[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

THE SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS AND
ITS IMPACT ON THE SECURITY OF THE
U.S. REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM

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

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

NOVEMBER 19, 2015

__________

Serial No. 114-48

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
_________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-632 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia SCOTT PETERS, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
MIMI WALTERS, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVE TROTT, Michigan
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan

Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman

RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice-Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE KING, Iowa LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
KEN BUCK, Colorado SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
DAVE TROTT, Michigan

George Fishman, Chief Counsel

Gary Merson, Minority Counsel

C O N T E N T S

----------

NOVEMBER 19, 2015

Page

WITNESSES

Anne C. Richard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State
Oral Testimony................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Leon Rodriguez, Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Seth G. Jones, Director, International Security and Defense
Policy Center, RAND Corporation
Oral Testimony................................................. 20
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration
Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 31
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
Mark Hetfield, President and CEO, HIAS
Oral Testimony................................................. 41
Prepared Statement............................................. 43

OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 58
The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security................................ 59
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security................................ 61
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 62

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security........ 75

APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security........ 94
OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
Unprinted Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

Submissions for the Record from the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
These submissions are available at the Subcommittee and can also be
accessed at:

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104197.

Submissions for the Record from the Honorable Steve King, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. These submissions
are available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at:

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104197.

THE SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS AND ITS IMPACT ON THE SECURITY OF THE U.S.
REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM

----------

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2015

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

Committee on the Judiciary

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gowdy, Labrador, Smith, King,
Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Goodlatte, Lofgren, Gutierrez, Jackson
Lee, and Conyers.
Staff Present: (Majority) George Fishman, Chief Counsel,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security; Andrea Loving,
Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security;
Kelsey Wiliams, Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff
Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian &
Chief Legislative Counsel; Gary Merson, Chief Immigration
Counsel; Maunica Sthanki, Immigration Counsel; Micah Bump,
Immigration Counsel; and Rosalind Jackson, Professional Staff
Member.
Mr. Gowdy. The Judiciary Committee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
of the Committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on the Syrian
Refugee Crisis and Its Impact on the Security of the United
States Refugee Admissions Program. I will just tell everyone
that proper decorum is going to be observed. The witnesses
deserve to be heard. The members deserve to be heard. This will
be your one and only warning in that respect.
Secondarily, I will tell our witnesses we are going to do
things a little bit differently this morning. I have some
colleagues that will be here very shortly. So we are going to
recognize our witnesses for their opening statements before we
recognize the members for theirs. And because there's a lot of
floor activity this morning at 10:30, we want to get as much
done as we can. So while each of you has very vast and
impressive resumes, I'm probably going to skip them as I
introduce you and just recognize you by your name for your
opening.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________
Mr. Gowdy. Before I do that, I would ask everyone to rise
for the administration of an oath. Just the witnesses. I'm
sorry. That is my fault. That was my fault. I was ambiguous.
That was my fault.
Do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you
God? May the record reflect all the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
I am going to introduce you en banc and then recognize you
individually for your opening. We are delighted to have Ms.
Anne Richard. We are delighted to have Mr. Leon Rodriguez. We
are delighted to have Mr. Seth Jones. We are delighted to have
Mr. Mark Krikorian. And we are delighted to have Mr. Mark
Hetfield. With that, Ms. Richard, I would recognize you for
your 5-minute opening.

TESTIMONY OF ANNE C. RICHARD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF
POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ms. Richard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to the Subcommittee for holding this important hearing at
such a key moment in the discussions about the program, the
very successful program that the U.S. Government has to bring
refugees to the United States so they can restart their lives
after living through very, very difficult situations of war and
persecution.
I know the murderous attacks in Paris last Friday evening
have raised many questions about the spillover of not just
migrants to Europe, but also the spread of violence from war
zones in the Middle East to the streets of a major European
capital. Let me assure you that the entire executive branch and
the State Department that I represent, has the safety and
security of Americans as our highest priority. As an essential
fundamental part of U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, we screen
applicants rigorously and carefully in an effort to ensure that
no one who poses a threat to the safety and the security of
Americans is able to enter our country. All refugees of all
nationalities considered for admission into the United States
undergo intensive security screening involving multiple Federal
agencies, intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies,
including the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's
Terrorist Screening Center, and the Departments of Homeland
Security, State, and Defense.
Consequently, resettlement is a careful and deliberate
process that can take 18 to 24 months. Applicants to the U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program are currently subject to the highest
level of security checks of any category of traveler to the
United States. These safeguards include biometric and
fingerprint, and biographic checks, and a lengthy in-person,
overseas interview by specially-trained DHS officers who
scrutinize the applicant's explanation of individual
circumstances to ensure the applicant is a bona fide refugee
and is not known to present security concerns to the United
States.
Now, Leon will talk more about this, it's really in his
department that the responsibility lies to determine who comes
and who does not come. But we work so closely with them. I want
to say that they are incredibly careful. And if they have any
doubts, they will not allow anyone to enter the United States.
No one has a right to resettlement in the United States. It is
something that we offer based on our history and our
humanitarian values.
The vast majority of the 3 million refugees who have been
admitted to the United States, including from some of the most
troubled regions of the world, have proven to be hard-working
and productive residents. They pay taxes, send their children
to school, and after 5 years, many take the test to become
citizens. Some serve in the U.S. military and undertake other
forms of service for their communities and our country. And,in
fact, our program is so well regarded, other countries come to
us to learn more about it. And I'll be taking the British
member of parliament, Richard Harrington, who is responsible
now for trying to get more refugees through a process to the
U.K., for a visit to one of our centers tomorrow.
So I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about
this, about anything in my testimony. And my testimony talks
about our humanitarian assistance overseas and our diplomatic
efforts. But I know that right now, the American public wants
to hear that our first priority is the safety of the American
people. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richard follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Ms. Richard. Mr. Rodriguez.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LEON RODRIGUEZ, DIRECTOR, U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY

Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. And good morning,
Congressmen King and Smith. I think we can stipulate to two
things: That the United States has a proud and long tradition
of admitting refugees from some of the worst crises and most
dangerous places in the world. And, secondly, that the
situation in and around Syria is an untenable one, with 11
million people displaced.
The question is, if we are to continue that tradition of
being a welcoming country, can I, as the Director of the agency
that vets refugees, assure the American people that we are
using all the resources that we have and that that those
resources are meaningful resources to vet refugees.
And what I'm here to tell you this morning is the process,
as Assistant Secretary Richard described, is a multi-layered,
robust, and intensive process through which individuals must
pass before they can travel to the United States. Given the
limitations of time, I will signpost three critical phases of
that process. There is the United Nations High Commission on
refugee phase. There is the Department of State phase. There is
then the phase conducted by my refugee officers. And hopefully
I will have a little bit of time during questioning to dig into
some of those elements further.
During the UNHCR process, individuals for the first time
are interviewed as to the substance of their claim for refugee
status. Extensive biographical information is captured, as well
as preliminary analysis as to whether there are potential bars
or other disqualifiers that apply to those individuals. The
fruits of those interviews are then passed to the State
Department and, ultimately, to USCIS.
At the State Department stage, a second layer of interview
is conducted. At that point, a series of critical biographic
checks are initiated. There are three critical legs to that
check. The first is the Consular Lookout Advisory Support
System which queries against a number of critical law
enforcement and intelligence holdings of the security advisory
opinions, which are hosted by the FBI, but most important of
all, what is called the interagency check. That is checked
against a number of both law enforcement and intelligence
holdings.
And important for me to let you know this morning, that
through that suite of checks, we have, in fact, either denied
refugee status to individuals or, at a minimum, placed them on
hold based on derogatory information that came up through that
check. That check is populated by the extensive work that is
being done by the U.S. intelligence services which is, indeed,
one of the most robust, well-developed intelligence services in
the democratic world.
At that point, they come to my refugee officers who have
extensive training both generally in protection law, refugee
law, and interviewing, but then also very specific and targeted
training as to conditions in Syria, including the lessons
learned during the refugee process. As we interview each
refugee or each family of refugees, we gain more and more
information and more and more clarity as to what is going on in
Syria. That is coupled with another round of fingerprinting, a
set of biometric checks, checks against Department of Defense
databases, Customs and Border Patrol databases, FBI databases,
which further check the status of these individuals.
Also, when I talk about the interagency check, I would note
the fact that that is now a recurrent process. So these
individuals are checked on an ongoing basis, so that if new
derogatory information arises about these individuals during
the process, that comes to our attention during the process.
I hope I have further opportunity during the questioning to
elucidate each step of this process because I think it is
critical for the American people to get the reassurance they
need to continue to be the kind of welcoming country that we
are. But I also ask us to consider the price of inaction, the
fact that being welcoming to refugees contributes to the
stability of the region, it puts us side by side with our
allies in Europe who, in fact, are taking on this problem to
the same extent or greater than we are, and honors our
tradition as American people.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Congressmen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Jones.

TESTIMONY OF SETH G. JONES, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
AND DEFENSE POLICY CENTER, RAND CORPORATION

Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chairman, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee. This is an important subject. And the
tragic attacks in Paris over the weekend and the links with
Syria make this hearing particularly important.
I've divided my comments into two sections. The first will
provide an overview of the foreign fighter problem from Syria
and the region. The second, implications for refugees in the
homeland.
My background and the focus of my remarks is primarily on
terrorist groups and foreign fighters. That's my expertise,
serving and working for U.S. Special Operations and for the
FBI's 9/11 Commission last year, where we did look at some of
this stuff for Director Comey.
The first, let me just talk about the extremist threat from
Syria just to, obviously, put this into perspective. U.S.-led
airstrikes and strikes recently from France and other coalition
partners have probably halted advance of Daesh or the Islamic
State in Syria. And across the border in Iraq, the U.S.
efforts, including Special Operation forces on the ground, have
helped halt the advance in places like Sinjar and supported
Iraqi Army operations. But the group remains strong. Daesh
remains strong and is currently not on the ropes.
In addition, in Syria, the al-Qaeda affiliated Jabhat al-
Nusra is probably more capable now, that is, fighters, funds,
territory, than at any time since its creation in 2011. It's an
affiliate, which means it's pledged allegiance to Ayman al-
Zawahiri and al-Qaeda Core back in Pakistan.
Obviously of concern for the U.S. is the shear number of
foreign fighters we have seen traveling to, and to some degree,
from Syria and Iraq. The battlefield is the largest
concentration of foreign extremists we have seen in any major
war, certainly ones that I have participated in, and looked at
the numbers in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, in Libya.
National Counterterrorism numbers put this at over 20,000
foreign fighters who traveled to Syria to fight, about 17
percent of them have come from the West, with, depending on how
you count it, somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 Americans
that have traveled, or attempted to travel, to Syria mostly to
fight against the Assad regime.
Obviously, we've seen plots tied to operationally or
inspired by Daesh, the Islamic State in Paris recently, in
Garland, Texas, in Copenhagen, Denmark, in Australia, in
Ottawa, Canada, in Brussels, and then in other locations. So
the threat clearly emanating from this region is clear. I note
the recent MI5 director's comments, the head of British
domestic intelligence agency, saying that they have 750 British
extremists that have traveled to Syria. Many have joined Daesh.
And they have been involved in at least 6 mass casualty plots
in the U.K. which have been foiled. So the threat is notable
coming to our European allies and to some degree to the U.S.
homeland.
So that brings me back to the U.S. and the refugee issue.
And let me start by saying that refugees clearly have played an
important historical role in the United States, in ensuring
U.S. economic prosperity and cultural diversity. The plots we
looked at last year on the FBI's 9/11 commission, from
Najibullah Zazi to Faisal Shahzad, the Time Square bomber, to
David Headley, based out of Chicago, who was involved in the
Mumbai attacks and plots in Copenhagen, almost none of these
major attacks or individuals were refugees.
So, the threat historically has been relatively small. But
I would just highlight a couple of things that make the Syria
picture and Iraq also to some degree worth noting. One is, as I
said earlier, we see the highest number of foreign fighters on
any modern jihadist battlefield in the Syria/Iraq border. And
that border is obviously very porous. And there obviously have
been an exodus of fighters into the West.
Second, several European intelligence agencies have
expressed concern about refugees, particularly into Europe,
that have been in contact with Daesh or the Islamic State,
including most recently in Belgium. So there have been some
concerns in some cases after they've gotten into Europe.
And then, third, I would say, and this is based partly on
my own experience, what we had in Iraq and Afghanistan was a
pretty good intelligence architecture to collect information on
individuals including those that came through prisons. We
certainly don't have this in the Syrian context. I'm happy to
talk in more detail about this.
Let me just conclude by saying that the U.S. has a
longstanding tradition of offering protection and freedom to
refugees. But obviously an integral part of that needs to be
ensuring that those individuals considered provide--that the
U.S. is able to provide security to the homeland. And the Syria
battlefield is of some concern just because of the U.S.
collection gap that exists compared to other battlefields we've
been involved in. So thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Krikorian.

