U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–632 PDF 2016

THE SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS AND 

ITS IMPACT ON THE SECURITY OF THE 

U.S. REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

Serial No. 114–48 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

GARY MERSON, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

Page 

WITNESSES 

Anne C. Richard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and 

Migration, U.S. Department of State 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

The Honorable Leon Rodriguez, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

Seth G. Jones, Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, 

RAND Corporation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22 

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 33 

Mark Hetfield, President and CEO, HIAS 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 58 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security .......................................................................................................... 59 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security .................................................................................................... 61 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 62 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 75 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 94 
(IV) 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Submissions for the Record from the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security. These submissions are available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at: 

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

Submissions for the Record from the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security. These submissions are available at the Subcommittee and can 

also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104197. 
(1) 

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

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in room 2141, 

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Labrador, Smith, King, Buck, 

Ratcliffe, Trott, Goodlatte, Lofgren, Gutierrez, Jackson Lee, and 

Conyers. 

Staff Present: (Majority) George Fishman, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security; Andrea Loving, 

Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security; 

Kelsey Wiliams, Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director 

& Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian & Chief Legislative Counsel; Gary Merson, Chief Immigration Counsel; Maunica 

Sthanki, Immigration Counsel; Micah Bump, Immigration Counsel; 

and Rosalind Jackson, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Judiciary Committee will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the 

Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on the Syrian 

Refugee Crisis and Its Impact on the Security of the United States 

Refugee Admissions Program. I will just tell everyone that proper 

decorum is going to be observed. The witnesses deserve to be 

heard. The members deserve to be heard. This will be your one and 

only warning in that respect. 

Secondarily, I will tell our witnesses we are going to do things 

a little bit differently this morning. I have some colleagues that 

will be here very shortly. So we are going to recognize our witnesses for their opening statements before we recognize the members for theirs. And because there’s a lot of floor activity this morning at 10:30, we want to get as much done as we can. So while each 

of you has very vast and impressive resumes, I’m probably going 

to skip them as I introduce you and just recognize you by your 

name for your opening. 
2 
3 

Mr. GOWDY. Before I do that, I would ask everyone to rise for the 

administration of an oath. Just the witnesses. I’m sorry. That is my 

fault. That was my fault. I was ambiguous. That was my fault. 

Do you swear the testimony you’re about to give is the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? May the 

record reflect all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

I am going to introduce you en banc and then recognize you individually for your opening. We are delighted to have Ms. Anne Richard. We are delighted to have Mr. Leon Rodriguez. We are delighted to have Mr. Seth Jones. We are delighted to have Mr. Mark 

Krikorian. And we are delighted to have Mr. Mark Hetfield. With 

that, Ms. Richard, I would recognize you for your 5-minute opening. 

TESTIMONY OF ANNE C. RICHARD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

BUREAU OF POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. RICHARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you to the Subcommittee for holding this important hearing at such 

a key moment in the discussions about the program, the very successful program that the U.S. Government has to bring refugees to 

the United States so they can restart their lives after living 

through very, very difficult situations of war and persecution. 

I know the murderous attacks in Paris last Friday evening have 

raised many questions about the spillover of not just migrants to 

Europe, but also the spread of violence from war zones in the Middle East to the streets of a major European capital. Let me assure 

you that the entire executive branch and the State Department 

that I represent, has the safety and security of Americans as our 

highest priority. As an essential fundamental part of U.S. Refugee 

Admissions Program, we screen applicants rigorously and carefully 

in an effort to ensure that no one who poses a threat to the safety 

and the security of Americans is able to enter our country. All refugees of all nationalities considered for admission into the United 

States undergo intensive security screening involving multiple Federal agencies, intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies, 

including the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, and the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and Defense. 

Consequently, resettlement is a careful and deliberate process 

that can take 18 to 24 months. Applicants to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program are currently subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States. These 

safeguards include biometric and fingerprint, and biographic 

checks, and a lengthy in-person, overseas interview by speciallytrained DHS officers who scrutinize the applicant’s explanation of 

individual circumstances to ensure the applicant is a bona fide refugee and is not known to present security concerns to the United 

States. 

Now, Leon will talk more about this, it’s really in his department 

that the responsibility lies to determine who comes and who does 

not come. But we work so closely with them. I want to say that 

they are incredibly careful. And if they have any doubts, they will 

not allow anyone to enter the United States. No one has a right 
4 

to resettlement in the United States. It is something that we offer 

based on our history and our humanitarian values. 

The vast majority of the 3 million refugees who have been admitted to the United States, including from some of the most troubled 

regions of the world, have proven to be hard-working and productive residents. They pay taxes, send their children to school, and 

after 5 years, many take the test to become citizens. Some serve 

in the U.S. military and undertake other forms of service for their 

communities and our country. And,in fact, our program is so well 

regarded, other countries come to us to learn more about it. And 

I’ll be taking the British member of parliament, Richard Harrington, who is responsible now for trying to get more refugees 

through a process to the U.K., for a visit to one of our centers tomorrow. 

So I’m happy to answer any questions you may have about this, 

about anything in my testimony. And my testimony talks about our 

humanitarian assistance overseas and our diplomatic efforts. But I 

know that right now, the American public wants to hear that our 

first priority is the safety of the American people. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Richard follows:] 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Ms. Richard. Mr. Rodriguez. 

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

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. And good morning, Congressmen King and Smith. I think we can stipulate to two 

things: That the United States has a proud and long tradition of 

admitting refugees from some of the worst crises and most dangerous places in the world. And, secondly, that the situation in and 

around Syria is an untenable one, with 11 million people displaced. 

The question is, if we are to continue that tradition of being a 

welcoming country, can I, as the Director of the agency that vets 

refugees, assure the American people that we are using all the resources that we have and that that those resources are meaningful 

resources to vet refugees. 

And what I’m here to tell you this morning is the process, as Assistant Secretary Richard described, is a multi-layered, robust, and 

intensive process through which individuals must pass before they 

can travel to the United States. Given the limitations of time, I will 

signpost three critical phases of that process. There is the United 

Nations High Commission on refugee phase. There is the Department of State phase. There is then the phase conducted by my refugee officers. And hopefully I will have a little bit of time during 

questioning to dig into some of those elements further. 

During the UNHCR process, individuals for the first time are 

interviewed as to the substance of their claim for refugee status. 

Extensive biographical information is captured, as well as preliminary analysis as to whether there are potential bars or other disqualifiers that apply to those individuals. The fruits of those interviews are then passed to the State Department and, ultimately, to 

USCIS. 

At the State Department stage, a second layer of interview is 

conducted. At that point, a series of critical biographic checks are 

initiated. There are three critical legs to that check. The first is the 

Consular Lookout Advisory Support System which queries against 

a number of critical law enforcement and intelligence holdings of 

the security advisory opinions, which are hosted by the FBI, but 

most important of all, what is called the interagency check. That 

is checked against a number of both law enforcement and intelligence holdings. 

And important for me to let you know this morning, that through 

that suite of checks, we have, in fact, either denied refugee status 

to individuals or, at a minimum, placed them on hold based on derogatory information that came up through that check. That check 

is populated by the extensive work that is being done by the U.S. 

intelligence services which is, indeed, one of the most robust, welldeveloped intelligence services in the democratic world. 

At that point, they come to my refugee officers who have extensive training both generally in protection law, refugee law, and 

interviewing, but then also very specific and targeted training as 

to conditions in Syria, including the lessons learned during the refugee process. As we interview each refugee or each family of refugees, we gain more and more information and more and more clar-
10 

ity as to what is going on in Syria. That is coupled with another 

round of fingerprinting, a set of biometric checks, checks against 

Department of Defense databases, Customs and Border Patrol 

databases, FBI databases, which further check the status of these 

individuals. 

Also, when I talk about the interagency check, I would note the 

fact that that is now a recurrent process. So these individuals are 

checked on an ongoing basis, so that if new derogatory information 

arises about these individuals during the process, that comes to our 

attention during the process. 

I hope I have further opportunity during the questioning to elucidate each step of this process because I think it is critical for the 

American people to get the reassurance they need to continue to be 

the kind of welcoming country that we are. But I also ask us to 

consider the price of inaction, the fact that being welcoming to refugees contributes to the stability of the region, it puts us side by 

side with our allies in Europe who, in fact, are taking on this problem to the same extent or greater than we are, and honors our tradition as American people. 

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Congressmen. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Jones. 

TESTIMONY OF SETH G. JONES, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL 

SECURITY AND DEFENSE POLICY CENTER, RAND CORPORATION 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Chairman, and distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee. This is an important subject. And the tragic attacks in Paris over the weekend and the links with Syria make this 

hearing particularly important. 

I’ve divided my comments into two sections. The first will provide 

an overview of the foreign fighter problem from Syria and the region. The second, implications for refugees in the homeland. 

My background and the focus of my remarks is primarily on terrorist groups and foreign fighters. That’s my expertise, serving and 

working for U.S. Special Operations and for the FBI’s 9/11 Commission last year, where we did look at some of this stuff for Director Comey. 

The first, let me just talk about the extremist threat from Syria 

just to, obviously, put this into perspective. U.S.-led airstrikes and 

strikes recently from France and other coalition partners have 

probably halted advance of Daesh or the Islamic State in Syria. 

And across the border in Iraq, the U.S. efforts, including Special 

Operation forces on the ground, have helped halt the advance in 

places like Sinjar and supported Iraqi Army operations. But the 

group remains strong. Daesh remains strong and is currently not 

on the ropes. 

In addition, in Syria, the al-Qaeda affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra is 

probably more capable now, that is, fighters, funds, territory, than 

at any time since its creation in 2011. It’s an affiliate, which means 

it’s pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda Core 

back in Pakistan. 

Obviously of concern for the U.S. is the shear number of foreign 

fighters we have seen traveling to, and to some degree, from Syria 

and Iraq. The battlefield is the largest concentration of foreign extremists we have seen in any major war, certainly ones that I have 

participated in, and looked at the numbers in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, in Libya. National Counterterrorism numbers put 

this at over 20,000 foreign fighters who traveled to Syria to fight, 

about 17 percent of them have come from the West, with, depending on how you count it, somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 

Americans that have traveled, or attempted to travel, to Syria 

mostly to fight against the Assad regime. 

Obviously, we’ve seen plots tied to operationally or inspired by 

Daesh, the Islamic State in Paris recently, in Garland, Texas, in 

Copenhagen, Denmark, in Australia, in Ottawa, Canada, in Brussels, and then in other locations. So the threat clearly emanating 

from this region is clear. I note the recent MI5 director’s comments, 

the head of British domestic intelligence agency, saying that they 

have 750 British extremists that have traveled to Syria. Many have 

joined Daesh. And they have been involved in at least 6 mass casualty plots in the U.K. which have been foiled. So the threat is notable coming to our European allies and to some degree to the U.S. 

homeland. 
21 

So that brings me back to the U.S. and the refugee issue. And 

let me start by saying that refugees clearly have played an important historical role in the United States, in ensuring U.S. economic 

prosperity and cultural diversity. The plots we looked at last year 

on the FBI’s 9/11 commission, from Najibullah Zazi to Faisal 

Shahzad, the Time Square bomber, to David Headley, based out of 

Chicago, who was involved in the Mumbai attacks and plots in Copenhagen, almost none of these major attacks or individuals were 

refugees. 

So, the threat historically has been relatively small. But I would 

just highlight a couple of things that make the Syria picture and 

Iraq also to some degree worth noting. One is, as I said earlier, we 

see the highest number of foreign fighters on any modern jihadist 

battlefield in the Syria/Iraq border. And that border is obviously 

very porous. And there obviously have been an exodus of fighters 

into the West. 

Second, several European intelligence agencies have expressed 

concern about refugees, particularly into Europe, that have been in 

contact with Daesh or the Islamic State, including most recently in 

Belgium. So there have been some concerns in some cases after 

they’ve gotten into Europe. 

And then, third, I would say, and this is based partly on my own 

experience, what we had in Iraq and Afghanistan was a pretty 

good intelligence architecture to collect information on individuals 

including those that came through prisons. We certainly don’t have 

this in the Syrian context. I’m happy to talk in more detail about 

this. 

Let me just conclude by saying that the U.S. has a longstanding 

tradition of offering protection and freedom to refugees. But obviously an integral part of that needs to be ensuring that those individuals considered provide—that the U.S. is able to provide security to the homeland. And the Syria battlefield is of some concern 

just because of the U.S. collection gap that exists compared to other 

battlefields we’ve been involved in. So thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:] 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Krikorian. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Mr. KRIKORIAN. Thank you, Chairman. Refugee protection policy 

has to be based on two principles. One, whatever policies we adopt 

must not pose a threat to the American people. And, secondly, 

whatever money we take from our people through taxes to devote 

to these purposes should yield the maximum humanitarian effect. 

And, unfortunately, resettlement of refugees in the United States 

from Syria or from Yemen or Somalia or other failed states, fails 

on both of those counts. 

Hillary Clinton said at the debate this weekend that United 

States should spend ‘‘whatever it takes,’’ to properly screen Syrian 

refugees. I think everybody would agree with that. But it misses 

the point. The problem is not that we’re devoting inadequate resources. It’s certainly not that our people in DHS or FBI or State 

are not committed, our people are doing the best job they can. The 

problem is that proper screening of people from Syria cannot be 

done. We are giving our people an assignment which they cannot 

accomplish successfully. 

We imagine in a modern, developed country like ours that everybody in the world leaves behind them the kind of electronic traces 

that we do, birth certificates, driver’s licenses, school records, all of 

those things that we kind of take for granted. But the fact is that 

those tracks, those traces are nonexistent in much of the world 

even in the best of circumstances. And in the kind of situation, the 

chaotic situation we have in Syria or in Somalia or Yemen or Libya 

or Afghanistan, what little information that might have been existed has probably gone up in smoke or at the very least is inaccessible to us. 

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson made that very point just last 

month when he said, ‘‘we’re not going to know a lot about the individual refugees who come forward.’’ That’s true. And, in fact, just 

this week, we found more evidence of that. The French sent our intelligence agency the fingerprints of the attackers in Paris and 

there was no trace of them anywhere in our databases, the very 

databases that we are supposed to be using to screen the Syrian 

refugees. Our screening of refugees resembles, and I don’t mean to 

be flip here, but it really does resemble the joke about the drunk 

who loses his keys in the park but is searching for them under the 

streetlight. And when asked why he’s doing that, he said well, the 

light is better here. The clearest statement of this came from Matthew Emerich, nothing personal, Mr. Emerich, who is in charge of 

fraud detection at USCIS, he told the Senate last month, ‘‘We 

check everything that we are aware of within U.S. Government 

holdings.’’ Because the light is better there. 

The second point is efficacy. In other words, are the resources 

we’re devoting to humanitarian protection for refugees, whether it’s 

Syria or anywhere else, being used to the maximum effect? And 

bringing refugees to our country makes us feel better. I assume Mr. 

Hetfield will give us some warm stories about that. And it does 

make us feel better. But the point of humanitarian protection of 

refugees is not to make us feel better, it’s to assist as many people 
32 

as possible with whatever resources we’ve decided to devote to this 

purpose. And what we found, we did research on this, and we 

found that it cost 12 times as much to resettle a refugee from 

Syria, from the Middle East, in the United States as it does to provide for them in their own region. In this case, in, say, Syrian refugees in Turkey or Jordan or Lebanon, which is where most of them 

are. 

The 5-year cost we conservatively estimated of resettling a refugee from the Middle East is $64,000 compared to U.N. Figures 

that indicate a 5-year cost for caring for people in the region would 

be about $5,300. In other words, each refugee that we bring to the 

United States from the Middle East means that 11 other people are 

not being helped with those same resources. The image I like to 

think about when considering this is imagine you have 12 drowning people. What are you going to do? Do you send them a one man 

yacht that’s a very nice, beautiful yacht but holds only one person? 

Or do you throw them 12 life preservers? The moral choice is obvious there. And yet what we’re doing through the best of intentions 

is sending the one person yacht instead of throwing them 12 life 

preservers. 

In conclusion, Congress has a variety of measures to address this 

Syrian refugee issue. And I’m not qualified to say whether we 

should have a temporary pause or whether there should be a suspension of funding or a broad change in the rules. These are questions you’re going to consider. But in considering them, I urge you 

to keep in mind these two points: The only way to reduce the security risk of resettling Syrian refugees or Somali or Yemeni or Libyan or Afghan is to reduce the number that we resettle. And the 

government’s obligation to make the most effective use of the funding that we have taken from our people to devote to refugee protection, compels a shift in emphasis away from resettlement toward 

greater protection for people in the region. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Krikorian follows:] 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you. Mr. Hetfield. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK HETFIELD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HIAS 

Mr. HETFIELD. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, Raking Member 

Lofgren, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to speak here today on behalf of HIAS, which is the oldest 

refugee agency in the world. We have been resettling refugees since 

1881, not just because it makes us feel better but because it saves 

lives. 

Refugee resettlement has saved millions of lives since 1881 but 

not nearly enough. We’re confronting the world’s most horrific refugee crisis since World War II, with 60 million displaced across the 

globe, 20 percent of whom are Syrians, fleeing a conflict that has 

already taken over 240,000 lives. Without considerably more international assistance, countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey 

are beyond their saturation points with over 4 million Syrians, 

causing refugees to risk their lives to flee for a second or a third 

time. 

The crisis finally attracted international attention and attention 

in this country when the body of 3 year-old Syrian Aylan Kurdi 

washed up on a Turkish beach on September 2, one of 813 men, 

women, and children asylum seekers to perish at sea that month 

trying to make the perilous journey to Europe. 

This is an extraordinary crisis requiring extraordinary leadership. But, so far, the United States’ response has been tepid at 

best. While this is the largest refugee crisis of my lifetime, we’re 

resettling far fewer refugees than we did in 1980, when we resettled over 200,000 Indo-Chinese refugees, or in 1993 and 1994 when 

we resettled well over 110,000 refugees each year. But my great 

sadness at the murderous acts of terrorism perpetrated in Beirut 

and Paris last week has been compounded by the reactions of some 

politicians in this country. They have diverted the focus away from 

fighting terrorism and toward keeping refugees out of our country 

and out of their States. They have blamed the victims. This plays 

on people’s fears, turns prejudice into policy, and weakens our national security and our national character. 

I mistakenly thought that attitudes and signs, like Irish need not 

apply, no coloreds, no Jews, or dogs allowed, were ugly relics buried in the past but apparently not. Governors are clearly saying 

openly no Syrian Muslims are welcome in my State. One Governor 

even said, from my home State of New Jersey, no Syrian orphans 

under 5 are welcome either, which can only recall the ugly debate 

that occurred in this House in 1939 which resulted in the defeat 

of the Wagner-Rogers bill which would have saved 20,000 refugee 

children from Nazi Germany. 

Governors are right to be concerned about security but so is the 

Federal Government, so are the refugee resettlement agencies. And 

the extensive screening process in our refugee program reflects 

that as Director Rodriguez has already testified and as is in my 

testimony. While the number of Syrian refugees being resettled 

here today is relatively anemic, the security protocols in place are 

stronger than anything I have ever seen in my 26 years working 

in this field. So strong, that it has made the refugee resettlement 
42 

program into more fortress than ambulance, causing massive backlogs of legitimately deserving and unnecessarily suffering refugees. 

The fear of resettled refugees here is based on erroneous assumptions. The flow of refugees to Europe is entirely dissimilar to the 

refugees accepted through the U.S. refugee resettlement program. 

The refugees who arrive in the U.S. have undergone extensive security vetting prior to setting foot on U.S. soil. Refugees to Europe 

are not screened until after they enter. This is the distinction. It 

simply does not make sense for U.S. lawmakers to react to the 

tragedy in Paris by proposing legislative changes to the U.S. refugee program. 

History has demonstrated that our democracy cannot only withstand large influxes of refugees from other countries, but will prosper as a result. When we welcomed millions of refugees from communist, fascist, and Nazi regimes, our country did not become infected with any of these ideologies, nor with the terror associated 

with them. If anything, these refugees immunized us from the totalitarian ideologies they were fleeing. The USRAP is hardly a 

piece of swiss cheese. It is not a sieve. And, in essence, it is not 

even the wide-reaching rescue program that it was intended to be. 

Given the complexity, intrusiveness, and unpredictability of the 

program for refugees, it seems highly unlikely, if not impossible, 

that a terrorist would choose the refugee resettlement program as 

his or her pathway to the U.S. 

My written testimony outlines a number of suggestions to improve the program while increasing both security and efficiency. 

But it does not recommend a certification process. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify here today on Syrian refugees. This country must continue to be both welcoming and safe. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hetfield follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Hetfield. I will remind the witnesses 

and the members to direct their responses and comments to the appropriate audiences. For members, it would be not to one another. 

And to witnesses, it would be not to one another. With that, I 

would recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee, the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for appearing late. But this is an important hearing which focuses on the Syrian refugee crisis and its impact on the security of our Nation’s 

Refugee Admissions Program. It has the potential to shed meaningful light on critical issues of interest to all Americans, to all of us. 

Unfortunately, the value of today’s undertaking is greatly diminished by the fact that immediately following the conclusion of this 

hearing, we will go directly to the floor to vote on H.R. 4038, the 

so-called American Safe Act, a bill that would effectively shut down 

refugee processing for Syrians and Iraqis. Clearly, there are no 

easy solutions to a humanitarian crisis of this magnitude, as well 

as the security threats we will hear about today. Yet, 4038 is not 

the right answer in my view. And I want the witnesses to please 

let us know what should be our response keeping in mind these 

factors. 

To begin with, while ensuring that safety of all Americans should 

be our top priority, H.R. 4038, which would effectively debar Syrian 

and Iraqi refugees from the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and 

does nothing to promote security. This measure sets unreasonable 

clearance standards that the Department of Homeland Security 

cannot meet and, thereby, would halt refugee resettlement in the 

United States which is, perhaps, what the whole point of their 

doing this is. 

So, without question, the program should be held to the highest 

standards to ensure to the greatest extent possible that the security screening is thorough, effective, and timely. In fact, refugees 

are already subject to the highest level of vetting, more than any 

other traveler or immigrant to the United States. This extensive 

screening process performed by the Departments of Homeland Security and State, in conjunction with the CIA, the FBI, and other 

law enforcement agencies, relies on methodical and exhaustive 

background checks that often take up to 24 months on average to 

complete and even longer in some cases. 

