Testimony to Senator Jeff Sessions on FY2017
Obama plan for refugee resettlement, by Ann Corcoran 10/17/16
Editor: This is another excellent testimony
submitted for the record on Senator Sessions’ hearing (Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest) we reported here.
We posted
another testimony from a concerned citizen, here, on October
9th. I know it is much more interesting to read about some hot news on
refugee and immigration issues generally, but I encourage you to take the time
to read expert testimony like this (below) so that you have a deeper
understanding of how the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program works.
Senator Jeff
Sessions (R-AL) is a top advisor to the Donald Trump Presidential campaign. If
you vote for Trump, you can be assured that Sessions sanity on immigration will
be a significant force in a Trump Administration.
You cannot
effectively seek to ‘reform’ this program if you have only a cursory
understanding of how it works.
As over-used as
the phrase is, it is still imperative to understand that ‘knowledge is
power’ (which has been a driving motivation for my 9 years of writing
this blog).
If you sent testimony and want me to have a
look at it (with the possibility of posting it here at RRW), please send it to
refugeewatcher@gmail.com with a prominent subject line using the word
‘testimony.’ I apologize if you have done it already and I’ve missed it.
Please send it again.
Here is
Joanne’s testimony:
October 1, 2016
The Honorable
Jeff Sessions
Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator
Sessions,
First I would
like to thank you for your leadership on the issue of refugee resettlement and
for exposing some of the ways in which this program operates to the extreme
detriment of national security and the economic prospects of many struggling
American citizens.
If ever there
was a federal program that should be required to appear in public to answer
questions and justify any funding, it is the one you oversee. The federal
refugee resettlement program has increasingly operated without sufficient
public scrutiny or meaningful input from all stakeholders, but with plenty of
ham-handed federal bureaucracy.
People are
rightfully alarmed about increasing information that has exposed the fiction
otherwise called “vetting.” The 18-24 month standard reply has now been
debunked with the news that the administration is accelerating “vetting” to 90
days, an arbitrary timeline at best. Even more concerning, is the news about
looking at “alternative safe pathways” that would bypass the resettlement
protocols currently in place in order to meet the President’s artificially
established Syrian numbers.
As defined by
the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement’s report to Congress resettlement
stakeholders include: resettlement agencies, state refugee coordinators,
refugee health coordinators, ethnic community-based organizations and ORR
technical assistance providers.
How can it be
that the taxpayers in the receiving communities are not considered relevant
stakeholders in this process? It would seem that now, more than ever, that ORR
must stop excluding residents of local communities from being recognized as
having a very real stake in this program and the process.
The federal
contractors’ proposed resettlement numbers are never made public prior to
acceptance and award of federal funds. The very communities that are directly
impacted are not considered stakeholders nor offered any opportunity prior to
award for meaningful input into these decisions. This past year I spent a
considerable amount of time and effort using FOIA and was still unable to have
last year’s resettlement proposals disclosed.
Years ago I
served as a volunteer with a resettlement agency. Over time I have watched this
program be transformed into an industry for government contractors with little
to no oversight, transparency or accountability to taxpayers.
The Cooperative
Agreement which VOLAGs execute requiring that federal funds only “augment”
privately raised funds is simply ignored. For example, the 2014 USCCB financial
report shows that $80 million was taxpayer money with another $10 million in
administrative fees. That funding was the predominant source of the USCCB money
despite the provisions in the Cooperative Agreement they have signed with the
State Department. Nor is the USCCB the exception among the nationally
contracted VOLAGs.
In fact, when
the cost of the refugee resettlement program is discussed, it is confined to
the State Department’s PRM appropriation and does not include the public money
sent to resettlement agencies through the many U.S. HHS grants.
Federal grants
like the “Refugee Home Based Childcare Microenterprise Development Project”
suggest that rather than using even more government funding to employ women in
home-based childcare enclaves, the money would be better spent if at all,
putting these children and mothers into existing community-based childcare
settings where they would be exposed to English and American norms.
While federally
funded Ethnic Community Self-Help organizations and Mutual Assistance
Associations are made to sound like good ideas, in reality they are yet one
more avenue to funnel public dollars to refugee based organizations that use
public dollars to claim refugee employment. Rather than assist refugees to
integrate or even marginally, assimilate into their new communities, these
organizations are designed to “ensure” that their charges retain strong ethnic
and homeland ties.”
