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


                        THE CURRENT STATE OF THE
                          U.S. REFUGEE PROGRAM

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-77

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
44-567                     WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                 
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

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

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

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

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

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

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

                    DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Chief Counsel
                    ANDREA LOVING, Minority Counsel
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           February 27, 2020

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

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

                               WITNESSES

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

           STATEMENTS, LETTERS, MATERIALS, ARTICLES SUBMITTED

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

                                APPENDIX

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

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

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, February 27, 2020

                        House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

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

                  TESTIMONY OF BARBARA STRACK

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

   TESTIMONY OF THE MOST REVEREND MARIO EDUARDO DORSONVILLE-
                           RODRIGUEZ

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

                     TESTIMONY OF BIAR ATEM

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

                     TESTIMONY OF LORA RIES

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

   
                       MS. ESCOBAR FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                       MS. SCANLON FOR THE RECORD

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

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

                       MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

    
                                APPENDIX

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]