Speech #970165323

I think the gentleman offers us that solution today. for which we are all very appreciative. Mr. Chairman. in the past. the Federal Government has recognized the national scope and the Federal commitment to our refugee aid programs. The historical responsibility for assisting in the resettlement of these refugees has not been solely a State or local issue. The Federal Government has been forthcoming with the needed financial aid to allow for the resettlement of our former allies of Southeast Asia who have been forced out of their homelands. This policy has been fair. The Federal aid has met many of the real needs of the refugees without penalizing local communities by making them assume the full costs. Unfortunately. under the redirection in Federal spending by the current administration. the Federal commitment to our refugees has come under question. Rather than responding to the needs of those victims of repressive governments who have sought shelter in our country. the administration has attempted to wash its hands of all responsibility for their plight. This change in policy is unfair. It is unfair to the refugees. It is unfair to State and local governments. And it is most unfair to the local property taxpayers who. after opening their hearts and homes to these refugees. are now expected to assume the full burden of the costs. