to thank all the witnesses today for your testimony.
    It has been enlightening and has been very helpful to us as we
    try to make policy.
        Ms. Strack, I wanted to mention one thing. I will talk more
    off-line to you, perhaps, after the hearing. You mentioned in
    your testimony that the Administration was stalling or stalled.
    You used the word ``stalled,'' I think. You also said that they
    were unnecessarily cruel, in an answer to a question.
        We have also heard some of the Members talk about how
    refugees are used as scapegoats or people to be hated or that
    the Administration is xenophobic or that a particular Governor
    may have fueled hatred.
        I think we lose our ability, especially after an
    impeachment hearing, especially after some of the other things
    that have happened in Congress, when we go to our separate
    spaces and use that kind of language.
        So, as a leader in this area and as somebody who has spent
    her life in this area and has a passion for it, I would just
    ask that you recognize that--when I heard you use the term
    ``unnecessarily cruel,'' what came to my mind was ``cautious.''
    I can see the word ``cautious'' being used, and perhaps
    ``unnecessarily cautious.'' When we attribute motive, we go
    down a path that is unfortunate.
        There are many of us, many Republicans, who feel very
    strongly. Many Somalis settled in my district. Great workers
    and great Members of the community, contributing, and friends
    of mine and people who--I wish everybody could see the dynamic
    that occurs between the refugees that are settled in the
    eastern part of Colorado and the rest of the community.
        Frankly, a lot of times, the community begins with a
    certain level of apprehension but, over time, accepts people.
    The dynamic that exists between the refugee community and the
    more established community is a wonderful thing to see. It is
    really a growth on behalf of both sides.
        So, I hope that we can deal with this issue in a more
    productive way. I will continue to work with the Administration
    in finding ways to admit more refugees and make sure that they
    have accomplished the safety and security concerns they have
    validly.
        When we talk about vetting, I recognize the Somalis, for
    example, that I have talked to were in refugee camps for 6, 8,
    10 years. I think that is pretty vetted. When I talk to those
    folks, they strongly disliked Islamic fundamentalism and the
    kind of attitude that might breed a terrorist action in this
    country, because that is who put them into this refugee camp.
    So, they were very pro-American and very concerned about--while
    they maintained a strong faith, they were very concerned about
    how that faith was perceived by Americans.
        I learned that by interacting with the Somalis in my
    community, and I really appreciated that. It is something that
    I hope everybody can see in one way or another.
        When we assume motive, we go to a place that isn't
    productive. I hope that we are accomplishing something more
    productive in the future in this area. Because Americans, no
    matter what our faith or lack of faith, we have a heart for
    those who are less fortunate around the world.
        I hope that we continue to open the door and allow many
    people in that are following the right process, and make sure
    that we close the door and require people to follow the right
    process if they want to come to this country.
        So, thank you all for your testimony.
        I thank the chair for holding this important hearing, and I
    yield back.
        Ms. Garcia. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now asks for unanimous consent to insert the
    following statements into the record. We have statements from
    the Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Bethany Christian
    Services, Church World Service, the Episcopal Church,
    Franciscan Action Coalition, HIAS, Interfaith Immigration
    Coalition, the International Refugee Assistance Project,
    International Rescue Committee, Leadership Conference of Women
    Religious, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, National
    Council of Jewish Women, National Immigration Law Center, the
    Refugee Congress, and also a letter from more than 85 U.S.
    mayors in support of refugee resettlement.
        So, without objection, those will be entered into the
    record.
        [The information follows:]

                           MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Garcia. This now concludes today's hearing. So, once
    again, we would join the Ranking Member and all the Committee
    Members in thanking all the witnesses for being here. I know
    you took the time to prepare and come here and travel here, and
    we certainly do appreciate it.
        Without objections, all Members will now have 5 legislative
    days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
    or additional materials for the record.
        Ms. Garcia. So, without objection, the hearing is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:48 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]