The increased
per capita funding structure incentivizes resettlement contractors to increase
their numbers regardless of whether it results in a lower standard of services
provided to refugees.
The 2012 GAO
report “Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders Could Strengthen
Program” validates this position: “Because
refugees are generally placed in communities where national voluntary agency
affiliates have been successful in resettling refugees, the same communities
are often asked to absorb refugees year after year. One state refugee
coordinator noted that local affiliate funding is based on the number of
refugees they serve, so affiliates have an incentive to maintain or increase
the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number
to decrease.”
Nowhere is
there ever an accounting of the federal costs of this federal program that have
been openly shifted to state and local governments in direct contravention of
the original intent of the Congress that passed the 1980 law. And it goes
without saying, that the cost to taxpayers for all public assistance programs
such as Medicaid, TANF, public housing and food stamps is likewise not included
in assessing the fiscal impact of this program.
Any attempt at
objective discourse about how contractor resettlement business impacts the
community in which they operate, is met with disdain. Local affiliate offices
do not hesitate to publicly denigrate any taxpayer who raises legitimate questions
about the functionality and cost of the program. Propaganda films like “Welcome
to Shelbyville” and the “Refugee Resettlement 101” now being offered by local
affiliates across the country, are used to mislead the public and suggest that
anyone who questions what is occurring within the resettlement industry, is at
best, just “unwelcoming,” racist and bigoted.
At a minimum,
States should have final control over resettlement activities within their
state borders. Since states incur the on-going, long-term cost associated with
refugees, states should have complete control over resettlement activities
within their borders.
The 1981 Select
Commission on Immigration & Refugee Policy (“Select Commission”),
repeatedly addressed the financial impact on receiving communities. “Many state
and local officials are concerned that the costs of resettlement assistance
will continue beyond the period of federal reimbursement and that the burden of
providing services will then fall upon their governments.”
The Select
Commission seemed to well understand the fiscal issue for a federal program
where the long-term costs would be passed to state and local governments.
“Areas with high concentrations of refugees are adversely affected by increased
pressures on schools, hospitals and other community services. Although the
federal government provides 100 percent reimbursement for cash and medical
assistance for three years, it does not provide sufficient aid to minimize the
impact of refugees on community services.”
In 1982, just
two years after the 1980 Refugee Act was passed, reduction in federal support
started with federal cash and medical assistance reduced to 18 months. In 1988
it was reduced again to 12 months and again in 1991 to 8 months, which remains
the current level. In 1986, the federal government began to reduce
reimbursement to states for the state-funded portion of welfare, Medicaid and
SSI, eliminating it altogether by 1991 and shifting these additional costs to
the states.
The cost shift
has been openly and repeatedly acknowledged by the federal government. And yet,
these increasing costs are never acknowledged when calculating the true dollar
cost of the program. The 2010 Senate hearing started to identify the
significant costs states are forced to incur because of the federal program.
The U.S. Office
of Refugee Resettlement places such a high premium on shifting refugee
healthcare costs to states, that even the ORR Voluntary Agencies Matching Grant
Program Guidelines on page 9 states that: “ORR recognizes that weekly cash
payments may make certain MG cases ineligible for the USDA Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid. Thus, local Matching Grant
Program service providers may give some of the weekly allowance in the form of
vouchers if such a form of payment is in the overall best interest of the
client and he/she concurs.”
In other words,
circumvent the program’s rules to shift more cost to the state taxpayer. State
governments that decided to expand their Medicaid programs probably did not
anticipate that the Department of Health and Human Services briefing on “Key
Indicators for Refugee Placement” would so quickly advise considering Medicaid
expansion when deciding refugee placements.
With regard to
states that have withdrawn from the resettlement program, the federal
government does not have the legislative authority to assign an NGO to continue
the program in that state. This unconstitutional encroachment on the 10th
amendment right of states is barred both by law and U.S. Supreme Court
decisions and must cease.
“Self-sufficiency”
terminology should be replaced with specific reporting on public assistance
utilization, temporary v non-temporary employment and the number of refugees
resettled each year who are considered to be “unemployable”
Despite
documentation of high percentages of Medicaid and food stamp utilization, high
“self-sufficiency” rates are reported by the refugee resettlement contractors.