But, like any system, there can be room for further improvement. 

So I would appreciate your thoughts here and after this hearing on 

how we can accomplish that goal. We must keep in mind that our 

Nation was founded by immigrants and has historically welcomed 

refugees when they’re suffering around the globe. Whether it’s an 

earthquake in Haiti, a tsunami in Asia, or 4 years of civil war in 

Syria with no end in sight, the world looks to the United States. 

We provide protections for refugees and asylum seekers, especially 

women and children. Nevertheless, in the wake of the September 

11 attack on our shores and the tragic November 13 terror attacks 

in Paris, we must be vigilant, especially in the midst of a global 

refugee crisis. 

The measure I keep referring to, however, is an extreme overreaction to these latest security concerns. Rather than shutting our 

doors to the desperate men and women and children who are risk-
59 

ing their lives to escape death and torture in their own homelands, 

we should work to utilize our immense resources and good intentions of our citizens to welcome them. 

And, finally, Congress may do its part by properly funding refugee resettlement, as well as funding our Federal agencies so that 

they have the necessary personnel and programs to complete security checks. Rather than slamming the doors to the world’s most 

vulnerable, we should be considering legislation to strengthen and 

expand refugee programs. 

For example, I’m a co-sponsor of H.R. 1568, the Protecting Religious Minorities Persecuted by ISIS Act, which allows persecuted 

individuals in ISIS-held territories in Iraq and Syria to apply directly to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Rather than rushing to the floor to consider legislation that was introduced just 2 

days ago and has not been subject to even a single hearing, we 

should devote our legislative resources to developing meaningful solutions. And I thank the Chair very much for this opportunity. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman of Michigan. The Chair will 

now recognize himself for an opening statement. 

National security and public safety are the preeminent functions 

of government. National security and public safety are not simply 

factors to be considered in the administration of some broader policy objective. National security and public safety are the ultimate 

policy objectives. The safety and security of our fellow citizens 

should be the driving force behind all decisions that we make as 

Representatives. And as Representatives, it would be incongruent 

for us to undertake any act, or fail to undertake an act, calculated 

to jeopardize the safety and security of those who sent us here in 

the first place. 

People do not employ us to represent them so we can take risks 

with their security. They send us here to put their security at the 

top of our constitutional to-do list. This country has a rich and long 

history of welcoming those fleeing persecution. We have a long and 

rich history of liberating those suffering under oppression. We are 

the most welcoming country in the world. And we are the most 

generous country in the world. And we help those in need both 

here and abroad. And we administer that aid in greater quantities 

than anyone else. 

Our country has welcomed over 3 million refugees since 1975. We 

consistently provide aid to those in need. We provide protection for 

those who cannot protect themselves. And we provide a defense for 

those who are defenseless. Regrettably, the world we find ourselves 

in is imperfect and seemingly becoming more imperfect. It is because we are free and secure and an orderly society rooted in public safety that we have the liberty of being generous to other people. 

Rather than address the underlying pathology that results in displaced people, those in charge of our foreign policy seem more interested in treating the symptoms. There are refugees from the 

Middle East and Northern Africa because those regions are on fire 

and riddled with chaos. And our bright lines and policies of containment and smart power or whatever we call it today have failed. 

Terrorists took the lives of over 100 innocent people in France and 

injured many more for no other reason than the fact that they 
60 

could. They killed 100 because they couldn’t kill 1,000. And their 

objective is evil for the sake of evil. It is murder for the sake of 

murder. It is wanton and willful violence, premeditated depravity, 

calculated to take as many innocent lives as possible. 

The acts of barbarism committed against the people of France 

are the latest in a long line of malevolent acts committed against 

innocents. And that line is not likely to be over. CIA Director Brennan said what happened in France was not a one-off event. We also 

know ISIS terrorists are intent on finding ways to attack America 

and her allies, including here. Director Brennan said ISIS has an 

external agenda they are determined to carry out. Another Administration official said I wouldn’t put it past ISIS to infiltrate 

operatives among refugees. So that’s a huge concern of ours. Those 

are not the words of some GOP presidential hopeful. Those are the 

words of our very intelligence officials who serve this Administration. 

The President has said he’s too busy to debate the critical issue. 

And, unfortunately, what passes for debate in this political day and 

age is some absurd conclusion about widows and orphans. It is precisely that kind of hyper partisan conclusion designed to cut off debate, rather than discuss foreign policy, that has united this country in only this one fact, we have no idea what our foreign policy 

is in the Middle East. 

The people I represent are kind and generous and they are asking this Administration and this President one simple question, 

what assurance can you give us with respect to our public safety 

and national security. And so far, no one has been able to provide 

that assurance. On Monday, the President said the country would 

continue to accept Syrian refugees but only after subjecting them 

to rigorous screening and security checks. Those are wonderful 

words. But, at some point, you have to ask what does that mean. 

And the head of our own FBI said the concern in Syria, the lack 

of our footprint on the ground in Syria, that the databases won’t 

have the information we need. So it’s not that we don’t have a process, we don’t have any information. So you’re talking about a country that’s a failed state, that doesn’t have any infrastructure. All 

the data sets, the police, the intel services you normally would go 

to and seek that information don’t exist. That is not a Republican 

presidential hopeful. That is the head of the FBI. 

He also said we can only query against that which we’ve collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in a pond in 

Syria, or I will add, any other place in a way that would get their 

identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query 

our database until the cows come home, but nothing will show up 

because there is no record on that person. 

Lastly, he said I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this. So the question 

then becomes what amount of risk is acceptable? If our experts are 

telling us this is not a risk-free endeavor, and few things in life 

are, but someone is going to need to tell me and the people I work 

for what amount of risk is acceptable when you’re talking about national security and public safety. 

And I’ll say this in conclusion, the President says we’re scared 

of widows and orphans. With all due respect to him, what I’m real-
61 

ly afraid of is a foreign policy that creates more widows and orphans. So where maybe he ought to start, maybe he ought to start 

is a foreign policy in the Middle East, including Syria, where people can go back to their homelands, which is their preference, go 

back to their homelands. Maybe you ought to defeat that JV team 

that you thought you had contained. That would be the very best 

thing you could do to help people who aspire to a better life. 

And with that, I’ll recognize the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we’re elected to 

Congress, our first responsibility is to make sure that the security 

of the American people is attended to. That’s number one, two, 

three, four. That’s the first obligation. And I take it very seriously. 

That admonition has caused me, once again, to review the procedures and policies and laws relative to our refugee programs. 

Now, refugees from Syria and other places in the Middle East 

are arriving in waves, unscreened, at Europe’s doorstep. As Mr. 

Hetfield has recalled, we were shocked to see the body of a 3 yearold child on the beach, of families trying to escape from ISIS, who 

is beheading people. But our process is different. We have an ocean 

between us and Europe and the Middle East. And that has allowed 

us to provide for a rather extensive process. And here’s really what 

it is. I mean, in order to even be considered, the United Nations 

High Commission on Refugee refers you to our system for screening. And only a few people actually make that process to be 

screened. 

At that point, we have a Resettlement Support Center that does 

an interview. We do biographic checks. Then we use the CLASS 

system, the Consular Lookout and Support System, which queries 

data, it’s classified, all of it is, but it includes the DEA, the FBI, 

Homeland Security, Immigration, Customs, on and on, the Marshal 

Service. Then we have for certain refugees, and that includes the 

Syrians, a Security Advisory Opinion, which is a positive SAO 

clearance from a number of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence 

agencies. Again, the participants are classified, but it is everybody. 

And then we have the interagency check which was new. Before 

2008 and this Administration, we didn’t have that. And, unfortunately, we admitted four Iraqi refugees who turned out to be terrorists under the Bush administration. We reviewed the process 

and changed that to avoid a repetition of that, as well as the biometric checks, and the next generation information system, along 

with IDENT, the automated biographic identification system, and 

the automated biographic identification system. That’s all followed 

by in-person interviews and some post-interview efforts. Following 

that, there are additional checks for Syrians. 

So it’s no small surprise that this process takes a couple of years 

for someone to pass. Now, I listened to the FBI director who we all 

respect. But I am mindful the FBI essentially has a veto. If there’s 

somebody that we don’t know who they are, they can’t come in. 

That’s our process. They can’t come in. That’s the current law. And 

that’s as it should be. You know, that we would think querying 

what Assad thinks about a refugee, I don’t really care what Assad 

thinks about a refugee. He thinks all the Sunnis are terrorists. And 

they’re not. 
62 

So let’s put this into perspective. If I were a terrorist, would I 

say well, I’m going to go to a camp, hope that the U.N. will refer 

me to the system, go through this extensive process for 2 years 

and, honestly, because of Paris, this has now been further extended 

because everyone wants to make sure that every T is crossed and 

I is dotted, and in 2 or 3 years, if I’m lucky, I might make it as 

a refugee. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. We need to take a look 

at all of the systems that we have. Most of the terrorists, it looks 

like at this point, all of the terrorists in Paris were Europeans. 

They had European passports. They had Belgium and French passports. They could come to the United States very easily. And so I 

think we need to take a look at what processes we have in place 

to make sure that the country is safe. 

But it doesn’t include being afraid of a 5 year-old. And I just 

want to say, Mr. Hetfield, it’s important that you are here. I was 

listening to my colleague, Luis Gutierrez. And yesterday, a Syrian 

family, refugees, arrived in Chicago. And the non-profit group that 

was resettling them was the Jewish Community Center. That tells 

ISIS and the world that we’re on the right side of history and 

they’re on the wrong side of history. How do you recruit more terrorists when the United States stands up for what it is? And that’s 

part of this equation. We need to win militarily but we also need 

to win it in a value fight. And we’re not going to win that value 

fight by backing off from being free and being American. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair would now 

recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the Chairman of the full 

Committee, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From an immigration standpoint, perhaps the most essential lesson from the 9/11 

terrorist acts is that foreign nationals who want to do us harm will 

exploit all aspects of our generous immigration policy to do so, even 

if it takes months or years. 

Tragically, our allies in France learned that same lesson when 

over 120 people, including at least one American, were slaughtered 

by ISIS terrorists. And we know that at least one of the perpetrators registered as a refugee from Syria while in transit to Paris. 

Armed with that knowledge, today, we examine the Administration’s plan to admit thousands of Syrians into the U.S. as refugees. 

During fiscal year 2015, the President admitted 1,682 Syrian refugees to the U.S. Then in late September, the Administration announced that during this fiscal year, they plan to admit ‘‘at least’’ 

10,000 more. And that number could go even higher as Secretary 

of State John Kerry stated, ‘‘I underscore the ‘at least’—it is not 

a ceiling, it is a floor.’’ 

So since the overall ceiling for fiscal year 2016 refugee resettlement is 85,000, at a minimum, according to the Secretary of State, 

nearly 12 percent will be from a country with little infrastructure, 

in complete turmoil, into which thousands of radicalized foreign 

fighters have poured, parts of which the Islamic State controls, and 

in which we have no law enforcement presence. I understand that 

the Administration conducts security checks prior to admitting refugees. And according to the Administration, these checks are robust, especially with regard to the Syrian population. But are they 
63 

enough? Can these checks ensure that the individuals admitted as 

refugees are not terrorists and will not commit terrorist attacks 

once in the United States. 

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson told Congress that agencies involved 

in the vetting process are ‘‘committed to doing the best we can and 

as deliberately as we can.’’ Such a statement from the top U.S. 

Homeland Security official doesn’t exactly instill confidence in the 

vetting system. Islamic radicals around the world are chanting 

‘‘death to America’’ and mounting barbaric attacks on western targets. ISIS is specifically saying ‘‘we will strike America at its center 

in Washington.’’ 

Top Administration security officials have told Congress that the 

refugee vetting process is not adequate. In fact, FBI Director James 

Comey told this Committee that while the vetting of refugees has 

improved, the reality is that with a conflict zone like Syria, where 

there is dramatically less information available to use during the 

vetting process, Director Comey could not ‘‘offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with’’ admitting Syrian nationals as refugees. And not only did his boss, Attorney General Lynch, not refute his statement, but she conceded that there 

are, in fact, challenges to the refugee vetting process during her 

testimony in this Committee on Tuesday. 

I wrote to the President last month asking why he continues to 

ignore the concerns of some of his top security officials. And I look 

forward to the witnesses’ thoughts on such concerns today. Exactly 

who the individuals fleeing Syria are is also a question of immense 

concern. There is little doubt that members of the Islamic State 

and some of the foreign fighters who have streamed into Syria over 

the last few years are now some of the very individuals leaving the 

country. 

In September, the director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, noted, regarding the millions of individuals fleeing Syria, ‘‘I 

don’t, obviously, put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives 

among these refugees. So that is a huge concern of ours.’’ Media accounts note non-Syrians trying to pass themselves off as Syrians to 

try to get into European countries. And articles point out the booming fake identification document industry where a forged Syrian 

passport can be bought on the Turkish border for as little as $200. 

I know that the Administration is trying to implement the refugee 

law that Congress puts in place. But if implementation places 

Americans in danger, it is clear that Congress must take a look at 

the refugee provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act to 

determine what changes should be made. 

Lastly, I would like to thank the witnesses for testifying here 

today. I know that some of you had to rearrange your schedules to 

make it here today and we appreciate your willingness to testify on 

this important topic. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair will recognize 

the gentleman from Idaho for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all 

the witnesses for appearing here today. I’m actually a proponent of 

our refugee program. So when I hear somebody like Mr. Hetfield 

talk about us as if we’re going back to the 1930’s, I’m actually very 

offended. I think your testimony was completely out of line and out 
64 

of place. Because most of us are here concerned about the safety 

and security of the United States, while at the same time we want 

to make sure that we can continue with this humanitarian program that has helped so many lives, so many people throughout 

the world. So it was very disappointing to hear your testimony. 

The mission, however, that we have with humanitarian concerns 

must not come at the cost of our national security. With recent testimony from both FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General 

Loretta Lynch that the Administration is not able to properly vet 

incoming refugees, Congress has the duty to act. We’re not acting 

out of just plain fear based on a few Members of Congress just 

talking to each other. We’re acting after we have had testimony 

after testimony after testimony from our top national security experts telling us that we have a problem with the vetting process. 

Ms. Richard, you referenced an extensive security screening that 

all refugees must undergo prior to admission. Do you think that 

the current vetting system is appropriate? 

Ms. RICHARD. Yes, I do. It’s the toughest one for any traveler to 

the United States, Congressman. 

Mr. LABRADOR. It’s the toughest one. But do you think it’s sufficient for the current crises that we’re in? 

Ms. RICHARD. Yes. And I’ll tell you why because anybody we 

have any doubts about, anyone who we think might pose a threat 

to the United States in any possible way is not allowed to come in. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you agree with that, Mr. Rodriguez? Just yes 

or no. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I do. I do agree. I would like to elaborate. 

Mr. LABRADOR. How about you, Mr. Hetfield? 

Mr. HETFIELD. I do agree. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. So all of you, I assume, disagree with Director Comey’s testimony that it is not sufficient when processing 

that population due to intelligence gaps? 

Ms. RICHARD. May I answer that question because I have given 

this some thought. You know, what Director Comey doesn’t say is 

that it is normal for the U.S. Government to have no information 

about—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. That’s not true. He was here in this Committee 

and he testified there was a huge difference between the Syrian 

population and the Iraqi population because we had intelligence on 

the Iraqi population. 

Ms. RICHARD. And the reason for that is the Iraqi and Afghan 

programs were not like the normal refugee programs. We take people who have served for the U.S. military and have worked alongside our troops from Iraq. So there is a great deal of information 

about them available to the FBI. Normally, we would not have 

that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. No. Reclaiming my time. He testified, has testified again and again and again that we don’t have sufficient vetting. I trust him, with all due respect, a lot more with my national 

security than I respect you. You have a mission which is to bring 

more refugees to the United States. And I respect that you have 

that work to do. But I’m concerned about the national security of 

my constituents. I’m concerned about the national security of the 

people that are in my district. 
65 

We have two, as you know, two refugee centers in the State of 

Idaho. And we are concerned about what is going to happen in the 

State of Idaho if we don’t do the proper vetting. So it’s my responsibility to make sure that they are protected. 

Mr. Rodriguez, I want to briefly touch on the interviews conducted with potential refugees. How are the interview questions 

generated? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The interview questions are generated—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Your mike’s not on. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I apologize. They are generated by, first of all, 

intensive briefing on country conditions, including classified information as I explained before. They are generated based on the information received in prior interviews of that same individual. 

They’re also generated by the experience and training of that officer and what we have learned from other refugees. 

Mr. LABRADOR. How often are those questions altered? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, those questions are determined very carefully on a case-by-case basis. There’s obviously constant communication among our officers. 

Mr. LABRADOR. What’s the typical duration of a refugee interview? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I have observed them to be an hour. I’ve observed them to be 2 hours. It really depends on the nature of the 

case. The more complex, the more questions we have, the longer 

the interview will take. It takes as long as it needs to take. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Mr. Jones, in your opinion, if security protocols are not updated, what is the future of the U.S. Refugee Admission Program? 

Mr. JONES. Can you repeat the question? I couldn’t hear the first 

part. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes. If security protocols are not updated, what 

is the future of the U.S. Refugee Admission Program? 

Mr. JONES. Well, look, I think the challenge we have, as I look 

at it, is the databases we have that are feeding into the refugee 

programs. We just have gaps in Syria. In the Iraq and Afghan 

cases I was involved in, we had large databases with biometric information, and names, based on people who were coming into prison systems and checkpoints. We don’t have them here. So I do 

think this is a notable concern. It’s a gap. We have gaps of information we generally haven’t seen in many other cases. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rodriguez, we 

have heard that refugees for admission to the U.S. are subject to 

more rigorous screening than any other traveler or immigrant. And 

this screening is often conducted because refugees, in particular, 

may not often have the documents that we would have walking 

down the street. I mean they have, in some cases, fled for their 

lives with just the clothes on their back. They may not have boxes 

of documents. How do we proceed to establish identity in those 

cases? I mean it’s not just Syria. If you’ve got, you know, we had 

the lost boys in Sudan. We have Congolese refugees. We have peo-
66 

ple who have fled with people chasing them and here they are. 

How do we go about identifying that piece? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And I think it’s important. I appreciate, Congresswoman, your distinction between Syrians and others. Because 

the fact is actually most of the Syrians we see do come with documents that are authentic documents on the whole. What we do, 

though, is an extensive process of assessing, of mapping out family 

trees, aliases as the case might be, associations, other processes 

when we do have less documentation than is the norm. 

We have trained our personnel both, by the way, to recognize 

fraudulent documents when they are presented, but also to use the 

interview as an effective way of determining identity in those 

cases. 

Ms. LOFGREN. In March, the Chairman of the Committee organized a congressional delegation to visit the Middle East. And one 

of the most interesting elements of that trip, and I thank the 

Chairman for organizing it, was the trip we took to the refugee 

camp on the Syrian border in Jordan. And we had an opportunity 

to meet a large number of refugees, I would say almost all of whom 

wanted to go home but their homes had been destroyed. And, by 

the way, they were very grateful to the United States for the efforts that we have made to provide support for them. That was 

very rewarding to hear the recognition that the United States has 

among the refugees for our efforts. 

Do we ever crowd source information? I mean those people had, 

that we met, I mean, some of them were computer science students, some of them were widows. I mean, you can find out a lot 

about somebody by doing not just an interview with them but 

crowd sourcing the information with everyone around them. Do we 

do that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That’s a great phrase, Congresswoman. We do 

so in two respects. One, we are always comparing and vetting what 

we hear from any one refugee or family of refugees, which is more 

typically what we’re encountering, with what we’re learning from 

other individuals from that town. 

In fact, as we see refugees, they tend to come from—at least the 

ones we’ve admitted so far, particular areas in Syria. And also, as 

part of the classified information that we receive, there can well be 

information that gives more detail in the manner that you’ve described, Congresswoman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So in terms of the role of the refugee core and the 

additional training that they receive, what supplementary steps 

are taken by officers with the Syrian refugees as compared to all 

other applicants? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The manner in which they are briefed on country conditions and regional conditions is more intensive than what 

we do for any other officers. So they have their basic training on 

protection law, their basic training on refugee law, and interviewing. They then have two series of intensive briefings. One is 

a general briefing on actually Syria, Iraq, and Iran. And then prior 

to deployment, there is an 8-day period when they receive intensive 

briefings, both of an unclassified and classified nature from a number of different sources, including consultations with security experts to really steep them in the specifics of the environment 
67 

they’re going to at the time that they are going to it. So there’s an 

effort to ensure that that information is current. 

Once in the field, those individuals have a 10-day mentoring 

shadowing period before they are able to move off and interview on 

their own. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see that my time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Rodriguez, I would like to follow up on that line of questioning. If the interview process is so effective, why do we have 5 

million overstays in the United States? Five million people who are 

lawfully admitted to the United States through the interview process and have overstayed their visas, violated the terms, violated 

the promises they made when they entered the United States? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, what I can—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Use your mike. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I apologize. 

What I can speak to today is the actual refugee process. I mean, 

I think when we say—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But do you think refugees, where we’ve already 

talked about the greater difficulty of obtaining background information that you have a more highly accurate set of circumstances 

than you do for people who are applying to come into the United 

States for other types of visas? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I’m not sure I understood the question, Congressman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, the question is very simple. If the interview process is so effective, and we interview the people who apply 

for a whole multitude of different types of visas, and they are coming from, in many instances, countries where we have much greater presence on the ground than we do in some refugee countries, 

and particularly that we don’t have at all in Syria, why, nonetheless, would that good process that you described, do we still have 

5 million people who are illegally present in the United States, who 

didn’t come across the border; they entered the country legally 

after you said they could. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No. I do understand the question now. Sir what 

I can speak to is the refugee screening process, which as Assistant 

Secretary Richard mentioned, specifically as to Syrians is the most 

intensive process. It consists not just of the interview—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. As the FBI Director noted, you have little inside 

Syria that you can contact. You can’t access local or national databases there. You can’t interview neighbors. You can’t interview 

business associates. You can’t interview other contacts with the 

people, because they are either in the country, and we can’t get to 

them, or they are dispersed elsewhere around the world. Why do 

you think this interview process is so effective? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Because, again, it is based on extensive detailed 

mapping of family relationships, associations, credibility assessments based on prior documents. And, this is really critical, Congressman, it does not follow from anything that Director Comey 
68 

may have said, that we are clearing a void. In fact, people have either—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, the Director—I’m paraphrasing, but he 

said you can query a database until the cows come home, but if the 

information isn’t in the database, you are not going to find anything. And I think that is exactly—or he thinks—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, Congressman—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. Is the situation. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is why we have placed people on heightened review, that is why there have been denials. That is why 

there have been holds. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Why not do what so many Members of Congress 

and other people have said on both sides of the aisle, by the way, 

and that is hit the pause button on this? You know, the situation 

in Syria has been going on for a few years now. It continues to deteriorate, and the situation in terms of gathering information about 

people, we have a problem with forged documents that are fooling 

the Europeans and may be fooling us as well. 