TESTIMONY OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
IMMIGRATION STUDIES

Mr. Krikorian. Thank you, Chairman. Refugee protection
policy has to be based on two principles. One, whatever
policies we adopt must not pose a threat to the American
people. And, secondly, whatever money we take from our people
through taxes to devote to these purposes should yield the
maximum humanitarian effect. And, unfortunately, resettlement
of refugees in the United States from Syria or from Yemen or
Somalia or other failed states, fails on both of those counts.
Hillary Clinton said at the debate this weekend that United
States should spend ``whatever it takes,'' to properly screen
Syrian refugees. I think everybody would agree with that. But
it misses the point. The problem is not that we're devoting
inadequate resources. It's certainly not that our people in DHS
or FBI or State are not committed, our people are doing the
best job they can. The problem is that proper screening of
people from Syria cannot be done. We are giving our people an
assignment which they cannot accomplish successfully.
We imagine in a modern, developed country like ours that
everybody in the world leaves behind them the kind of
electronic traces that we do, birth certificates, driver's
licenses, school records, all of those things that we kind of
take for granted. But the fact is that those tracks, those
traces are nonexistent in much of the world even in the best of
circumstances. And in the kind of situation, the chaotic
situation we have in Syria or in Somalia or Yemen or Libya or
Afghanistan, what little information that might have been
existed has probably gone up in smoke or at the very least is
inaccessible to us.
DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson made that very point just last
month when he said, ``we're not going to know a lot about the
individual refugees who come forward.'' That's true. And, in
fact, just this week, we found more evidence of that. The
French sent our intelligence agency the fingerprints of the
attackers in Paris and there was no trace of them anywhere in
our databases, the very databases that we are supposed to be
using to screen the Syrian refugees. Our screening of refugees
resembles, and I don't mean to be flip here, but it really does
resemble the joke about the drunk who loses his keys in the
park but is searching for them under the streetlight. And when
asked why he's doing that, he said well, the light is better
here. The clearest statement of this came from Matthew Emerich,
nothing personal, Mr. Emerich, who is in charge of fraud
detection at USCIS, he told the Senate last month, ``We check
everything that we are aware of within U.S. Government
holdings.'' Because the light is better there.
The second point is efficacy. In other words, are the
resources we're devoting to humanitarian protection for
refugees, whether it's Syria or anywhere else, being used to
the maximum effect? And bringing refugees to our country makes
us feel better. I assume Mr. Hetfield will give us some warm
stories about that. And it does make us feel better. But the
point of humanitarian protection of refugees is not to make us
feel better, it's to assist as many people as possible with
whatever resources we've decided to devote to this purpose. And
what we found, we did research on this, and we found that it
cost 12 times as much to resettle a refugee from Syria, from
the Middle East, in the United States as it does to provide for
them in their own region. In this case, in, say, Syrian
refugees in Turkey or Jordan or Lebanon, which is where most of
them are.
The 5-year cost we conservatively estimated of resettling a
refugee from the Middle East is $64,000 compared to U.N.
Figures that indicate a 5-year cost for caring for people in
the region would be about $5,300. In other words, each refugee
that we bring to the United States from the Middle East means
that 11 other people are not being helped with those same
resources. The image I like to think about when considering
this is imagine you have 12 drowning people. What are you going
to do? Do you send them a one man yacht that's a very nice,
beautiful yacht but holds only one person? Or do you throw them
12 life preservers? The moral choice is obvious there. And yet
what we're doing through the best of intentions is sending the
one person yacht instead of throwing them 12 life preservers.
In conclusion, Congress has a variety of measures to
address this Syrian refugee issue. And I'm not qualified to say
whether we should have a temporary pause or whether there
should be a suspension of funding or a broad change in the
rules. These are questions you're going to consider. But in
considering them, I urge you to keep in mind these two points:
The only way to reduce the security risk of resettling Syrian
refugees or Somali or Yemeni or Libyan or Afghan is to reduce
the number that we resettle. And the government's obligation to
make the most effective use of the funding that we have taken
from our people to devote to refugee protection, compels a
shift in emphasis away from resettlement toward greater
protection for people in the region. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krikorian follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you. Mr. Hetfield.

TESTIMONY OF MARK HETFIELD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HIAS

Mr. Hetfield. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, Raking Member
Lofgren, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee for
inviting me to speak here today on behalf of HIAS, which is the
oldest refugee agency in the world. We have been resettling
refugees since 1881, not just because it makes us feel better
but because it saves lives.
Refugee resettlement has saved millions of lives since 1881
but not nearly enough. We're confronting the world's most
horrific refugee crisis since World War II, with 60 million
displaced across the globe, 20 percent of whom are Syrians,
fleeing a conflict that has already taken over 240,000 lives.
Without considerably more international assistance, countries
like Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey are beyond their saturation
points with over 4 million Syrians, causing refugees to risk
their lives to flee for a second or a third time.
The crisis finally attracted international attention and
attention in this country when the body of 3 year-old Syrian
Aylan Kurdi washed up on a Turkish beach on September 2, one of
813 men, women, and children asylum seekers to perish at sea
that month trying to make the perilous journey to Europe.
This is an extraordinary crisis requiring extraordinary
leadership. But, so far, the United States' response has been
tepid at best. While this is the largest refugee crisis of my
lifetime, we're resettling far fewer refugees than we did in
1980, when we resettled over 200,000 Indo-Chinese refugees, or
in 1993 and 1994 when we resettled well over 110,000 refugees
each year. But my great sadness at the murderous acts of
terrorism perpetrated in Beirut and Paris last week has been
compounded by the reactions of some politicians in this
country. They have diverted the focus away from fighting
terrorism and toward keeping refugees out of our country and
out of their States. They have blamed the victims. This plays
on people's fears, turns prejudice into policy, and weakens our
national security and our national character.
I mistakenly thought that attitudes and signs, like Irish
need not apply, no coloreds, no Jews, or dogs allowed, were
ugly relics buried in the past but apparently not. Governors
are clearly saying openly no Syrian Muslims are welcome in my
State. One Governor even said, from my home State of New
Jersey, no Syrian orphans under 5 are welcome either, which can
only recall the ugly debate that occurred in this House in 1939
which resulted in the defeat of the Wagner-Rogers bill which
would have saved 20,000 refugee children from Nazi Germany.
Governors are right to be concerned about security but so
is the Federal Government, so are the refugee resettlement
agencies. And the extensive screening process in our refugee
program reflects that as Director Rodriguez has already
testified and as is in my testimony. While the number of Syrian
refugees being resettled here today is relatively anemic, the
security protocols in place are stronger than anything I have
ever seen in my 26 years working in this field. So strong, that
it has made the refugee resettlement program into more fortress
than ambulance, causing massive backlogs of legitimately
deserving and unnecessarily suffering refugees.
The fear of resettled refugees here is based on erroneous
assumptions. The flow of refugees to Europe is entirely
dissimilar to the refugees accepted through the U.S. refugee
resettlement program. The refugees who arrive in the U.S. have
undergone extensive security vetting prior to setting foot on
U.S. soil. Refugees to Europe are not screened until after they
enter. This is the distinction. It simply does not make sense
for U.S. lawmakers to react to the tragedy in Paris by
proposing legislative changes to the U.S. refugee program.
History has demonstrated that our democracy cannot only
withstand large influxes of refugees from other countries, but
will prosper as a result. When we welcomed millions of refugees
from communist, fascist, and Nazi regimes, our country did not
become infected with any of these ideologies, nor with the
terror associated with them. If anything, these refugees
immunized us from the totalitarian ideologies they were
fleeing. The USRAP is hardly a piece of swiss cheese. It is not
a sieve. And, in essence, it is not even the wide-reaching
rescue program that it was intended to be. Given the
complexity, intrusiveness, and unpredictability of the program
for refugees, it seems highly unlikely, if not impossible, that
a terrorist would choose the refugee resettlement program as
his or her pathway to the U.S.
My written testimony outlines a number of suggestions to
improve the program while increasing both security and
efficiency. But it does not recommend a certification process.
Thank you for inviting me to testify here today on Syrian
refugees. This country must continue to be both welcoming and
safe.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hetfield follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Hetfield. I will remind the
witnesses and the members to direct their responses and
comments to the appropriate audiences. For members, it would be
not to one another. And to witnesses, it would be not to one
another. With that, I would recognize the Ranking Member of the
full Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
appearing late. But this is an important hearing which focuses
on the Syrian refugee crisis and its impact on the security of
our Nation's Refugee Admissions Program. It has the potential
to shed meaningful light on critical issues of interest to all
Americans, to all of us.
Unfortunately, the value of today's undertaking is greatly
diminished by the fact that immediately following the
conclusion of this hearing, we will go directly to the floor to
vote on H.R. 4038, the so-called American Safe Act, a bill that
would effectively shut down refugee processing for Syrians and
Iraqis. Clearly, there are no easy solutions to a humanitarian
crisis of this magnitude, as well as the security threats we
will hear about today. Yet, 4038 is not the right answer in my
view. And I want the witnesses to please let us know what
should be our response keeping in mind these factors.
To begin with, while ensuring that safety of all Americans
should be our top priority, H.R. 4038, which would effectively
debar Syrian and Iraqi refugees from the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program and does nothing to promote security. This
measure sets unreasonable clearance standards that the
Department of Homeland Security cannot meet and, thereby, would
halt refugee resettlement in the United States which is,
perhaps, what the whole point of their doing this is.
So, without question, the program should be held to the
highest standards to ensure to the greatest extent possible
that the security screening is thorough, effective, and timely.
In fact, refugees are already subject to the highest level of
vetting, more than any other traveler or immigrant to the
United States. This extensive screening process performed by
the Departments of Homeland Security and State, in conjunction
with the CIA, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies,
relies on methodical and exhaustive background checks that
often take up to 24 months on average to complete and even
longer in some cases.
But, like any system, there can be room for further
improvement. So I would appreciate your thoughts here and after
this hearing on how we can accomplish that goal. We must keep
in mind that our Nation was founded by immigrants and has
historically welcomed refugees when they're suffering around
the globe. Whether it's an earthquake in Haiti, a tsunami in
Asia, or 4 years of civil war in Syria with no end in sight,
the world looks to the United States. We provide protections
for refugees and asylum seekers, especially women and children.
Nevertheless, in the wake of the September 11 attack on our
shores and the tragic November 13 terror attacks in Paris, we
must be vigilant, especially in the midst of a global refugee
crisis.
The measure I keep referring to, however, is an extreme
overreaction to these latest security concerns. Rather than
shutting our doors to the desperate men and women and children
who are risking their lives to escape death and torture in
their own homelands, we should work to utilize our immense
resources and good intentions of our citizens to welcome them.
And, finally, Congress may do its part by properly funding
refugee resettlement, as well as funding our Federal agencies
so that they have the necessary personnel and programs to
complete security checks. Rather than slamming the doors to the
world's most vulnerable, we should be considering legislation
to strengthen and expand refugee programs.
For example, I'm a co-sponsor of H.R. 1568, the Protecting
Religious Minorities Persecuted by ISIS Act, which allows
persecuted individuals in ISIS-held territories in Iraq and
Syria to apply directly to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
Rather than rushing to the floor to consider legislation that
was introduced just 2 days ago and has not been subject to even
a single hearing, we should devote our legislative resources to
developing meaningful solutions. And I thank the Chair very
much for this opportunity.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman of Michigan. The Chair
will now recognize himself for an opening statement.
National security and public safety are the preeminent
functions of government. National security and public safety
are not simply factors to be considered in the administration
of some broader policy objective. National security and public
safety are the ultimate policy objectives. The safety and
security of our fellow citizens should be the driving force
behind all decisions that we make as Representatives. And as
Representatives, it would be incongruent for us to undertake
any act, or fail to undertake an act, calculated to jeopardize
the safety and security of those who sent us here in the first
place.
People do not employ us to represent them so we can take
risks with their security. They send us here to put their
security at the top of our constitutional to-do list. This
country has a rich and long history of welcoming those fleeing
persecution. We have a long and rich history of liberating
those suffering under oppression. We are the most welcoming
country in the world. And we are the most generous country in
the world. And we help those in need both here and abroad. And
we administer that aid in greater quantities than anyone else.
Our country has welcomed over 3 million refugees since
1975. We consistently provide aid to those in need. We provide
protection for those who cannot protect themselves. And we
provide a defense for those who are defenseless. Regrettably,
the world we find ourselves in is imperfect and seemingly
becoming more imperfect. It is because we are free and secure
and an orderly society rooted in public safety that we have the
liberty of being generous to other people.
Rather than address the underlying pathology that results
in displaced people, those in charge of our foreign policy seem
more interested in treating the symptoms. There are refugees
from the Middle East and Northern Africa because those regions
are on fire and riddled with chaos. And our bright lines and
policies of containment and smart power or whatever we call it
today have failed. Terrorists took the lives of over 100
innocent people in France and injured many more for no other
reason than the fact that they could. They killed 100 because
they couldn't kill 1,000. And their objective is evil for the
sake of evil. It is murder for the sake of murder. It is wanton
and willful violence, premeditated depravity, calculated to
take as many innocent lives as possible.
The acts of barbarism committed against the people of
France are the latest in a long line of malevolent acts
committed against innocents. And that line is not likely to be
over. CIA Director Brennan said what happened in France was not
a one-off event. We also know ISIS terrorists are intent on
finding ways to attack America and her allies, including here.
Director Brennan said ISIS has an external agenda they are
determined to carry out. Another Administration official said I
wouldn't put it past ISIS to infiltrate operatives among
refugees. So that's a huge concern of ours. Those are not the
words of some GOP presidential hopeful. Those are the words of
our very intelligence officials who serve this Administration.
The President has said he's too busy to debate the critical
issue. And, unfortunately, what passes for debate in this
political day and age is some absurd conclusion about widows
and orphans. It is precisely that kind of hyper partisan
conclusion designed to cut off debate, rather than discuss
foreign policy, that has united this country in only this one
fact, we have no idea what our foreign policy is in the Middle
East.
The people I represent are kind and generous and they are
asking this Administration and this President one simple
question, what assurance can you give us with respect to our
public safety and national security. And so far, no one has
been able to provide that assurance. On Monday, the President
said the country would continue to accept Syrian refugees but
only after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security
checks. Those are wonderful words. But, at some point, you have
to ask what does that mean. And the head of our own FBI said
the concern in Syria, the lack of our footprint on the ground
in Syria, that the databases won't have the information we
need. So it's not that we don't have a process, we don't have
any information. So you're talking about a country that's a
failed state, that doesn't have any infrastructure. All the
data sets, the police, the intel services you normally would go
to and seek that information don't exist. That is not a
Republican presidential hopeful. That is the head of the FBI.
He also said we can only query against that which we've
collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in a pond
in Syria, or I will add, any other place in a way that would
get their identity or their interest reflected in our database,
we can query our database until the cows come home, but nothing
will show up because there is no record on that person.
Lastly, he said I can't sit here and offer anybody an
absolute assurance that there's no risk associated with this.
So the question then becomes what amount of risk is acceptable?
If our experts are telling us this is not a risk-free endeavor,
and few things in life are, but someone is going to need to
tell me and the people I work for what amount of risk is
acceptable when you're talking about national security and
public safety.
And I'll say this in conclusion, the President says we're
scared of widows and orphans. With all due respect to him, what
I'm really afraid of is a foreign policy that creates more
widows and orphans. So where maybe he ought to start, maybe he
ought to start is a foreign policy in the Middle East,
including Syria, where people can go back to their homelands,
which is their preference, go back to their homelands. Maybe
you ought to defeat that JV team that you thought you had
contained. That would be the very best thing you could do to
help people who aspire to a better life.
And with that, I'll recognize the gentlelady from
California.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we're elected to
Congress, our first responsibility is to make sure that the
security of the American people is attended to. That's number
one, two, three, four. That's the first obligation. And I take
it very seriously. That admonition has caused me, once again,
to review the procedures and policies and laws relative to our
refugee programs.
Now, refugees from Syria and other places in the Middle
East are arriving in waves, unscreened, at Europe's doorstep.
As Mr. Hetfield has recalled, we were shocked to see the body
of a 3 year-old child on the beach, of families trying to
escape from ISIS, who is beheading people. But our process is
different. We have an ocean between us and Europe and the
Middle East. And that has allowed us to provide for a rather
extensive process. And here's really what it is. I mean, in
order to even be considered, the United Nations High Commission
on Refugee refers you to our system for screening. And only a
few people actually make that process to be screened.
At that point, we have a Resettlement Support Center that
does an interview. We do biographic checks. Then we use the
CLASS system, the Consular Lookout and Support System, which
queries data, it's classified, all of it is, but it includes
the DEA, the FBI, Homeland Security, Immigration, Customs, on
and on, the Marshal Service. Then we have for certain refugees,
and that includes the Syrians, a Security Advisory Opinion,
which is a positive SAO clearance from a number of U.S. law
enforcement and intelligence agencies. Again, the participants
are classified, but it is everybody.
And then we have the interagency check which was new.
Before 2008 and this Administration, we didn't have that. And,
unfortunately, we admitted four Iraqi refugees who turned out
to be terrorists under the Bush administration. We reviewed the
process and changed that to avoid a repetition of that, as well
as the biometric checks, and the next generation information
system, along with IDENT, the automated biographic
identification system, and the automated biographic
identification system. That's all followed by in-person
interviews and some post-interview efforts. Following that,
there are additional checks for Syrians.
So it's no small surprise that this process takes a couple
of years for someone to pass. Now, I listened to the FBI
director who we all respect. But I am mindful the FBI
essentially has a veto. If there's somebody that we don't know
who they are, they can't come in. That's our process. They
can't come in. That's the current law. And that's as it should
be. You know, that we would think querying what Assad thinks
about a refugee, I don't really care what Assad thinks about a
refugee. He thinks all the Sunnis are terrorists. And they're
not.
So let's put this into perspective. If I were a terrorist,
would I say well, I'm going to go to a camp, hope that the U.N.
will refer me to the system, go through this extensive process
for 2 years and, honestly, because of Paris, this has now been
further extended because everyone wants to make sure that every
T is crossed and I is dotted, and in 2 or 3 years, if I'm
lucky, I might make it as a refugee. I don't think so. I don't
think so. We need to take a look at all of the systems that we
have. Most of the terrorists, it looks like at this point, all
of the terrorists in Paris were Europeans. They had European
passports. They had Belgium and French passports. They could
come to the United States very easily. And so I think we need
to take a look at what processes we have in place to make sure
that the country is safe.
But it doesn't include being afraid of a 5 year-old. And I
just want to say, Mr. Hetfield, it's important that you are
here. I was listening to my colleague, Luis Gutierrez. And
yesterday, a Syrian family, refugees, arrived in Chicago. And
the non-profit group that was resettling them was the Jewish
Community Center. That tells ISIS and the world that we're on
the right side of history and they're on the wrong side of
history. How do you recruit more terrorists when the United
States stands up for what it is? And that's part of this
equation. We need to win militarily but we also need to win it
in a value fight. And we're not going to win that value fight
by backing off from being free and being American. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair would now
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the Chairman of the full
Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From an immigration