It is misleading to describe anyone, including refugees, as self-sufficient
when they also receive publicly funded assistance in the form of food stamps,
Medicaid and public housing. And still federal contractors are able to report
high self-sufficiency rates for refugees as long as they do not receive cash
welfare.
A past January
post on the “Friends of Refugees” blog posted the following about Bridge’s
Knoxville resettlement operations: “A former case manager also sent us
information about the agency and pointed out that the refugee employment
figures are dishonest as most of the refugees have only temporary employment
that does not help them to pay rent and be self-sufficient.
The nature of
the temp jobs also means that the refugees will be unemployed just a short time
after the agency reports them employed to the federal Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR) at 90 days and 180 days. (This, however, is a problem
throughout the refugee program, and it doesn’t seem that the ORR has much of an
interest in requiring that resettlement agencies report if refugees are working
at temporary or non-temporary jobs.)”
In states using
the Wilson-Fish funding model, the number of refugees who ultimately end up
using TANF, remains undisclosed and skewed by the 90 and 180 day employment
reporting figures so we never have an honest accounting at the end of the 8
month taxpayer subsidy period. All the while, refugee contractors claim that
the program is “fully funded by the federal government.” Simply not true
especially when considered through the perspective of the documented shifting of
federal costs to the state and local governments.
Public health
issues should be resolved before funding more initial resettlement. TB among
resettled populations has been a particular public health concern. It was
reported in 2009 that the sharp increase in Minnesota’s active TB cases was
tied to refugee resettlement. Because latent TB is not a bar to refugee
admission, health officials have expressed concern about cases of
drug-resistant TB being documented in communities with high refugee
resettlement.
In 2012 the CDC
reported that TB in “foreign-born persons increased to 63% of the national case
total,” a percentage that has risen steadily since 1993.
More recently
it was reported that “immigrants and those who travel to other countries
frequently have the highest TB occurrence,” and that “many of these
cases–approximately 450,000–are the drug-resistant form of TB that has
developed from improper medication usage and medical protocols.”
In April, 2012,
the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement circulated a grant announcement titled
“Strengthening Surveillance for Diseases Among Newly-Arrived Immigrants and
Refugees” since it appears that there is no comprehensive tracking of this
particular segment of public health concerns. More government money to throw at
a government created problem.
Reports of
depression and PTSD are now being reported as reasons that some refugees are
unable to work. Among Bhutanese refugees that are being resettled, the CDC has
documented a troubling statistic; a suicide rate higher than the national and
global average. One explanation offered has been the lack of jobs and the
resulting stress of unemployment not matching expectations of life in the U.S.
Conclusion
Public funds
are spent, hearings are held, reports are published and yet, nothing is done
proactively to respond to the problems and issues that are highlighted. The
federal agencies involved in refugee resettlement have enabled the growth of an
industry layered with ever multiplying federal grants but extraordinarily lax
on transparency and accountability. Currently, the U.S. refugee resettlement
program is administered in derogation of a state’s right to withdraw from the
federal program and a state’s right to set state level funding prerogatives.
Proposed resettlement
plans should be made publicly available before any award of funding and be
subject to public comments and public hearings.
Rather than
compounding the problems already identified, it may be time to temporarily
suspend the resettlement program and focus on the health and employment needs
of refugees already here. At the same time, Congress must cease denying the
information and positions of every national intelligence agency that has
highlighted the very real security concerns regarding the resettlement of
refugees.
During
deliberation of what finally was passed as the 1980 Act, then Attorney General
Bell testified that the consultation required by the Act was on the order of a
“wait and see” which he said operated as a legislative veto. While I well
understand the Supreme Court’s position on legislative vetoes, it remains valid
that the subcommittee understood that the detailed consultation requirements
would effectively operate just as Attorney General Bell described it – as an
“implicit veto power.” I can only hope you will successfully persuade your
colleagues to use it. Respectfully submitted,
An
afterthought: I should have mentioned that this is a legally required hearing
under the Refugee Act of 1980 and that Rep. Trey Gowdy who is chairman of the
corresponding subcommittee in the House of Representatives has failed to hold
the required hearing in advance of the 2017 fiscal year
No comments:
Post a Comment