Why not simply delay this for a period of time until we make 

sure that the criteria that we’ve set forth in the legislation that we 

are putting forward today can be met? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And, Congressman, I would say because the 

process as currently constituted and currently re-sourced, because 

your question is, is the best we can do good enough? And the fact 

is that it is the most intensive process. It has resulted in denials 

and holds. It is a redundant, rigorous process through which we 

put these individuals. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Krikorian, does the U.S. Government have 

any credible way of distinguishing between refugees from Syria and 

individuals who are posing as Syrian refugees? 

Mr. KRIKORIAN. They can try, and I have no doubt that USCIS 

officials, State Department, FBI, and the rest are doing their best 

to distinguish between people pretending to be Syrians and people 

who aren’t. But there’s a limit to how effective that can be, since 

there’s an extreme paucity of data. So sometimes, I have no doubt 

they will, in fact, smoke out people who are lying or cheating. I’m 

sure it happens all the time. But as Ms. Strack said just last 

month to the Senate, more than 90 percent of Syrian refugee applicants are being approved, and that that might go down a little bit 

as those cases that are in limbo are formally decided. But the average worldwide is 80 percent. So how stringent, really, can a vetting 

process be when more than 90 percent of the people are being approved? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair will now recognize Ms. Lofgren for a brief unanimous 

consent request. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to submit to the record of this hearing 37 statements, including from the Christian Reform Church, the Lutheran Immigration 
69 

*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing record but is on file with the 

Subcommittee, and can also be accessed at: 

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

Services, the Southeast Asian Resource Center, and the Disciples 

of Christ.* 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

The Chair will now recognize the Ranking Member of the full 

Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. 

My questions seem to be directed to Mark Hetfield, and the first 

one is—and I respect the important testimony of the other four witnesses, but I’m trying to see how much difference there is between 

the European refugee model and the U.S. refugee resettlement program. Is there much of a distinction there, sir? 

Mr. HETFIELD. There is a very significant distinction, which is 

why it is so surprising to me that the attacks in Paris have resulted in even more intense scrutiny of the refugee resettlement 

program. 

The refugees who arrive in Europe are not vetted in advance. 

They are asylum seekers. Their vetting does not begin until after 

they touch land in Greece or in Europe. In the United States, as 

Director Rodriguez testified and as you’ve heard over and over 

again, they are vetted—refugee applicants are vetted right-side up, 

upside down, and sideways, every which way you can possibly 

imagine, before they are admitted to the United States. And then 

the process continues after they arrive. They have to apply for adjustment, after a year in the United States. They continue to be 

under close watch. The risk in the refugee admissions program of 

admitting terrorists is very, very low. 

Mr. CONYERS. You know, we’re considering H.R. 4038 on the 

floor today, and conservatives around here argue the bill does nothing more than add a certification process that would ensure no terrorist element enter the country through resettlement. 

Do you think that’s the whole story behind this? 

Mr. HETFIELD. Well, it is a very short bill, and it does, technically, add nothing but a certification process. But that process 

would totally cripple a system without making it more effective. 

Refugees are already thoroughly vetted, as we’ve testified prior 

to arrival. And having three different, high-ranking officials certify 

each and every refugee case is a guarantee that the system will 

come to a screeching halt. It already moves so slowly. The refugee 

resettlement program is no longer a rescue program. It saves lives, 

but it saves lives very, very slowly. That would bring it to an end. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Hetfield, you are with the Hebrew Immigrant 

Aid Society. Now, are you concerned that refugees we would be accepting from Syria and Iraq would pose a specific threat to the 

Jewish community in the United States? 

Mr. HETFIELD. We are, as everyone else is, very concerned about 

screening people out who want to do us harm, especially those who 

have a particular ax to grind against the Jewish community. But, 

again, these refugees are thoroughly vetted. And what worries us 

much, much more, because we feel the vetting is being done. But 

what we’re also seeing right now is xenophobia, islamophobia driving a further wedge between Muslims and the rest the world. And 
70 

we’re afraid that can do far more damage to Muslim-Jewish relations, to who we are as a country, to our security as a country, and 

make us even more vulnerable to attack. Because we’ve basically 

said Syrian Muslims are not welcome here; we do not trust them. 

Mr. CONYERS. And my final question to you, sir, is for you to try 

to explain why our world with ISIS and other terrorist groups is 

different because they do not comprise enemy states or governments. Shouldn’t the safety and protection of our people be our first 

concern, even if it means not allowing some refugees into the 

United States? 

Mr. HETFIELD. It absolutely should be our paramount concern to 

keep the United States safe and secure. And I can say with great 

confidence that my colleagues in the Department of Homeland Security are doing that to a fault. That is their mission. And they vet 

every refugee to make us safe. And I really can’t imagine what additional protocols they could possibly install to make us any safer. 

No terrorist in his right mind would use the refugee program as 

a way to enter the United States. They may find other channels. 

It’s not going to be through the refugee program. It’s too intrusive, 

it’s too invasive, it’s too thorough in the security checks that it 

does. 

Mr. CONYERS. Secretary Richard, do you have anything to add to 

that comment? 

Ms. RICHARD. The people who we are bringing have gone through 

this process, but they’re also referred to us in the first place, because the UNHCR knows the type, the profile, of refugee that we 

want to help. And so we are looking at people who have been tortured, who are burn victims from barrel bombs, people who are 

widows and children, also the elderly, families that have been 

ripped apart as members have been murdered in front of their 

eyes. 

So of course, every single one of us feels that the first priority 

is the safety of the American people. And if we can’t provide for 

that, we would shut down the program. But we believe strongly 

that by the time a refugee is brought here, we are bringing some 

of the most vulnerable people, giving them a second chance at life, 

and we have screened out anyone, about whom we have any question—they weren’t even probably referred to us in the first place, 

which may be why we have a higher acceptance rate, and I think 

that the proof is in the success of the program and communities all 

across the United States. 

So thank you for the opportunity to provide some information. 

And we also would be happy, if given the opportunity, to explain 

more about the nuts and bolts of the process. We think it can withstand scrutiny. The Chair and the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee have spent a lot of time on this already this year, but 

we’re happy to meet with other members to go into the point that, 

for example, the FBI holdings would only tell you a limited amount 

of information about refugees. 

For example, if a refugee had ever committed a crime in the 

United States, the FBI could tell you that. But most refugees have 

never been to the United States before. So that’s why we have to 

use many more databases and many more techniques and many 

more approaches to get the full story, make sure their story holds 
71 

up, and if it doesn’t hold up, if there’s any question, they are not 

included in the program. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

Chairman Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I would like to single out Mr. Krikorian and thank 

him for his excellent testimony. I honesty don’t know how anyone 

could disagree with one word. But before I get to a question for Ms. 

Richard, Mr. Chairman, I just have to tell you how it seems to me 

right now, and that is that the President of the United States says 

he wants to protect the security of the American people. We have 

a bill on the House floor where the FBI has to certify that a Syrian 

refugee is not a threat to the United States. And yet, the President 

of the United States is threatening to veto a bill that tries to protect the security of the American people. 

I have no rational explanation for the President’s threatened 

veto. It is simply astounding to me that a President of the United 

States would want to veto a bill that tries to protect the security 

of Americans. I just don’t get it. 

But, Ms. Richard, my question to you is this: This year we have 

admitted 1,700 refugees from Syria already, just in the last several 

months. How many of those 1,700 refugees have been arrested for 

committing a crime? 

Ms. RICHARD. So we’ve brought 1,700 in the last fiscal year, 

which ended September 30. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Ms. RICHARD. Two thousand since the start of the crisis. As far 

as I know, none have been arrested unless you have contradictory 

information. 

Mr. SMITH. And you track all the refugees from Syria, including 

the 1,700, so you would know? 

Ms. RICHARD. No, we do not track them after the first 3 months 

in the United States. 

Mr. SMITH. Then how do you know whether they have been arrested. 

Ms. RICHARD. I rely on the law enforcement agencies to tell us. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And so far as you know, none of the 1,700 have 

been arrested? 

Ms. RICHARD. That’s right. I haven’t heard of any. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. As far as the stopping of the tracking after 3 

months, are you going to stop tracking the 10,000 proposed to be 

admitted next year after 3 months and the 20,000, perhaps, the 

year after? Are you going to stop tracking those individuals as 

well? 

Ms. RICHARD. Once refugees are in the United States, after a 

year of being here, they become legal, permanent residents. And 

after 5 years, they are allowed to—— 

Mr. SMITH. I understand that. I am talking about—— 

Ms. RICHARD. And because of that—— 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. The early period. 
72 

Ms. RICHARD. They are treated pretty much like ordinary Americans, and they are not tracked. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Right. But what I am saying is, are they treated any differently than any other refugees? Do you consider them 

to be any more of a threat than other refugees or not? 

Ms. RICHARD. Well, they are not treated differently than other 

refugees. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I think most people would consider to be Syrian refugees about whom we already—— 

Ms. RICHARD. I think Syrians are less of a threat, actually, because they have fled their country. They voted with their feet. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me stop you there. No. Let me stop you there real 

quick. You say Syrians are less of a threat, even though we’ve had 

testimony from the FBI Director that of all of the cohorts of refugees, including Iraqi refugees, we have less information about the 

Syrian refugees than others? 

I mean, the FBI director says he regrets he doesn’t have more 

data about the Syrian refugees, and he has real concerns, and he 

thinks it’s risky. Apparently, the Administration disagrees with the 

FBI director. But you’re saying, again, I just want to make sure, 

that Syrian refugees are less risky than other refugees? 

Ms. RICHARD. Well, my point is that Syrian refugees have been 

outside their country, and so we know what they have been up to. 

And there’s a record of the time they spend outside their country. 

Mr. SMITH. They may not have a record of terrorism. They may 

be would-be terrorists; they may be terrorists in training. Terrorist 

organizations have already said they are going to use the refugee 

program to try to infiltrate the United States. And you say you’re 

less worried about Syrian refugees than other refugees? 

Ms. RICHARD. I am very worried about terrorists. 

Mr. SMITH. I’m sorry? 

Ms. RICHARD. I am very worried about terrorists. I think we 

should focus on terrorists. I think we should prevent terrorists 

from coming to the United States. 

Mr. SMITH. And don’t you think Syrian refugees might some day 

become terrorists? 

Ms. RICHARD. I think the odds of a refugee being a terrorist are 

very, very small. But that doesn’t stop us from focusing our program to make sure nobody comes in who might be a terrorist. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. I appreciate you’re trying to focus the program 

that way. But we’ve heard from law enforcement officials that you 

really don’t have the data you need to make that determination. 