standpoint, perhaps the most essential lesson from the 9/11
terrorist acts is that foreign nationals who want to do us harm
will exploit all aspects of our generous immigration policy to
do so, even if it takes months or years.
Tragically, our allies in France learned that same lesson
when over 120 people, including at least one American, were
slaughtered by ISIS terrorists. And we know that at least one
of the perpetrators registered as a refugee from Syria while in
transit to Paris. Armed with that knowledge, today, we examine
the Administration's plan to admit thousands of Syrians into
the U.S. as refugees.
During fiscal year 2015, the President admitted 1,682
Syrian refugees to the U.S. Then in late September, the
Administration announced that during this fiscal year, they
plan to admit ``at least'' 10,000 more. And that number could
go even higher as Secretary of State John Kerry stated, ``I
underscore the `at least'--it is not a ceiling, it is a
floor.''
So since the overall ceiling for fiscal year 2016 refugee
resettlement is 85,000, at a minimum, according to the
Secretary of State, nearly 12 percent will be from a country
with little infrastructure, in complete turmoil, into which
thousands of radicalized foreign fighters have poured, parts of
which the Islamic State controls, and in which we have no law
enforcement presence. I understand that the Administration
conducts security checks prior to admitting refugees. And
according to the Administration, these checks are robust,
especially with regard to the Syrian population. But are they
enough? Can these checks ensure that the individuals admitted
as refugees are not terrorists and will not commit terrorist
attacks once in the United States.
DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson told Congress that agencies
involved in the vetting process are ``committed to doing the
best we can and as deliberately as we can.'' Such a statement
from the top U.S. Homeland Security official doesn't exactly
instill confidence in the vetting system. Islamic radicals
around the world are chanting ``death to America'' and mounting
barbaric attacks on western targets. ISIS is specifically
saying ``we will strike America at its center in Washington.''
Top Administration security officials have told Congress
that the refugee vetting process is not adequate. In fact, FBI
Director James Comey told this Committee that while the vetting
of refugees has improved, the reality is that with a conflict
zone like Syria, where there is dramatically less information
available to use during the vetting process, Director Comey
could not ``offer anybody an absolute assurance that there's no
risk associated with'' admitting Syrian nationals as refugees.
And not only did his boss, Attorney General Lynch, not refute
his statement, but she conceded that there are, in fact,
challenges to the refugee vetting process during her testimony
in this Committee on Tuesday.
I wrote to the President last month asking why he continues
to ignore the concerns of some of his top security officials.
And I look forward to the witnesses' thoughts on such concerns
today. Exactly who the individuals fleeing Syria are is also a
question of immense concern. There is little doubt that members
of the Islamic State and some of the foreign fighters who have
streamed into Syria over the last few years are now some of the
very individuals leaving the country.
In September, the director of National Intelligence, James
Clapper, noted, regarding the millions of individuals fleeing
Syria, ``I don't, obviously, put it past the likes of ISIL to
infiltrate operatives among these refugees. So that is a huge
concern of ours.'' Media accounts note non-Syrians trying to
pass themselves off as Syrians to try to get into European
countries. And articles point out the booming fake
identification document industry where a forged Syrian passport
can be bought on the Turkish border for as little as $200. I
know that the Administration is trying to implement the refugee
law that Congress puts in place. But if implementation places
Americans in danger, it is clear that Congress must take a look
at the refugee provisions in the Immigration and Nationality
Act to determine what changes should be made.
Lastly, I would like to thank the witnesses for testifying
here today. I know that some of you had to rearrange your
schedules to make it here today and we appreciate your
willingness to testify on this important topic. Mr. Chairman,
thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair will
recognize the gentleman from Idaho for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
the witnesses for appearing here today. I'm actually a
proponent of our refugee program. So when I hear somebody like
Mr. Hetfield talk about us as if we're going back to the
1930's, I'm actually very offended. I think your testimony was
completely out of line and out of place. Because most of us are
here concerned about the safety and security of the United
States, while at the same time we want to make sure that we can
continue with this humanitarian program that has helped so many
lives, so many people throughout the world. So it was very
disappointing to hear your testimony.
The mission, however, that we have with humanitarian
concerns must not come at the cost of our national security.
With recent testimony from both FBI Director James Comey and
Attorney General Loretta Lynch that the Administration is not
able to properly vet incoming refugees, Congress has the duty
to act. We're not acting out of just plain fear based on a few
Members of Congress just talking to each other. We're acting
after we have had testimony after testimony after testimony
from our top national security experts telling us that we have
a problem with the vetting process. Ms. Richard, you referenced
an extensive security screening that all refugees must undergo
prior to admission. Do you think that the current vetting
system is appropriate?
Ms. Richard. Yes, I do. It's the toughest one for any
traveler to the United States, Congressman.
Mr. Labrador. It's the toughest one. But do you think it's
sufficient for the current crises that we're in?
Ms. Richard. Yes. And I'll tell you why because anybody we
have any doubts about, anyone who we think might pose a threat
to the United States in any possible way is not allowed to come
in.
Mr. Labrador. Do you agree with that, Mr. Rodriguez? Just
yes or no.
Mr. Rodriguez. I do. I do agree. I would like to elaborate.
Mr. Labrador. How about you, Mr. Hetfield?
Mr. Hetfield. I do agree.
Mr. Labrador. Okay. So all of you, I assume, disagree with
Director Comey's testimony that it is not sufficient when
processing that population due to intelligence gaps?
Ms. Richard. May I answer that question because I have
given this some thought. You know, what Director Comey doesn't
say is that it is normal for the U.S. Government to have no
information about----
Mr. Labrador. That's not true. He was here in this
Committee and he testified there was a huge difference between
the Syrian population and the Iraqi population because we had
intelligence on the Iraqi population.
Ms. Richard. And the reason for that is the Iraqi and
Afghan programs were not like the normal refugee programs. We
take people who have served for the U.S. military and have
worked alongside our troops from Iraq. So there is a great deal
of information about them available to the FBI. Normally, we
would not have that.
Mr. Labrador. No. Reclaiming my time. He testified, has
testified again and again and again that we don't have
sufficient vetting. I trust him, with all due respect, a lot
more with my national security than I respect you. You have a
mission which is to bring more refugees to the United States.
And I respect that you have that work to do. But I'm concerned
about the national security of my constituents. I'm concerned
about the national security of the people that are in my
district.
We have two, as you know, two refugee centers in the State
of Idaho. And we are concerned about what is going to happen in
the State of Idaho if we don't do the proper vetting. So it's
my responsibility to make sure that they are protected.
Mr. Rodriguez, I want to briefly touch on the interviews
conducted with potential refugees. How are the interview
questions generated?
Mr. Rodriguez. The interview questions are generated----
Mr. Labrador. Your mike's not on.
Mr. Rodriguez. I apologize. They are generated by, first of
all, intensive briefing on country conditions, including
classified information as I explained before. They are
generated based on the information received in prior interviews
of that same individual. They're also generated by the
experience and training of that officer and what we have
learned from other refugees.
Mr. Labrador. How often are those questions altered?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, those questions are determined very
carefully on a case-by-case basis. There's obviously constant
communication among our officers.
Mr. Labrador. What's the typical duration of a refugee
interview?
Mr. Rodriguez. I have observed them to be an hour. I've
observed them to be 2 hours. It really depends on the nature of
the case. The more complex, the more questions we have, the
longer the interview will take. It takes as long as it needs to
take.
Mr. Labrador. Okay. Mr. Jones, in your opinion, if security
protocols are not updated, what is the future of the U.S.
Refugee Admission Program?
Mr. Jones. Can you repeat the question? I couldn't hear the
first part.
Mr. Labrador. Yes. If security protocols are not updated,
what is the future of the U.S. Refugee Admission Program?
Mr. Jones. Well, look, I think the challenge we have, as I
look at it, is the databases we have that are feeding into the
refugee programs. We just have gaps in Syria. In the Iraq and
Afghan cases I was involved in, we had large databases with
biometric information, and names, based on people who were
coming into prison systems and checkpoints. We don't have them
here. So I do think this is a notable concern. It's a gap. We
have gaps of information we generally haven't seen in many
other cases.
Mr. Labrador. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now
recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rodriguez, we
have heard that refugees for admission to the U.S. are subject
to more rigorous screening than any other traveler or
immigrant. And this screening is often conducted because
refugees, in particular, may not often have the documents that
we would have walking down the street. I mean they have, in
some cases, fled for their lives with just the clothes on their
back. They may not have boxes of documents. How do we proceed
to establish identity in those cases? I mean it's not just
Syria. If you've got, you know, we had the lost boys in Sudan.
We have Congolese refugees. We have people who have fled with
people chasing them and here they are. How do we go about
identifying that piece?
Mr. Rodriguez. And I think it's important. I appreciate,
Congresswoman, your distinction between Syrians and others.
Because the fact is actually most of the Syrians we see do come
with documents that are authentic documents on the whole. What
we do, though, is an extensive process of assessing, of mapping
out family trees, aliases as the case might be, associations,
other processes when we do have less documentation than is the
norm.
We have trained our personnel both, by the way, to
recognize fraudulent documents when they are presented, but
also to use the interview as an effective way of determining
identity in those cases.
Ms. Lofgren. In March, the Chairman of the Committee
organized a congressional delegation to visit the Middle East.
And one of the most interesting elements of that trip, and I
thank the Chairman for organizing it, was the trip we took to
the refugee camp on the Syrian border in Jordan. And we had an
opportunity to meet a large number of refugees, I would say
almost all of whom wanted to go home but their homes had been
destroyed. And, by the way, they were very grateful to the
United States for the efforts that we have made to provide
support for them. That was very rewarding to hear the
recognition that the United States has among the refugees for
our efforts.
Do we ever crowd source information? I mean those people
had, that we met, I mean, some of them were computer science
students, some of them were widows. I mean, you can find out a
lot about somebody by doing not just an interview with them but
crowd sourcing the information with everyone around them. Do we
do that?
Mr. Rodriguez. That's a great phrase, Congresswoman. We do
so in two respects. One, we are always comparing and vetting
what we hear from any one refugee or family of refugees, which
is more typically what we're encountering, with what we're
learning from other individuals from that town.
In fact, as we see refugees, they tend to come from--at
least the ones we've admitted so far, particular areas in
Syria. And also, as part of the classified information that we
receive, there can well be information that gives more detail
in the manner that you've described, Congresswoman.
Ms. Lofgren. So in terms of the role of the refugee core
and the additional training that they receive, what
supplementary steps are taken by officers with the Syrian
refugees as compared to all other applicants?
Mr. Rodriguez. The manner in which they are briefed on
country conditions and regional conditions is more intensive
than what we do for any other officers. So they have their
basic training on protection law, their basic training on
refugee law, and interviewing. They then have two series of
intensive briefings. One is a general briefing on actually
Syria, Iraq, and Iran. And then prior to deployment, there is
an 8-day period when they receive intensive briefings, both of
an unclassified and classified nature from a number of
different sources, including consultations with security
experts to really steep them in the specifics of the
environment they're going to at the time that they are going to
it. So there's an effort to ensure that that information is
current.
Once in the field, those individuals have a 10-day
mentoring shadowing period before they are able to move off and
interview on their own.
Ms. Lofgren. I see that my time has expired. Mr. Chairman,
I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Rodriguez, I would like to follow up on that line
of questioning. If the interview process is so effective, why
do we have 5 million overstays in the United States? Five
million people who are lawfully admitted to the United States
through the interview process and have overstayed their visas,
violated the terms, violated the promises they made when they
entered the United States?
Mr. Rodriguez. Congressman, what I can----
Ms. Lofgren. Use your mike.
Mr. Rodriguez. I apologize.
What I can speak to today is the actual refugee process. I
mean, I think when we say----
Mr. Goodlatte. But do you think refugees, where we've
already talked about the greater difficulty of obtaining
background information that you have a more highly accurate set
of circumstances than you do for people who are applying to
come into the United States for other types of visas?
Mr. Rodriguez. I'm not sure I understood the question,
Congressman.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, the question is very simple. If the
interview process is so effective, and we interview the people
who apply for a whole multitude of different types of visas,
and they are coming from, in many instances, countries where we
have much greater presence on the ground than we do in some
refugee countries, and particularly that we don't have at all
in Syria, why, nonetheless, would that good process that you
described, do we still have 5 million people who are illegally
present in the United States, who didn't come across the
border; they entered the country legally after you said they
could.
Mr. Rodriguez. No. I do understand the question now. Sir
what I can speak to is the refugee screening process, which as
Assistant Secretary Richard mentioned, specifically as to
Syrians is the most intensive process. It consists not just of
the interview----
Mr. Goodlatte. As the FBI Director noted, you have little
inside Syria that you can contact. You can't access local or
national databases there. You can't interview neighbors. You
can't interview business associates. You can't interview other
contacts with the people, because they are either in the
country, and we can't get to them, or they are dispersed
elsewhere around the world. Why do you think this interview
process is so effective?
Mr. Rodriguez. Because, again, it is based on extensive
detailed mapping of family relationships, associations,
credibility assessments based on prior documents. And, this is
really critical, Congressman, it does not follow from anything
that Director Comey may have said, that we are clearing a void.
In fact, people have either----
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, the Director--I'm paraphrasing, but he
said you can query a database until the cows come home, but if
the information isn't in the database, you are not going to
find anything. And I think that is exactly--or he thinks----
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, Congressman----
Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. Is the situation.
Mr. Rodriguez. That is why we have placed people on
heightened review, that is why there have been denials. That is
why there have been holds.
Mr. Goodlatte. Why not do what so many Members of Congress
and other people have said on both sides of the aisle, by the
way, and that is hit the pause button on this? You know, the
situation in Syria has been going on for a few years now. It
continues to deteriorate, and the situation in terms of
gathering information about people, we have a problem with
forged documents that are fooling the Europeans and may be
fooling us as well.
Why not simply delay this for a period of time until we
make sure that the criteria that we've set forth in the
legislation that we are putting forward today can be met?
Mr. Rodriguez. And, Congressman, I would say because the
process as currently constituted and currently re-sourced,
because your question is, is the best we can do good enough?
And the fact is that it is the most intensive process. It has
resulted in denials and holds. It is a redundant, rigorous
process through which we put these individuals.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Krikorian, does the U.S. Government have
any credible way of distinguishing between refugees from Syria
and individuals who are posing as Syrian refugees?
Mr. Krikorian. They can try, and I have no doubt that USCIS
officials, State Department, FBI, and the rest are doing their
best to distinguish between people pretending to be Syrians and
people who aren't. But there's a limit to how effective that
can be, since there's an extreme paucity of data. So sometimes,
I have no doubt they will, in fact, smoke out people who are
lying or cheating. I'm sure it happens all the time. But as Ms.
Strack said just last month to the Senate, more than 90 percent
of Syrian refugee applicants are being approved, and that that
might go down a little bit as those cases that are in limbo are
formally decided. But the average worldwide is 80 percent. So
how stringent, really, can a vetting process be when more than
90 percent of the people are being approved?
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair will now recognize Ms. Lofgren for a brief
unanimous consent request.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent to submit to the record of this hearing 37 statements,
including from the Christian Reform Church, the Lutheran
Immigration Services, the Southeast Asian Resource Center, and
the Disciples of Christ.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing
record but is on file with the Subcommittee, and can also be accessed
at:

