[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]