But let me go on to—— 

Ms. RICHARD. What the FBI has said is that they don’t have a 

lot of data from inside Syria, which makes sense, because the FBI 

has not operated there. 

Mr. SMITH. Exactly. So I don’t think there’s any way for you 

to—— 

Ms. RICHARD. And it’s also normal for us, with most refugees, not 

to have data. The exception is Iraqis and Afghans. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. But if you don’t have the data on Syrian refugees, then it seems to me to be very difficult for you to give the 

American people the assurance that they are not going to commit 

terrorist acts. 
73 

Ms. RICHARD. We do have lots of information about Syrian information. The FBI does not have a big amount of holdings on Syrians 

based on U.S. presence in Syria. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. The FBI—— 

Ms. RICHARD. We have a lot of information about Syrian refugees. And Leon’s program, he should probably talk about this more 

than I should, is it collects the information and does a fantastic job. 

I’ve sat through those interviews. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Ms. RICHARD. Instead of doing scores of visa applicants in a day, 

they take their time, and they do about three or four refugee applicants. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, all I can say is every law enforcement official, 

and I’ve heard a couple testify before Committees in the last 4 

weeks, have disagreed with you. They say they have less data, less 

information about the Syrian refugees. If you are an outlier on 

that, you are entitled to your opinion. I’m just saying what other 

law enforcement officials have testified. 

Last question is this, if the citizens of a State or a city do not 

want to have Syrian refugees resettled within their jurisdictions, 

State or city, is the State Department, is the Administration going 

to force them to take those refugees? 

Ms. RICHARD. Well, there’s a legal answer, and then there’s a reality answer. Legal answer is—— 

Mr. SMITH. Well, let’s go—— 

Ms. RICHARD [continuing]. This is a Federal Government program, and so the Federal Government has the right to resettle refugees all across America as we do in 180 countries, all types of cities and towns, right. 

Mr. SMITH. I understand that. What’s the reality answer? 

Ms. RICHARD. The reality answer is this program only functions 

only if we have the support of the American people, very much at 

the level of communities and societies and towns to come forward 

and help these refugees, help them get jobs, and help them move 

on. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. So you’re saying the Administration, while it might assert that it has a legal right, is not going to 

force the resettlement of refugees in locales—— 

Ms. RICHARD. Well, that’s for the President to decide—— 

Mr. SMITH. Let me finish. 

Ms. RICHARD [continuing]. Our recommendation would be not to 

resettle anybody in a hostile environment. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me finish my statement, please. Let me repeat 

that. You are saying the Administration, while they have the legal 

right to force resettlement, is not going to exercise that legal right 

if the local communities oppose the settlement of the refugees? 

Ms. RICHARD. No, I haven’t said that, Congressman, because it’s 

up to the President to decide that. But I certainly would not want 

to resettle anybody in a hostile community. Now, I don’t think we 

have many of those in the United States. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And I wouldn’t refer to them as hostile communities. They are acting in what they consider to be their best interests in protecting their own people. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. 
74 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from Texas. 

And I would just say, in light of the fact that votes are coming 

in 15 minutes, I am going to try to do a better job of limiting folks 

to 5 minutes, including myself. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to all the witnesses who have come. Thank you to the Ranking Member for her 

valiant effort on trying to strike a compromise with the bill that 

is being debated on the floor. I was delayed because I was speaking 

at the Rules Committee and trying to find—excuse me, on the rules 

on the floor, trying to find a reason for us moving forward with 

H.R. 4038. 

But I do want to thank the witnesses, so let me be very, very 

succinct, if I might. 

Let me, first of all, ask to put the U.S. refugee admission program overseas process diagram into the record. 

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I can hold this up. Probably it’s difficult to 

see the maze of which it is. 

So let me say that the inquiry that is being made through this 

legislation and through this hearing is a legitimate one. Having 

started on the Homeland Security Committee, as the recovery at 9/ 

11 was still occurring, having been to Ground Zero and seeing the 

angst and feeling that deeply imbedded pain, there is no memory 

that sears the minds of Americans as much as 9/11, although we 

have experienced much, such as the bombing of Pearl Harbor that 

resulted in the internment of Japanese Americans. I’m not sure 

whether at that time it made the Nation safer. 

So this process troubles me, and I’m going to quickly ask Ms. 

Richard, Mr. Rodriguez, a scenario. I understand that approximately 23,000 individuals are referred by the United Nations from 

Syria. I don’t know if they include Iraq. Out of that in the last year 

you took about 7,000 to interview, and about 2,000 came forward 

in terms of the process. The process lasts 18 to 24 months. Is that 

correct, Ms. Richard, about 18 to 24 months? 

Ms. RICHARD. Yes, that’s correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And they include the people who are outside 

of Syria, who are either in the camps, and not that you directly go 

into the bowels of Syria and pull somebody out. Is that correct? 

Ms. RICHARD. We do not operate inside Syria. This is only for 

people who have fled outside of Syria. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the individuals’ prioritization, are those 

who are women and children, families, 2 percent of them happen 

to be unmarried men. Is that correct? 

Ms. RICHARD. Of the ones we have brought to the United States, 

only 2 percent are unmarried single men traveling without family. 

So most are families, women and children, and multiple generations. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Rodriguez, have you read H.R. 4038, by 

any chance? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. As it happens, I have, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Very good. And good. It’s not one of our tall 

ones. It’s a limited one. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It was within my attention span, Congresswoman. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It has not had any hearings. It has not had 

a hearing before the Homeland Security Committee, which has the 

basic jurisdiction of domestic security. I haven’t had a hearing in 

front of the Crime Subcommittee of this Committee, though it deals 

with refugees, but it also deals with issues dealing with terrorism 

of sorts. 

But you are the tactical man, if you will, in this process. As you 

look at it, do you read it as I read it, that the elements of certification, or the persons engaged in certification, must certify every 

single person, Syrian or Iraqi? Do you read it in that terminology? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would not dare right now to opine or interpret 

other than to say that I am aware of it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But you sense that is—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I will talk about what we do right now and what 

we’re planning to do. 
81 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. Well, let me do this. Maybe somebody 

else wants to opine. Because I think you can opine, and I need you 

to understand and to be understood. It says that everyone in this 

category has to certify each refugee. Does it not? Can you say that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. I don’t think our far basic position, as the 

President stated last night, is that the process does—4038 doesn’t 

add anything to the—it doesn’t add anything to the already rigorous process in which we engage. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. Well, let me go back to Ms. Richard, 

then. And as I read this, each person would have to be independently certified. So if you are a 5-year-old Syrian girl, you would 

have to be certified by the long list of persons that already do it 

collectively? Is that not accurate? 

Ms. RICHARD. Well, I don’t know. I haven’t spent time looking at 

the bill, since it’s brand new. But we do have interviews for cases, 

which are either individuals or families. The interviews that Leon 

Rodriguez’s USCIS carries out are meeting with the whole family, 

and then—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me get, Mr.—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, the gentlelady’s time has expired, and I really 

do want to give every member a chance. And votes are imminent, 

so I’m going to have to—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 

King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses. And 

I direct my first question to Mr. Rodriguez. And that is, when you 

do this extensive vetting process, do you take into account the religion of the applicants? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We do not, except as that being a possible—in 

many cases it is, a basis of persecution. It is one of the categories 

of persecution. But we do not disqualify anybody because of their 

faith. 

Mr. KING. Do you take into account—do you ask them, what is 

your religion? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, if that is part of the basis for their persecution, then we do inquire into that, sir. 

Mr. KING. And even though the law requires whether it is or 

isn’t the basis for that, you are required to take that into account, 

religion. 

Then can you explain to me the data out here and what we’re 

seeing happen in the real world. And by the way, I just back from 

there a week ago. I was in the Kurdish region and over to the 

frontlines, as close as I can get to ISIS and into a refugee camp 

and up to Turkey, and on over into Hungary and Croatia and Serbia and then over to Sweden to see kind of the end result. But I 

asked in Turkey, take me to the refugee camps where I can talk 

to persecuted Christians, and they couldn’t do that. And I said in 

Kurdistan, take me to the refugee camps where I can talk to persecuted Christians. They couldn’t do that either. And the reason for 

that is the Christians are being taken into the homes that exist in 

the area and being taken care of in that fashion. It almost turns 

out to be exclusively Muslims within the camps, as near as I could 
82 

determine. Now, I don’t have data. I just have the answers that I 

got to the questions I asked, some of them from State, I might add. 

And so can you name for me or identify for me a suicidal terrorist that was not a Muslim? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I’m not even going to try to answer that question, Congressman. What I can talk about, Congressman, here 

today is—— 

Mr. KING. Well, why can’t you answer that question? Either you 

can say, I can or I can’t. That’s a pretty simple—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. KING. No, I wouldn’t. 

I’d ask the gentleman if you would also prefer to simply say that 

the Administration policy is not to utter these words; we have to 

walk around this subject rather than directly speak to it, then I’m 

willing to accept that answer too. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What I can say is that we do our job, and that 

if terrorists are attempting to gain admission to the United States, 

then we do our job to prevent them from doing so. 

Mr. KING. But you are vetting them. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That’s what the American people are asking of 

me. 

Mr. KING. You’re telling me that you’re doing a thorough vetting 

process, but you’re unable to tell me that you specifically ask them 

what their religion is. And if you don’t specifically ask them, then 

neither are you able to quantify the risk to the American society. 

But I want to move away from that a little bit. I think my point 

is made there. 

And I would like to make this point, that we are operating here 

on completely the wrong premise. We are operating on the idea 

that we can vet potential terrorists, no matter how much professionalism that we can bring here, and examine them up, down, 

sideways, as the gentleman testified, and that they come into 

America, then, and we’re going to be okay if we do a good job of 

vetting the refugees that we would allow into America. 

And yet, when I look at the situations here, for example, here’s 

the Daily Mail article, here’s the headline: ‘‘America’s enemy’s 

within; how nearly 70 have been arrested in America over ISIS 

plots in the last 18 months, including refugees who have been 

given safe haven turned out to be bringing terror against Americans.’’ Nearly 70. That number is actually 66. 

And so I understand that we can’t be perfect with this, but some 

of these people that came in as terrorists were vetted. I don’t think 

they were terrorists when they got here. They became terrorists 

after they got here. They became radicalized. Some were and got 

through. Some were radicalized. 

And so when I look at this, I think, we’re talking about a huge 

haystack of humanity. And that hay is benign, relatively speaking, 

but in that haystack are the needles called terrorists. And the proposal that’s coming from the Administration is that we are so professional that we can examine all of that hay, and we can identify 

any of the needles in it, terrorists; we can sort the needles out of 

the haystack and somehow prevent them from coming into America. We’re not putting them down to GTMO, where they belong, but 

let them come into America, and then this haystack would be be-
83 

nign, and it could become one of our culture and society, then it 

will simulate into the broader American civilization. That’s nuts to 

think that. 

And, furthermore, even if it wasn’t, then I would say to you, the 

benign hay that now you’ve envisioned, that we have already purified and cleaned the needles out of, now that that hay never ever 

morphs into a needle, a terrorist. But we know, even by this article, that people are radicalized in this country. They attack us. 

We’ve got multiple attacks in America. 

When I look at the map of Europe and the dots of the hot spots 

where they have been attacked in nearly every country in Western 

Europe, and it’s proportional to the populations that they’ve 

brought in from the Middle East and North Africa. Now, we cannot 

stick our heads in the sand and say that somehow that we’re not 

bringing this upon ourselves. We are watching this. We are slowmotion cultural suicide in American. Slow motion, a generation behind Europe. And I’ve traveled all over there. And I’ve walked 

down through the no-go zones, and country after country in Europe 

to see it. And I sat down and talked to the people that are there. 

And I’m watching them. They feel so guilty about political correctness that they’re willing to accept about any kind of violence 

brought into their country because they feel guilty about this. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman is out of time. 

Mr. KING. And I will conclude for the Chairman, that if we are 

going to save ourselves, we have to also intervene and provide a 

safe zone, international safe zone, for the persecuted religions, 

which are the Syrian Christians and the Chaldean Christians. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. You 

know, we are all shocked and horrified and deeply saddened by the 

news coming from Paris. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know there is much to fear both for our allies and for us. 

But in light of the attacks on our ally friends last Friday, I urge 

my colleagues to keep a cool head and not to react exactly the way 

ISIS and other terrorists hope we do, with fear, with chaos, and 

with lashing out. 

But sadly, that’s what we have seen. Republican governors and 

elected officials and candidates and media figures do. I’ve been 

here long enough to do know a thing or two about opportunism. 

Maybe it’s just too much to resist when you’ve got 15 guys and a 

lady running for President on the Republican side. Politicians, pundits, and celebrities would be attempted to say whatever they can 

to get in front of the news cameras and have it pointed at them. 

The governor of Illinois, my home State, could not resist saying 

that our State was closed to Syrians fleeing the terror of ISIS and 

the Assad regime. He said there was no place in Illinois for women, 

children, elderly, Muslims fleeing the Assad regime and the ISIS 

terrorism, the murder, the rape, the selling—there’s no place for 

those children and for those women. 

Luckily, just as he said that to show the opportunism, a wonderful Syrian family arrived in Chicago just 2 days ago and found a 
84 

safe place. That is the message that destroys the hatred of ISIS, 

not the reel that they are going to have of people saying, we don’t 

like Muslims; we can’t trust Muslims; Muslims are somehow going 

to create a cultural system in America that’s going to destroy us. 

Every community of people that have come here has strengthened this Nation. And I just have to say that when you use fear, 

when you use fear—and I do remember, Mr. Chairman, last year 

we were here, and the last fear that I remember talking about was 

when the kid showed up—remember when the kid showed up, the 

refugee showed up from Central America? We had doctors, medical 

doctors—I don’t know what medical school—saying that those children were bringing Ebola to the United States of America. They 

went to Africa, came back, crossed the border, came back with 

Ebola. A year later, where is it at? Remember? I remember governors saying that they were going to close down their States. 

Every time we hear this, it’s about they’re coming because they 

are murders, they are rapists; they’re coming because they are 

drug dealers. It’s fear, fear, and fear. And you know what the best 

tradition of America is, when people have stood up against 

fearmongerers who traffic in hatred and bigotry and prejudice. And 

that’s what I sadly believe is happening now with Syrian Muslims 

fleeing. 

Oh, if they were only all Christians, some would say, then it 

would be fine. You know what that kind of reminds me of, it kind 

of reminds me of the Irish, when they came here. They said, if they 

were only White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, but no, they had an allegiance to the Pope out in Rome, so therefore, they were suspicious 

people. We’ve heard these arguments time and time again in America, and America has always responded to them correctly by welcoming those to our Nation regardless of the faith that they hold 

so that they could celebrate that faith, so that they could live in 

that faith freely in America, because we don’t have those kinds of 

threats here. 

Look, we used fear during World War II. Boy, did we regret it, 

the internment camps of the Japanese, a stain and a blemish on 

America. We used fear and we used bigotry to say that those who 

would flee the prosecution and the persecution and the deaths of 

the Nazis and the Holocaust, we say no, there’s no room in America 

for you. There’s room, certainly, in America. 

I understand that there is a terrorist system out there that 

wants to hurt us. I understand that. But I also understand that 

there are tens of thousands of American men and women patriots 

that are out there protecting the homeland every day, and they are 

not working 100 percent; they are working 200 percent, and they’re 

keeping us safe. And that we are taking all of those measures, and 

they don’t willy-nilly just let anybody go through a screening process. No, those are Americans watching out for Americans, and I 

think we impugn their integrity and we impugn who they are and 

their patriotism to this country. 

So I would just like to say, look, we made the mistake before. 

Let’s not make it again. Let us have a system—if you said, all we 

want to do is lose—we want to add an extra layer, that would be 

good, but that’s not what we’re doing. They are in the camp, they 

are getting vetted. We should welcome them to America. We 
85 

shouldn’t fall into the trap of ISIS, I can see the reel now. Thank 

you so much. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 

Buck. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Rodriguez, I want to just tell you about my experience. 

I was the District Attorney in Northern Colorado, in Greeley, Colorado. We had between 1,500 and 2,000 Somali refugees, mostly 

Muslim, if not all Muslim, come to Greeley. There were some hiccups in the process, but for the most part, they were welcomed and 

have lived there happily in a community that is open to them. 

How many refugees are there around the world that are in a position to come to this country? How many potential individuals are 

there? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, we have our admission target. My understanding generally, is that there are about 19 million refugees 

worldwide. 

Mr. BUCK. Did you say 19 or 9? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Nineteen million. 

Mr. BUCK. Nineteen million, refugees worldwide. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And Assistant Secretary Richard can correct me 

if my number is off, but the number is the largest it has ever been. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. So we have 19 million. That’s what I was wondering. So 19 million refugees. How many of those can come to the 

country? What is our number that we would allow into the country? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Currently, every year we establish a target. Our 

target for this fiscal year is 85,000. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. So 85,000, a drop in the bucket of those 19 million. Why would the Administration object to a pause on Syrian refugees when we have 19 million potential refugees that we could 

take from other countries where we have been successful in integrating those refugees, for the most part, into communities and—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Because a quarter of all of those refugees worldwide are, in fact, Syrian. The potential for an even greater number 

exists with the continued activity of ISIL. 

Mr. BUCK. So let’s take a quarter. So we have 75 percent of 19 

million people, and that, again, 85,000, we could certainly find 

85,000 from that 75 percent. Why are we so interested in taking 

Syrian refugees? This isn’t a matter of religion, as my colleague 

from Illinois pointed out. There have to be various religions in that 

75 percent. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The situation in Syria is devastating to the extent that there is no reasonable prospect of return to that country 

for—— 

Mr. BUCK. And taking 85,000 Syrians wouldn’t do anything to 

change that devastation either. Would it? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It would. It would start us on the road. It’s 

something that we are doing alongside our European allies. The 

Germans, for example, are expecting 1.5 million people. 

Mr. BUCK. I want to move on. I understand. My point is simple, 

there are plenty of other people that we could take in, hit the 

pause button, and do some research on this. 
86 

Director Rodriguez, Mr. Hetfield said that he was surprised that 

attacks in Paris has resulted in more scrutiny for America’s refugee 

program. Are you surprised as an American that there is fear in 

this country over relocating Syrians into this country? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, there are enemies of the United 

States. Those enemies of the United States are in Syria. 

Mr. BUCK. I was just asking if you are surprised. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. My point is I know that the United States has 

enemies, whether they are in Europe, whether they are in Syria, 

whether they are—— 

Mr. BUCK. Your point doesn’t answer my question. My question 

is, are you surprised that Americans are fearful over what happened in Paris? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am neither surprised by the fact that there are 

fearful Americans, and I’m not surprised by that, nor am I surprised by the fact that many Americans want us to be a welcoming 

country to those in fact, who are victims of conflict and war. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. And so let me tell you one of the reasons why 

Americans are distrustful at this point. We have a President who, 

after the murder of an ambassador in Benghazi and the murder of 

three heroes in Benghazi, four people total, told the American people that the attack was the result of a video. We have a Secretary 

of State who immediately identified that it was not the result of 

a video, that it was the result of a well-planned attack. 

And then the Administration paraded out one official after another to lie to the American public, and the American public has 

very little faith in this Administration when they assure the American public that somehow they’re able to determine that Syrians 

that come to this country are going to be trustworthy and we will 

be safe. And it is a result of this Administration’s lack of credibility 

that has caused the fear and panic among many of the Americans 

in this country. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize Mr. Trott. 

Mr. TROTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Rodriguez, you know, kind of following up on Mr. Buck’s 

questions. Do you think Americans have a right to be fearful today 

in light of what happened in Paris and the threats against New 

York and Washington? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sure. I mean, there are threats to the United 

States. There’s no question about that, Congressman. 

Mr. TROTT. And do you think—you know, I’m going home this 

afternoon. And so what should I tell my constituents that we’re 

doing about their fears? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What we are doing is engaging in the—and I assume we’re talking about Syrian refugees, because there’s a whole 

lot more that we are doing to protect the United States that goes 

beyond just what we’re doing to scrutinize the 10,000 or so people—— 

Mr. TROTT. Your assumption is correct. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ [continuing]. Who may be coming. 

What I would tell them is this is the most rigorous process in the 

history of refugee screening. That, in fact, we have denied people 
87 

admission. In fact, there are hundreds of people on hold because either their stories lacked credibility or because there was derogatory 

information about them. So the work is being done. 

Mr. TROTT. But can you sort of understand the complete lack of 

confidence that most of my constituents, whether—let me continue, 

sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah. 

Mr. TROTT [continuing]. Whether the veterans over the VA, seniors over the future of the Social Security, families over the affordability of their health insurance premiums, as I go back to Michigan, can you sort of understand why people have apprehension 

about the confidence of the Federal Government, Congress included? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, I think it’s actually a benefit of 

this hearing that we have a little bit more of a burden of information with people than I think we perceived. I think we need to 

make sure that the American people understand in a calm, reasoned dialogue, what we are doing, because what we are doing is 

rigorous; it is extensive; it is redundant; it is careful. 

Mr. TROTT. So you are 100 percent confident that the process we 

have in place is going to work just fine going forward? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That it is a meaningful, rigorous, robust process 

that we are engaging in as aggressively as—— 

Mr. TROTT. In your mind, there’s no value in just hitting the 

pause button. And, you know, many people have made this vote 

this afternoon into a political vote. It’s not political at all. What 

Congress wants to do, and I think there will be many Democrats 

that join us, is hit the pause button and work in a collaborative 

fashion to make sure that our homeland is safe. There’s no value 

in considering doing that, in your mind? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I stand by what I’ve said about the process, so I don’t think it’s necessary that I repeat it. I do think we 

need to think about the costs of inaction. 

Mr. TROTT. I spent 30 years—do you believe that the process can 

never be improved upon? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, of course. And, in fact, we are working 

every day to make sure that we refine our understanding about 

what’s going on in these countries. We learn more, by the way, as 

we screen each and every refugee. So, of course, there’s room for 

improvement. But the process, as it exists, is a robust, intensive, 

meaningful process. 

Mr. TROTT. Okay. I’ll yield back. Time is short. 

Thank you for being here today, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing and your leadership on this issue, and I appreciate 

all the witnesses being here. 

I had a telephone town hall meetings with the people of the 

fourth congressional district of Texas, that I represent, just two 

nights ago. And it was similar to many of the telephone town hall 

meetings that I’ve had before, in a sense of I had about 8,000 people on the line at once. I’ve had as many as 3- and 400 people in 
88 

the queue to ask me questions. And that’s pretty typical. What 

wasn’t typical was the uniformity and lack of diversity in the questions that I had. I didn’t have a single question about ObamaCare. 