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104197.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
The Chair will now recognize the Ranking Member of the full
Committee, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy.
My questions seem to be directed to Mark Hetfield, and the
first one is--and I respect the important testimony of the
other four witnesses, but I'm trying to see how much difference
there is between the European refugee model and the U.S.
refugee resettlement program. Is there much of a distinction
there, sir?
Mr. Hetfield. There is a very significant distinction,
which is why it is so surprising to me that the attacks in
Paris have resulted in even more intense scrutiny of the
refugee resettlement program.
The refugees who arrive in Europe are not vetted in
advance. They are asylum seekers. Their vetting does not begin
until after they touch land in Greece or in Europe. In the
United States, as Director Rodriguez testified and as you've
heard over and over again, they are vetted--refugee applicants
are vetted right-side up, upside down, and sideways, every
which way you can possibly imagine, before they are admitted to
the United States. And then the process continues after they
arrive. They have to apply for adjustment, after a year in the
United States. They continue to be under close watch. The risk
in the refugee admissions program of admitting terrorists is
very, very low.
Mr. Conyers. You know, we're considering H.R. 4038 on the
floor today, and conservatives around here argue the bill does
nothing more than add a certification process that would ensure
no terrorist element enter the country through resettlement.
Do you think that's the whole story behind this?
Mr. Hetfield. Well, it is a very short bill, and it does,
technically, add nothing but a certification process. But that
process would totally cripple a system without making it more
effective.
Refugees are already thoroughly vetted, as we've testified
prior to arrival. And having three different, high-ranking
officials certify each and every refugee case is a guarantee
that the system will come to a screeching halt. It already
moves so slowly. The refugee resettlement program is no longer
a rescue program. It saves lives, but it saves lives very, very
slowly. That would bring it to an end.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Hetfield, you are with the Hebrew
Immigrant Aid Society. Now, are you concerned that refugees we
would be accepting from Syria and Iraq would pose a specific
threat to the Jewish community in the United States?
Mr. Hetfield. We are, as everyone else is, very concerned
about screening people out who want to do us harm, especially
those who have a particular ax to grind against the Jewish
community. But, again, these refugees are thoroughly vetted.
And what worries us much, much more, because we feel the
vetting is being done. But what we're also seeing right now is
xenophobia, islamophobia driving a further wedge between
Muslims and the rest the world. And we're afraid that can do
far more damage to Muslim-Jewish relations, to who we are as a
country, to our security as a country, and make us even more
vulnerable to attack. Because we've basically said Syrian
Muslims are not welcome here; we do not trust them.
Mr. Conyers. And my final question to you, sir, is for you
to try to explain why our world with ISIS and other terrorist
groups is different because they do not comprise enemy states
or governments. Shouldn't the safety and protection of our
people be our first concern, even if it means not allowing some
refugees into the United States?
Mr. Hetfield. It absolutely should be our paramount concern
to keep the United States safe and secure. And I can say with
great confidence that my colleagues in the Department of
Homeland Security are doing that to a fault. That is their
mission. And they vet every refugee to make us safe. And I
really can't imagine what additional protocols they could
possibly install to make us any safer.
No terrorist in his right mind would use the refugee
program as a way to enter the United States. They may find
other channels. It's not going to be through the refugee
program. It's too intrusive, it's too invasive, it's too
thorough in the security checks that it does.
Mr. Conyers. Secretary Richard, do you have anything to add
to that comment?
Ms. Richard. The people who we are bringing have gone
through this process, but they're also referred to us in the
first place, because the UNHCR knows the type, the profile, of
refugee that we want to help. And so we are looking at people
who have been tortured, who are burn victims from barrel bombs,
people who are widows and children, also the elderly, families
that have been ripped apart as members have been murdered in
front of their eyes.
So of course, every single one of us feels that the first
priority is the safety of the American people. And if we can't
provide for that, we would shut down the program. But we
believe strongly that by the time a refugee is brought here, we
are bringing some of the most vulnerable people, giving them a
second chance at life, and we have screened out anyone, about
whom we have any question--they weren't even probably referred
to us in the first place, which may be why we have a higher
acceptance rate, and I think that the proof is in the success
of the program and communities all across the United States.
So thank you for the opportunity to provide some
information. And we also would be happy, if given the
opportunity, to explain more about the nuts and bolts of the
process. We think it can withstand scrutiny. The Chair and the
Ranking Member of this Subcommittee have spent a lot of time on
this already this year, but we're happy to meet with other
members to go into the point that, for example, the FBI
holdings would only tell you a limited amount of information
about refugees.
For example, if a refugee had ever committed a crime in the
United States, the FBI could tell you that. But most refugees
have never been to the United States before. So that's why we
have to use many more databases and many more techniques and
many more approaches to get the full story, make sure their
story holds up, and if it doesn't hold up, if there's any
question, they are not included in the program. Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Texas,
Chairman Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to single out Mr. Krikorian and
thank him for his excellent testimony. I honesty don't know how
anyone could disagree with one word. But before I get to a
question for Ms. Richard, Mr. Chairman, I just have to tell you
how it seems to me right now, and that is that the President of
the United States says he wants to protect the security of the
American people. We have a bill on the House floor where the
FBI has to certify that a Syrian refugee is not a threat to the
United States. And yet, the President of the United States is
threatening to veto a bill that tries to protect the security
of the American people.
I have no rational explanation for the President's
threatened veto. It is simply astounding to me that a President
of the United States would want to veto a bill that tries to
protect the security of Americans. I just don't get it.
But, Ms. Richard, my question to you is this: This year we
have admitted 1,700 refugees from Syria already, just in the
last several months. How many of those 1,700 refugees have been
arrested for committing a crime?
Ms. Richard. So we've brought 1,700 in the last fiscal
year, which ended September 30.
Mr. Smith. Right.
Ms. Richard. Two thousand since the start of the crisis. As
far as I know, none have been arrested unless you have
contradictory information.
Mr. Smith. And you track all the refugees from Syria,
including the 1,700, so you would know?
Ms. Richard. No, we do not track them after the first 3
months in the United States.
Mr. Smith. Then how do you know whether they have been
arrested.
Ms. Richard. I rely on the law enforcement agencies to tell
us.
Mr. Smith. Okay. And so far as you know, none of the 1,700
have been arrested?
Ms. Richard. That's right. I haven't heard of any.
Mr. Smith. Okay. As far as the stopping of the tracking
after 3 months, are you going to stop tracking the 10,000
proposed to be admitted next year after 3 months and the
20,000, perhaps, the year after? Are you going to stop tracking
those individuals as well?
Ms. Richard. Once refugees are in the United States, after
a year of being here, they become legal, permanent residents.
And after 5 years, they are allowed to----
Mr. Smith. I understand that. I am talking about----
Ms. Richard. And because of that----
Mr. Smith [continuing]. The early period.
Ms. Richard. They are treated pretty much like ordinary
Americans, and they are not tracked.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Right. But what I am saying is, are they
treated any differently than any other refugees? Do you
consider them to be any more of a threat than other refugees or
not?
Ms. Richard. Well, they are not treated differently than
other refugees.
Mr. Smith. Okay. I think most people would consider to be
Syrian refugees about whom we already----
Ms. Richard. I think Syrians are less of a threat,
actually, because they have fled their country. They voted with
their feet.
Mr. Smith. Let me stop you there. No. Let me stop you there
real quick. You say Syrians are less of a threat, even though
we've had testimony from the FBI Director that of all of the
cohorts of refugees, including Iraqi refugees, we have less
information about the Syrian refugees than others?
I mean, the FBI director says he regrets he doesn't have
more data about the Syrian refugees, and he has real concerns,
and he thinks it's risky. Apparently, the Administration
disagrees with the FBI director. But you're saying, again, I
just want to make sure, that Syrian refugees are less risky
than other refugees?
Ms. Richard. Well, my point is that Syrian refugees have
been outside their country, and so we know what they have been
up to. And there's a record of the time they spend outside
their country.
Mr. Smith. They may not have a record of terrorism. They
may be would-be terrorists; they may be terrorists in training.
Terrorist organizations have already said they are going to use
the refugee program to try to infiltrate the United States. And
you say you're less worried about Syrian refugees than other
refugees?
Ms. Richard. I am very worried about terrorists.
Mr. Smith. I'm sorry?
Ms. Richard. I am very worried about terrorists. I think we
should focus on terrorists. I think we should prevent
terrorists from coming to the United States.
Mr. Smith. And don't you think Syrian refugees might some
day become terrorists?
Ms. Richard. I think the odds of a refugee being a
terrorist are very, very small. But that doesn't stop us from
focusing our program to make sure nobody comes in who might be
a terrorist.
Mr. Smith. Right. I appreciate you're trying to focus the
program that way. But we've heard from law enforcement
officials that you really don't have the data you need to make
that determination. But let me go on to----
Ms. Richard. What the FBI has said is that they don't have
a lot of data from inside Syria, which makes sense, because the
FBI has not operated there.
Mr. Smith. Exactly. So I don't think there's any way for
you to----
Ms. Richard. And it's also normal for us, with most
refugees, not to have data. The exception is Iraqis and
Afghans.
Mr. Smith. Right. But if you don't have the data on Syrian
refugees, then it seems to me to be very difficult for you to
give the American people the assurance that they are not going
to commit terrorist acts.
Ms. Richard. We do have lots of information about Syrian
information. The FBI does not have a big amount of holdings on
Syrians based on U.S. presence in Syria.
Mr. Smith. Right. The FBI----
Ms. Richard. We have a lot of information about Syrian
refugees. And Leon's program, he should probably talk about
this more than I should, is it collects the information and
does a fantastic job. I've sat through those interviews.
Mr. Smith. Right.
Ms. Richard. Instead of doing scores of visa applicants in
a day, they take their time, and they do about three or four
refugee applicants.
Mr. Smith. Well, all I can say is every law enforcement
official, and I've heard a couple testify before Committees in
the last 4 weeks, have disagreed with you. They say they have
less data, less information about the Syrian refugees. If you
are an outlier on that, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm
just saying what other law enforcement officials have
testified.
Last question is this, if the citizens of a State or a city
do not want to have Syrian refugees resettled within their
jurisdictions, State or city, is the State Department, is the
Administration going to force them to take those refugees?
Ms. Richard. Well, there's a legal answer, and then there's
a reality answer. Legal answer is----
Mr. Smith. Well, let's go----
Ms. Richard [continuing]. This is a Federal Government
program, and so the Federal Government has the right to
resettle refugees all across America as we do in 180 countries,
all types of cities and towns, right.
Mr. Smith. I understand that. What's the reality answer?
Ms. Richard. The reality answer is this program only
functions only if we have the support of the American people,
very much at the level of communities and societies and towns
to come forward and help these refugees, help them get jobs,
and help them move on.
Mr. Smith. I appreciate that. So you're saying the
Administration, while it might assert that it has a legal
right, is not going to force the resettlement of refugees in
locales----
Ms. Richard. Well, that's for the President to decide----
Mr. Smith. Let me finish.
Ms. Richard [continuing]. Our recommendation would be not
to resettle anybody in a hostile environment.
Mr. Smith. Let me finish my statement, please. Let me
repeat that. You are saying the Administration, while they have
the legal right to force resettlement, is not going to exercise
that legal right if the local communities oppose the settlement
of the refugees?
Ms. Richard. No, I haven't said that, Congressman, because
it's up to the President to decide that. But I certainly would
not want to resettle anybody in a hostile community. Now, I
don't think we have many of those in the United States.
Mr. Smith. Okay. And I wouldn't refer to them as hostile
communities. They are acting in what they consider to be their
best interests in protecting their own people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from Texas.
And I would just say, in light of the fact that votes are
coming in 15 minutes, I am going to try to do a better job of
limiting folks to 5 minutes, including myself.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to all the
witnesses who have come. Thank you to the Ranking Member for
her valiant effort on trying to strike a compromise with the
bill that is being debated on the floor. I was delayed because
I was speaking at the Rules Committee and trying to find--
excuse me, on the rules on the floor, trying to find a reason
for us moving forward with H.R. 4038.
But I do want to thank the witnesses, so let me be very,
very succinct, if I might.
Let me, first of all, ask to put the U.S. refugee admission
program overseas process diagram into the record.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________
Ms. Jackson Lee. If I can hold this up. Probably it's
difficult to see the maze of which it is.
So let me say that the inquiry that is being made through
this legislation and through this hearing is a legitimate one.
Having started on the Homeland Security Committee, as the
recovery at 9/11 was still occurring, having been to Ground
Zero and seeing the angst and feeling that deeply imbedded
pain, there is no memory that sears the minds of Americans as
much as 9/11, although we have experienced much, such as the
bombing of Pearl Harbor that resulted in the internment of
Japanese Americans. I'm not sure whether at that time it made
the Nation safer.
So this process troubles me, and I'm going to quickly ask
Ms. Richard, Mr. Rodriguez, a scenario. I understand that
approximately 23,000 individuals are referred by the United
Nations from Syria. I don't know if they include Iraq. Out of
that in the last year you took about 7,000 to interview, and
about 2,000 came forward in terms of the process. The process
lasts 18 to 24 months. Is that correct, Ms. Richard, about 18
to 24 months?
Ms. Richard. Yes, that's correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And they include the people who are
outside of Syria, who are either in the camps, and not that you
directly go into the bowels of Syria and pull somebody out. Is
that correct?
Ms. Richard. We do not operate inside Syria. This is only
for people who have fled outside of Syria.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And the individuals' prioritization, are
those who are women and children, families, 2 percent of them
happen to be unmarried men. Is that correct?
Ms. Richard. Of the ones we have brought to the United
States, only 2 percent are unmarried single men traveling
without family. So most are families, women and children, and
multiple generations.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Rodriguez, have you read H.R. 4038, by
any chance?
Mr. Rodriguez. As it happens, I have, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Very good. And good. It's not one of our
tall ones. It's a limited one.
Mr. Rodriguez. It was within my attention span,
Congresswoman.
Ms. Jackson Lee. It has not had any hearings. It has not
had a hearing before the Homeland Security Committee, which has
the basic jurisdiction of domestic security. I haven't had a
hearing in front of the Crime Subcommittee of this Committee,
though it deals with refugees, but it also deals with issues
dealing with terrorism of sorts.
But you are the tactical man, if you will, in this process.
As you look at it, do you read it as I read it, that the
elements of certification, or the persons engaged in
certification, must certify every single person, Syrian or
Iraqi? Do you read it in that terminology?
Mr. Rodriguez. I would not dare right now to opine or
interpret other than to say that I am aware of it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But you sense that is----
Mr. Rodriguez. I will talk about what we do right now and
what we're planning to do.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Well, let me do this. Maybe somebody
else wants to opine. Because I think you can opine, and I need
you to understand and to be understood. It says that everyone
in this category has to certify each refugee. Does it not? Can
you say that?
Mr. Rodriguez. Yes. I don't think our far basic position,
as the President stated last night, is that the process does--
4038 doesn't add anything to the--it doesn't add anything to
the already rigorous process in which we engage.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Well, let me go back to Ms. Richard,
then. And as I read this, each person would have to be
independently certified. So if you are a 5-year-old Syrian
girl, you would have to be certified by the long list of
persons that already do it collectively? Is that not accurate?
Ms. Richard. Well, I don't know. I haven't spent time
looking at the bill, since it's brand new. But we do have
interviews for cases, which are either individuals or families.
The interviews that Leon Rodriguez's USCIS carries out are
meeting with the whole family, and then----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me get, Mr.----
Mr. Gowdy. Well, the gentlelady's time has expired, and I
really do want to give every member a chance. And votes are
imminent, so I'm going to have to----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr.
King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses.
And I direct my first question to Mr. Rodriguez. And that is,
when you do this extensive vetting process, do you take into
account the religion of the applicants?
Mr. Rodriguez. We do not, except as that being a possible--
in many cases it is, a basis of persecution. It is one of the
categories of persecution. But we do not disqualify anybody
because of their faith.
Mr. King. Do you take into account--do you ask them, what
is your religion?
Mr. Rodriguez. Again, if that is part of the basis for
their persecution, then we do inquire into that, sir.
Mr. King. And even though the law requires whether it is or
isn't the basis for that, you are required to take that into
account, religion.
Then can you explain to me the data out here and what we're
seeing happen in the real world. And by the way, I just back
from there a week ago. I was in the Kurdish region and over to
the frontlines, as close as I can get to ISIS and into a
refugee camp and up to Turkey, and on over into Hungary and
Croatia and Serbia and then over to Sweden to see kind of the
end result. But I asked in Turkey, take me to the refugee camps
where I can talk to persecuted Christians, and they couldn't do
that. And I said in Kurdistan, take me to the refugee camps
where I can talk to persecuted Christians. They couldn't do
that either. And the reason for that is the Christians are
being taken into the homes that exist in the area and being
taken care of in that fashion. It almost turns out to be
exclusively Muslims within the camps, as near as I could
determine. Now, I don't have data. I just have the answers that
I got to the questions I asked, some of them from State, I
might add.
And so can you name for me or identify for me a suicidal
terrorist that was not a Muslim?
Mr. Rodriguez. I'm not even going to try to answer that
question, Congressman. What I can talk about, Congressman, here
today is----
Mr. King. Well, why can't you answer that question? Either
you can say, I can or I can't. That's a pretty simple----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. King. No, I wouldn't.
I'd ask the gentleman if you would also prefer to simply
say that the Administration policy is not to utter these words;
we have to walk around this subject rather than directly speak
to it, then I'm willing to accept that answer too.
Mr. Rodriguez. What I can say is that we do our job, and
that if terrorists are attempting to gain admission to the
United States, then we do our job to prevent them from doing
so.
Mr. King. But you are vetting them.
Mr. Rodriguez. That's what the American people are asking
of me.
Mr. King. You're telling me that you're doing a thorough
vetting process, but you're unable to tell me that you
specifically ask them what their religion is. And if you don't
specifically ask them, then neither are you able to quantify
the risk to the American society. But I want to move away from
that a little bit. I think my point is made there.
And I would like to make this point, that we are operating
here on completely the wrong premise. We are operating on the
idea that we can vet potential terrorists, no matter how much
professionalism that we can bring here, and examine them up,
down, sideways, as the gentleman testified, and that they come
into America, then, and we're going to be okay if we do a good
job of vetting the refugees that we would allow into America.
And yet, when I look at the situations here, for example,
here's the Daily Mail article, here's the headline: ``America's
enemy's within; how nearly 70 have been arrested in America
over ISIS plots in the last 18 months, including refugees who
have been given safe haven turned out to be bringing terror
against Americans.'' Nearly 70. That number is actually 66.
And so I understand that we can't be perfect with this, but
some of these people that came in as terrorists were vetted. I
don't think they were terrorists when they got here. They
became terrorists after they got here. They became radicalized.
Some were and got through. Some were radicalized.
And so when I look at this, I think, we're talking about a
huge haystack of humanity. And that hay is benign, relatively
speaking, but in that haystack are the needles called
terrorists. And the proposal that's coming from the
Administration is that we are so professional that we can
examine all of that hay, and we can identify any of the needles
in it, terrorists; we can sort the needles out of the haystack
and somehow prevent them from coming into America. We're not
putting them down to GTMO, where they belong, but let them come
into America, and then this haystack would be benign, and it
could become one of our culture and society, then it will
simulate into the broader American civilization. That's nuts to
think that.
And, furthermore, even if it wasn't, then I would say to
you, the benign hay that now you've envisioned, that we have
already purified and cleaned the needles out of, now that that
hay never ever morphs into a needle, a terrorist. But we know,
even by this article, that people are radicalized in this
country. They attack us. We've got multiple attacks in America.
When I look at the map of Europe and the dots of the hot
spots where they have been attacked in nearly every country in
Western Europe, and it's proportional to the populations that
they've brought in from the Middle East and North Africa. Now,
we cannot stick our heads in the sand and say that somehow that
we're not bringing this upon ourselves. We are watching this.
We are slow-motion cultural suicide in American. Slow motion, a
generation behind Europe. And I've traveled all over there. And
I've walked down through the no-go zones, and country after
country in Europe to see it. And I sat down and talked to the
people that are there. And I'm watching them. They feel so
guilty about political correctness that they're willing to
accept about any kind of violence brought into their country
because they feel guilty about this.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman is out of time.
Mr. King. And I will conclude for the Chairman, that if we
are going to save ourselves, we have to also intervene and
provide a safe zone, international safe zone, for the
persecuted religions, which are the Syrian Christians and the
Chaldean Christians. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. You
know, we are all shocked and horrified and deeply saddened by
the news coming from Paris. As a member of the Intelligence
Committee, I know there is much to fear both for our allies and
for us. But in light of the attacks on our ally friends last
Friday, I urge my colleagues to keep a cool head and not to
react exactly the way ISIS and other terrorists hope we do,
with fear, with chaos, and with lashing out.
But sadly, that's what we have seen. Republican governors
and elected officials and candidates and media figures do. I've
been here long enough to do know a thing or two about
opportunism. Maybe it's just too much to resist when you've got
15 guys and a lady running for President on the Republican
side. Politicians, pundits, and celebrities would be attempted
to say whatever they can to get in front of the news cameras
and have it pointed at them.
The governor of Illinois, my home State, could not resist
saying that our State was closed to Syrians fleeing the terror
of ISIS and the Assad regime. He said there was no place in
Illinois for women, children, elderly, Muslims fleeing the
Assad regime and the ISIS terrorism, the murder, the rape, the
selling--there's no place for those children and for those
women.
Luckily, just as he said that to show the opportunism, a
wonderful Syrian family arrived in Chicago just 2 days ago and
found a safe place. That is the message that destroys the
hatred of ISIS, not the reel that they are going to have of
people saying, we don't like Muslims; we can't trust Muslims;
Muslims are somehow going to create a cultural system in
America that's going to destroy us.
Every community of people that have come here has
strengthened this Nation. And I just have to say that when you
use fear, when you use fear--and I do remember, Mr. Chairman,
last year we were here, and the last fear that I remember
talking about was when the kid showed up--remember when the kid
showed up, the refugee showed up from Central America? We had
doctors, medical doctors--I don't know what medical school--
saying that those children were bringing Ebola to the United
States of America. They went to Africa, came back, crossed the
border, came back with Ebola. A year later, where is it at?
Remember? I remember governors saying that they were going to
close down their States.
Every time we hear this, it's about they're coming because
they are murders, they are rapists; they're coming because they
are drug dealers. It's fear, fear, and fear. And you know what
the best tradition of America is, when people have stood up
against fearmongerers who traffic in hatred and bigotry and
prejudice. And that's what I sadly believe is happening now
with Syrian Muslims fleeing.
Oh, if they were only all Christians, some would say, then
it would be fine. You know what that kind of reminds me of, it
kind of reminds me of the Irish, when they came here. They
said, if they were only White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, but no,
they had an allegiance to the Pope out in Rome, so therefore,
they were suspicious people. We've heard these arguments time
and time again in America, and America has always responded to
them correctly by welcoming those to our Nation regardless of
the faith that they hold so that they could celebrate that
faith, so that they could live in that faith freely in America,
because we don't have those kinds of threats here.
Look, we used fear during World War II. Boy, did we regret
it, the internment camps of the Japanese, a stain and a blemish
on America. We used fear and we used bigotry to say that those
who would flee the prosecution and the persecution and the
deaths of the Nazis and the Holocaust, we say no, there's no
room in America for you. There's room, certainly, in America.
I understand that there is a terrorist system out there
that wants to hurt us. I understand that. But I also understand
that there are tens of thousands of American men and women
patriots that are out there protecting the homeland every day,
and they are not working 100 percent; they are working 200
percent, and they're keeping us safe. And that we are taking
all of those measures, and they don't willy-nilly just let
anybody go through a screening process. No, those are Americans
watching out for Americans, and I think we impugn their
integrity and we impugn who they are and their patriotism to
this country.
So I would just like to say, look, we made the mistake
before. Let's not make it again. Let us have a system--if you
said, all we want to do is lose--we want to add an extra layer,
that would be good, but that's not what we're doing. They are
in the camp, they are getting vetted. We should welcome them to
America. We shouldn't fall into the trap of ISIS, I can see the
reel now. Thank you so much.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Colorado,
Mr. Buck.
Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Rodriguez, I want to just tell you about my
experience. I was the District Attorney in Northern Colorado,
in Greeley, Colorado. We had between 1,500 and 2,000 Somali
refugees, mostly Muslim, if not all Muslim, come to Greeley.
There were some hiccups in the process, but for the most part,
they were welcomed and have lived there happily in a community
that is open to them.
How many refugees are there around the world that are in a
position to come to this country? How many potential
individuals are there?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, we have our admission target. My
understanding generally, is that there are about 19 million
refugees worldwide.
Mr. Buck. Did you say 19 or 9?
Mr. Rodriguez. Nineteen million.
Mr. Buck. Nineteen million, refugees worldwide.
Mr. Rodriguez. And Assistant Secretary Richard can correct
me if my number is off, but the number is the largest it has
ever been.
Mr. Buck. Okay. So we have 19 million. That's what I was
wondering. So 19 million refugees. How many of those can come
to the country? What is our number that we would allow into the
country?
Mr. Rodriguez. Currently, every year we establish a target.
Our target for this fiscal year is 85,000.
Mr. Buck. Okay. So 85,000, a drop in the bucket of those 19
million. Why would the Administration object to a pause on
Syrian refugees when we have 19 million potential refugees that
we could take from other countries where we have been
successful in integrating those refugees, for the most part,
into communities and----
Mr. Rodriguez. Because a quarter of all of those refugees
worldwide are, in fact, Syrian. The potential for an even
greater number exists with the continued activity of ISIL.
Mr. Buck. So let's take a quarter. So we have 75 percent of
19 million people, and that, again, 85,000, we could certainly
find 85,000 from that 75 percent. Why are we so interested in
taking Syrian refugees? This isn't a matter of religion, as my
colleague from Illinois pointed out. There have to be various
religions in that 75 percent.
Mr. Rodriguez. The situation in Syria is devastating to the
extent that there is no reasonable prospect of return to that
country for----
Mr. Buck. And taking 85,000 Syrians wouldn't do anything to
change that devastation either. Would it?
Mr. Rodriguez. It would. It would start us on the road.
It's something that we are doing alongside our European allies.
The Germans, for example, are expecting 1.5 million people.
Mr. Buck. I want to move on. I understand. My point is
simple, there are plenty of other people that we could take in,
hit the pause button, and do some research on this.
Director Rodriguez, Mr. Hetfield said that he was surprised
that attacks in Paris has resulted in more scrutiny for
America's refugee program. Are you surprised as an American
that there is fear in this country over relocating Syrians into
this country?
Mr. Rodriguez. Congressman, there are enemies of the United
States. Those enemies of the United States are in Syria.
Mr. Buck. I was just asking if you are surprised.
Mr. Rodriguez. My point is I know that the United States
has enemies, whether they are in Europe, whether they are in
Syria, whether they are----
Mr. Buck. Your point doesn't answer my question. My
question is, are you surprised that Americans are fearful over
what happened in Paris?
Mr. Rodriguez. I am neither surprised by the fact that
there are fearful Americans, and I'm not surprised by that, nor
am I surprised by the fact that many Americans want us to be a
welcoming country to those in fact, who are victims of conflict
and war.
Mr. Buck. Okay. And so let me tell you one of the reasons
why Americans are distrustful at this point. We have a
President who, after the murder of an ambassador in Benghazi
and the murder of three heroes in Benghazi, four people total,
told the American people that the attack was the result of a
video. We have a Secretary of State who immediately identified
that it was not the result of a video, that it was the result
of a well-planned attack.
And then the Administration paraded out one official after
another to lie to the American public, and the American public
has very little faith in this Administration when they assure
the American public that somehow they're able to determine that
Syrians that come to this country are going to be trustworthy
and we will be safe. And it is a result of this
Administration's lack of credibility that has caused the fear
and panic among many of the Americans in this country.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize Mr. Trott.
Mr. Trott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Rodriguez, you know, kind of following up on Mr.
Buck's questions. Do you think Americans have a right to be
fearful today in light of what happened in Paris and the
threats against New York and Washington?
Mr. Rodriguez. Sure. I mean, there are threats to the
United States. There's no question about that, Congressman.
Mr. Trott. And do you think--you know, I'm going home this
afternoon. And so what should I tell my constituents that we're
doing about their fears?
Mr. Rodriguez. What we are doing is engaging in the--and I
assume we're talking about Syrian refugees, because there's a
whole lot more that we are doing to protect the United States
that goes beyond just what we're doing to scrutinize the 10,000
or so people----
Mr. Trott. Your assumption is correct.
Mr. Rodriguez [continuing]. Who may be coming.
What I would tell them is this is the most rigorous process
in the history of refugee screening. That, in fact, we have
denied people admission. In fact, there are hundreds of people
on hold because either their stories lacked credibility or
because there was derogatory information about them. So the
work is being done.
Mr. Trott. But can you sort of understand the complete lack
of confidence that most of my constituents, whether--let me
continue, sir.
Mr. Rodriguez. Yeah.
Mr. Trott [continuing]. Whether the veterans over the VA,
seniors over the future of the Social Security, families over
the affordability of their health insurance premiums, as I go
back to Michigan, can you sort of understand why people have
apprehension about the confidence of the Federal Government,
Congress included?
Mr. Rodriguez. Congressman, I think it's actually a benefit
of this hearing that we have a little bit more of a burden of
information with people than I think we perceived. I think we
need to make sure that the American people understand in a
calm, reasoned dialogue, what we are doing, because what we are
doing is rigorous; it is extensive; it is redundant; it is
careful.
Mr. Trott. So you are 100 percent confident that the
process we have in place is going to work just fine going
forward?
Mr. Rodriguez. That it is a meaningful, rigorous, robust
process that we are engaging in as aggressively as----
Mr. Trott. In your mind, there's no value in just hitting
the pause button. And, you know, many people have made this
vote this afternoon into a political vote. It's not political
at all. What Congress wants to do, and I think there will be
many Democrats that join us, is hit the pause button and work
in a collaborative fashion to make sure that our homeland is
safe. There's no value in considering doing that, in your mind?
Mr. Rodriguez. Again, I stand by what I've said about the
process, so I don't think it's necessary that I repeat it. I do
think we need to think about the costs of inaction.
Mr. Trott. I spent 30 years--do you believe that the
process can never be improved upon?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, of course. And, in fact, we are
working every day to make sure that we refine our understanding
about what's going on in these countries. We learn more, by the
way, as we screen each and every refugee. So, of course,
there's room for improvement. But the process, as it exists, is
a robust, intensive, meaningful process.
Mr. Trott. Okay. I'll yield back. Time is short.
Thank you for being here today, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this hearing and your leadership on this issue, and I
appreciate all the witnesses being here.
I had a telephone town hall meetings with the people of the
fourth congressional district of Texas, that I represent, just
two nights ago. And it was similar to many of the telephone
town hall meetings that I've had before, in a sense of I had
about 8,000 people on the line at once. I've had as many as 3-
and 400 people in the queue to ask me questions. And that's
pretty typical. What wasn't typical was the uniformity and lack
of diversity in the questions that I had. I didn't have a
single question about ObamaCare. I didn't have a single
question about government overreach and the EPA. I didn't have
single question about $18 trillion of debt. I had 3- and 400
questions about the Syrian refugee issue and the concern that
ISIS may try and use gaps in our process to make America less
safe.
And there's really no exaggeration or hyperbole in what
I've just related to you. It underscores and highlights the
grave concern that the people in my district, and I think
around the country, really have about this issue. And it's
particularly relevant for us, because Texas, in the last year,