I didn’t have a single question about government overreach and the 

EPA. I didn’t have single question about $18 trillion of debt. I had 

3- and 400 questions about the Syrian refugee issue and the concern that ISIS may try and use gaps in our process to make America less safe. 

And there’s really no exaggeration or hyperbole in what I’ve just 

related to you. It underscores and highlights the grave concern that 

the people in my district, and I think around the country, really 

have about this issue. And it’s particularly relevant for us, because 

Texas, in the last year, has received—well, historically, has received the largest percentage of refugees for resettlement of any 

State in the country. 

Last year, for fiscal year 2014, 10 percent of all arrivals in the 

United States were resettled in Texas. And I think, or hope that 

we can all agree that the conflict in Syria, and ISIS has stated and 

promised, efforts to infiltrate the Syrian refugee process, presents 

us with a unique challenge here. And in light of these challenges, 

I think it’s incumbent that we all honestly assess whether our system is equipped to protect the American people. And if it’s not, 

we’ve got to hit pause while we fix the problem. And I know some 

have demonized this opinion, saying it lacks compassion. But to 

those folks, I would emphasize that America is the beacon of freedom to the world, in part, because it is a refuge, because it is a 

safe place for people to come. And if we sacrifice national security, 

we will weaken one of the very aspects of our country that attracts 

the weak and the vulnerable to our shores. 

So with that in mind, I want to start with you, Director 

Rodriguez. I understand that an applicant for refugee status must 

be cleared—or must clear all required security checks prior to final 

approval of their applications. But with respect to this process, do 

we admit individuals unless something negative appears during 

the screening process, or do we admit only for those—for whom we 

have information? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah. We need to have confidence, one, that 

they can sustain the claim for refugee status. They’re screened according to priorities by the United Nations’ high commissioner on 

refugees, that’s why a substantial number of them come as family 

units or victims of torture, victims, people who have been injured 

in war. 

We screen very carefully as to whether there are exclusions or 

bars that they apply, whether they have been affiliated with a terrorist organization. We have, in fact, ruled people out on those 

bases or placed them on hold because we have suspicion that those 

bases apply. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. So, I don’t mean to interrupt. So it sounds like 

we screen—do we screen on the presence of information or based 

on an absence of information? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We screen for both. In other words, if there is 

insufficient information, insufficient contacts for us to be confident 

that this person is who they say they are, and their claim is what 
89 

they say that it is, then that would be a basis, at a minimum, for 

that case to be placed on hold. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. So let me move on quickly. I want to address it from a State and local perspective. And I understand that 

the current law requires consultation with State and local government officials regarding refugee settlement in the community. But 

I understand that the extent to which that consultation actually 

takes place varies greatly. The consultation is supposed to result 

in the development of policies and strategies for the placement, resettlement of refugees, but as all of you probably know, as of yesterday more than 25 governors, including my governor in Texas, 

issued statements saying it would bar Syrian refugees from settling 

in their States. 

So I want to ask that question, would consultation take into account a desire on the part of a State’s governor and residents to 

decline to accept refugees? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, I think Assistant Secretary Richard will take this question, actually. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. All right. 

Ms. RICHARD. On the issue of consultation with the State and 

local governments, you are absolutely right, that that is an important aspect of this program. We require that the local organizations 

that are partners with us in carrying out the refugee program have 

quarterly consultations, that they do this with the community leaders. Every State has a State refugee coordinator, who is reporting 

to the governor, but who works with the Department of Health and 

Human Services to make sure that there is suitable provisions 

made for the refugees. 

One of the things that Chairman Gowdy has reinforced in our 

discussions is that it’s important that our partner organizations 

talk to the people who are the most responsible authorities at the 

community and State level. That they don’t just talk to people who 

are interested in the program, but that they go to the police chief, 

the mayor, the school principal, the healthcare center, and make 

sure they know who’s coming, what to expect, and that this, then, 

reinforces the community’s acceptance and preparedness to welcome the refugees. 

You are right that Texas is the most welcoming State in the 

United States for hosting refugees. And I was surprised that so 

many governors spoke out so quickly. I think that what we have 

to do—we had our phone call with all the governors that the White 

House arranged, the day before yesterday, and I think we have to 

get more information out to people so that they understand what 

this program is, how it operates, and why we take such care in 

making sure it’s done in a way that’s safe for the refugees, of 

course, who have been through so much, but especially is run in 

a way, that the security of the American people is not in danger. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. I would love to follow up, but my time has long 

since expired. I appreciate and I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. I want to let the witnesses know, votes have been called. In fact, the clock is on zero. 

So I am more than likely to miss votes, but I don’t want you to 

think that any of my colleagues left because of disinterest. They 
90 

have been called to the floor. It’s just a really important issue in 

my district. So I’m willing to risk the wrath of missing votes to ask 

some questions. 

And I wanted to go last, because I wanted to hear everyone else’s 

perspective. And I wrote a number of notes down, and I think I 

wrote them as accurately as they can be written. And this is the 

thought that kept going through my head. 

This past weekend, I saw a gentleman in my hometown walking 

away from a gas station carrying a gas can. So even I could figure 

out, his car ran out of gas. And I had to make a decision whether 

or not I was going to offer him a ride. And I did. I offered him a 

ride. That’s a risk, however small, that I was willing to take for 

myself. 

I would never ask any of you to do that. You have to weigh and 

balance that risk yourself. I’m willing to get on an airplane today, 

because I want to get home quicker. The risk is very small something bad is going to happen. I’m not willing to go bungee jumping, 

even though the risk may also be small that something bad’s going 

to happen. 

So I haven’t heard a single one of you say there’s no risk. In fact, 

you can’t say there’s no risk. Even Mr. Hetfield, I think he put two 

verys in front of it. He said it’s very, very low. I don’t know if it 

warrants two verys in front of it. But there is some risk. And nobody has said there’s zero risk. And I think every one of you would 

agree that the potential consequences of us getting it wrong are 

maybe cataclysmic. That we have to be right every time. So the 

risk can still be small and something bad can happen. And what 

I’m trying to get folks to do is weigh and balance the risk versus 

the potentiality of us getting it wrong. 

So let me start here. Have we ever gotten it wrong in the past? 

Now, I’m not talking about Syrian refugees. I’m talking about any 

category of refugees. Have we gotten it wrong? Has our vetting 

failed in the past? Is anybody aware of a circumstance where our 

vetting has failed in the past? Not all at once. 

Mr. KRIKORIAN. Well, I’ll take that one, Congressman. The answer is, yes, many times. Just earlier this year, an Uzbek refugee, 

admitted as a refugee, was convicted of assisting terrorism. A couple of years ago, two Iraqi refugees, in Kentucky who had been admitted, it turned they had their fingerprints turn up later on IEDs. 

And so the critics of sceptics, the defenders of bringing Syrians, 

they insist on saying, no one has been convicted—no refugee has 

been convicted of terrorist—no Syrian refugee has been convicted 

of terrorist activities in the United States. But these Iraqis killed 

Americans abroad. That doesn’t make me feel better that they are 

here. 

Mr. GOWDY. The conviction doesn’t mean anything to me. The 

terrorist attacker is not going to be convicted, because he’s dead. 

So you can’t use conviction as a barometer for whether or not somebody has been a threat. They may not be around to convict. 

So, does anybody disagree that there have been failures in vetting? Is anybody taking the position that we have made no mistakes? 

Ms. RICHARD. Chairman Gowdy, I agree with you that in the history of the 3 million refugees who have come here, there have been 
91 

a handful who have been a threat to the United States. And fortunately, they have been stopped before anything bad happened. And 

the two Iraqis in Kentucky were the most shocking example. 

They had done bad things in Iraq. They had lied to get into the 

country, and had our current system been in place, they would 

have been caught before they got here. And that’s why the system 

has been improved since that episode. 

You had said a few things in life are risk free. I heard the governor of Washington State say, you take a risk when you get out 

of bed in the morning. I mean, there’s a lot of dangers in the world, 

absolutely. But I think the program that we run, does as much as 

humanly possible to reduce the risks of bringing refugees to this 

country. And we have great confidence in it. 

And we invite members to come out to the field and meet some 

of the people who interview the refugees and sit through some of 

the briefings by Leon’s team that I sat through. It’s a very impressive, a very thorough event. 

Mr. GOWDY. And, Ms. Richard, that’s what makes me hate waste, 

fraud, abuse, deception, so much, is that when anyone engages in 

it, it also impacts those who would never consider engaging in it. 

Because it makes everyone have to stop and think. There is some 

risk. There is a great reality that if we get it wrong something bad 

could happen. And you have to balance the risk with the 

potentialities of something bad happening. 

And when you do have people who abuse any system, believe it 

or not, there have been Federal judges who undergo rigorous 

screening, including going back and talking to neighbors from 25 

years ago, and they still turn out, we get it wrong with them from 

time to time. United States attorneys, serious FBI background 

checks with every available database, we still get it wrong from 

time to time. Even Members of Congress, believe it or not, we get 

it wrong from time to time. So that’s what, that’s what I’m—we 

can’t do it this morning, but you can’t say there’s no risk. And I 

appreciate the fact that nobody has tried to say that. 

We all agree that we are dealing with an enemy that affirmatively wants to do whatever bad thing they can do to us. And I just 

think it’s put the American people in a really, really tough position, 

particularly given the fact that public safety and national security 

are the preeminent functions of government. I do want to end, Ms. 

Richard, by thanking you for coming to South Carolina and noting 

that the reason you had to come to South Carolina was nothing 

that you had done. 

And to Mr. Hetfield and others in his line of work, you’re exactly 

right. The sheriff needs to be talked to, the superintendents need 

to be talked to, the community needs to be talked to, not simply 

people who may be supportive. If you want to find out the truth, 

you got to talk to everybody, including those who may not support 

the program, so you can weigh and balance the competing evidence. 

You should not have had to come to South Carolina quite frankly. 

You should not have had to. It should have been done well before 

you and I ever met. 

So I think a lot of the information, the sooner it’s shared and the 

more fully it’s shared, the better people can make informed decisions. So as I leave to explain to the majority leader why I missed 
92 

the vote, this is what I would encourage everyone to do, Mr. 

Rodriguez, Ms. Richard, what I really wanted to do, if we weren’t 

going, is to get you to walk the American people through every step 

of the vetting process. 

I really do like the director of the FBI. But I also acknowledge 

that the FBI may be experts in this realm of data. You have access 

to other realms of data. And, again, people can draw whatever conclusions they want to draw. It’s really none of my business. But 

until they have all the facts, you can’t draw any conclusions. So to 

the extent you or someone else can just lay out for the American 

people every single step and every database you can access and 

every question you can ask and the training of the people doing the 

questioning, folks are still going to come down on different sides of 

this issue. They just are. But at least they’ll know they did it having access to every bit of information. 

So with that, I want to thank all five, I do want to thank the 

Administration witnesses for agreeing to a single panel. I know 

that that is unusual. But given the circumstances of the day, it was 

a necessity. I thank all of our witnesses. 

And with that, I’m going to head to the floor. And we’re adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(93) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
94 
95 
96 
97 

Æ