has received--well, historically, has received the largest
percentage of refugees for resettlement of any State in the
country.
Last year, for fiscal year 2014, 10 percent of all arrivals
in the United States were resettled in Texas. And I think, or
hope that we can all agree that the conflict in Syria, and ISIS
has stated and promised, efforts to infiltrate the Syrian
refugee process, presents us with a unique challenge here. And
in light of these challenges, I think it's incumbent that we
all honestly assess whether our system is equipped to protect
the American people. And if it's not, we've got to hit pause
while we fix the problem. And I know some have demonized this
opinion, saying it lacks compassion. But to those folks, I
would emphasize that America is the beacon of freedom to the
world, in part, because it is a refuge, because it is a safe
place for people to come. And if we sacrifice national
security, we will weaken one of the very aspects of our country
that attracts the weak and the vulnerable to our shores.
So with that in mind, I want to start with you, Director
Rodriguez. I understand that an applicant for refugee status
must be cleared--or must clear all required security checks
prior to final approval of their applications. But with respect
to this process, do we admit individuals unless something
negative appears during the screening process, or do we admit
only for those--for whom we have information?
Mr. Rodriguez. Yeah. We need to have confidence, one, that
they can sustain the claim for refugee status. They're screened
according to priorities by the United Nations' high
commissioner on refugees, that's why a substantial number of
them come as family units or victims of torture, victims,
people who have been injured in war.
We screen very carefully as to whether there are exclusions
or bars that they apply, whether they have been affiliated with
a terrorist organization. We have, in fact, ruled people out on
those bases or placed them on hold because we have suspicion
that those bases apply.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So, I don't mean to interrupt. So it sounds
like we screen--do we screen on the presence of information or
based on an absence of information?
Mr. Rodriguez. We screen for both. In other words, if there
is insufficient information, insufficient contacts for us to be
confident that this person is who they say they are, and their
claim is what they say that it is, then that would be a basis,
at a minimum, for that case to be placed on hold.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So let me move on quickly. I want to
address it from a State and local perspective. And I understand
that the current law requires consultation with State and local
government officials regarding refugee settlement in the
community. But I understand that the extent to which that
consultation actually takes place varies greatly. The
consultation is supposed to result in the development of
policies and strategies for the placement, resettlement of
refugees, but as all of you probably know, as of yesterday more
than 25 governors, including my governor in Texas, issued
statements saying it would bar Syrian refugees from settling in
their States.
So I want to ask that question, would consultation take
into account a desire on the part of a State's governor and
residents to decline to accept refugees?
Mr. Rodriguez. Congressman, I think Assistant Secretary
Richard will take this question, actually.
Mr. Ratcliffe. All right.
Ms. Richard. On the issue of consultation with the State
and local governments, you are absolutely right, that that is
an important aspect of this program. We require that the local
organizations that are partners with us in carrying out the
refugee program have quarterly consultations, that they do this
with the community leaders. Every State has a State refugee
coordinator, who is reporting to the governor, but who works
with the Department of Health and Human Services to make sure
that there is suitable provisions made for the refugees.
One of the things that Chairman Gowdy has reinforced in our
discussions is that it's important that our partner
organizations talk to the people who are the most responsible
authorities at the community and State level. That they don't
just talk to people who are interested in the program, but that
they go to the police chief, the mayor, the school principal,
the healthcare center, and make sure they know who's coming,
what to expect, and that this, then, reinforces the community's
acceptance and preparedness to welcome the refugees.
You are right that Texas is the most welcoming State in the
United States for hosting refugees. And I was surprised that so
many governors spoke out so quickly. I think that what we have
to do--we had our phone call with all the governors that the
White House arranged, the day before yesterday, and I think we
have to get more information out to people so that they
understand what this program is, how it operates, and why we
take such care in making sure it's done in a way that's safe
for the refugees, of course, who have been through so much, but
especially is run in a way, that the security of the American
people is not in danger.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I would love to follow up, but my time has
long since expired. I appreciate and I thank the Chairman for
his indulgence.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. I want to let the
witnesses know, votes have been called. In fact, the clock is
on zero. So I am more than likely to miss votes, but I don't
want you to think that any of my colleagues left because of
disinterest. They have been called to the floor. It's just a
really important issue in my district. So I'm willing to risk
the wrath of missing votes to ask some questions.
And I wanted to go last, because I wanted to hear everyone
else's perspective. And I wrote a number of notes down, and I
think I wrote them as accurately as they can be written. And
this is the thought that kept going through my head.
This past weekend, I saw a gentleman in my hometown walking
away from a gas station carrying a gas can. So even I could
figure out, his car ran out of gas. And I had to make a
decision whether or not I was going to offer him a ride. And I
did. I offered him a ride. That's a risk, however small, that I
was willing to take for myself.
I would never ask any of you to do that. You have to weigh
and balance that risk yourself. I'm willing to get on an
airplane today, because I want to get home quicker. The risk is
very small something bad is going to happen. I'm not willing to
go bungee jumping, even though the risk may also be small that
something bad's going to happen.
So I haven't heard a single one of you say there's no risk.
In fact, you can't say there's no risk. Even Mr. Hetfield, I
think he put two verys in front of it. He said it's very, very
low. I don't know if it warrants two verys in front of it. But
there is some risk. And nobody has said there's zero risk. And
I think every one of you would agree that the potential
consequences of us getting it wrong are maybe cataclysmic. That
we have to be right every time. So the risk can still be small
and something bad can happen. And what I'm trying to get folks
to do is weigh and balance the risk versus the potentiality of
us getting it wrong.
So let me start here. Have we ever gotten it wrong in the
past? Now, I'm not talking about Syrian refugees. I'm talking
about any category of refugees. Have we gotten it wrong? Has
our vetting failed in the past? Is anybody aware of a
circumstance where our vetting has failed in the past? Not all
at once.
Mr. Krikorian. Well, I'll take that one, Congressman. The
answer is, yes, many times. Just earlier this year, an Uzbek
refugee, admitted as a refugee, was convicted of assisting
terrorism. A couple of years ago, two Iraqi refugees, in
Kentucky who had been admitted, it turned they had their
fingerprints turn up later on IEDs.
And so the critics of sceptics, the defenders of bringing
Syrians, they insist on saying, no one has been convicted--no
refugee has been convicted of terrorist--no Syrian refugee has
been convicted of terrorist activities in the United States.
But these Iraqis killed Americans abroad. That doesn't make me
feel better that they are here.
Mr. Gowdy. The conviction doesn't mean anything to me. The
terrorist attacker is not going to be convicted, because he's
dead. So you can't use conviction as a barometer for whether or
not somebody has been a threat. They may not be around to
convict.
So, does anybody disagree that there have been failures in
vetting? Is anybody taking the position that we have made no
mistakes?
Ms. Richard. Chairman Gowdy, I agree with you that in the
history of the 3 million refugees who have come here, there
have been a handful who have been a threat to the United
States. And fortunately, they have been stopped before anything
bad happened. And the two Iraqis in Kentucky were the most
shocking example.
They had done bad things in Iraq. They had lied to get into
the country, and had our current system been in place, they
would have been caught before they got here. And that's why the
system has been improved since that episode.
You had said a few things in life are risk free. I heard
the governor of Washington State say, you take a risk when you
get out of bed in the morning. I mean, there's a lot of dangers
in the world, absolutely. But I think the program that we run,
does as much as humanly possible to reduce the risks of
bringing refugees to this country. And we have great confidence
in it.
And we invite members to come out to the field and meet
some of the people who interview the refugees and sit through
some of the briefings by Leon's team that I sat through. It's a
very impressive, a very thorough event.
Mr. Gowdy. And, Ms. Richard, that's what makes me hate
waste, fraud, abuse, deception, so much, is that when anyone
engages in it, it also impacts those who would never consider
engaging in it. Because it makes everyone have to stop and
think. There is some risk. There is a great reality that if we
get it wrong something bad could happen. And you have to
balance the risk with the potentialities of something bad
happening.
And when you do have people who abuse any system, believe
it or not, there have been Federal judges who undergo rigorous
screening, including going back and talking to neighbors from
25 years ago, and they still turn out, we get it wrong with
them from time to time. United States attorneys, serious FBI
background checks with every available database, we still get
it wrong from time to time. Even Members of Congress, believe
it or not, we get it wrong from time to time. So that's what,
that's what I'm--we can't do it this morning, but you can't say
there's no risk. And I appreciate the fact that nobody has
tried to say that.
We all agree that we are dealing with an enemy that
affirmatively wants to do whatever bad thing they can do to us.
And I just think it's put the American people in a really,
really tough position, particularly given the fact that public
safety and national security are the preeminent functions of
government. I do want to end, Ms. Richard, by thanking you for
coming to South Carolina and noting that the reason you had to
come to South Carolina was nothing that you had done.
And to Mr. Hetfield and others in his line of work, you're
exactly right. The sheriff needs to be talked to, the
superintendents need to be talked to, the community needs to be
talked to, not simply people who may be supportive. If you want
to find out the truth, you got to talk to everybody, including
those who may not support the program, so you can weigh and
balance the competing evidence. You should not have had to come
to South Carolina quite frankly. You should not have had to. It
should have been done well before you and I ever met.
So I think a lot of the information, the sooner it's shared
and the more fully it's shared, the better people can make
informed decisions. So as I leave to explain to the majority
leader why I missed the vote, this is what I would encourage
everyone to do, Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Richard, what I really
wanted to do, if we weren't going, is to get you to walk the
American people through every step of the vetting process.
I really do like the director of the FBI. But I also
acknowledge that the FBI may be experts in this realm of data.
You have access to other realms of data. And, again, people can
draw whatever conclusions they want to draw. It's really none
of my business. But until they have all the facts, you can't
draw any conclusions. So to the extent you or someone else can
just lay out for the American people every single step and
every database you can access and every question you can ask
and the training of the people doing the questioning, folks are
still going to come down on different sides of this issue. They
just are. But at least they'll know they did it having access
to every bit of information.
So with that, I want to thank all five, I do want to thank
the Administration witnesses for agreeing to a single panel. I
know that that is unusual. But given the circumstances of the
day, it was a necessity. I thank all of our witnesses.
And with that, I'm going to head to the floor. And we're
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

----------

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]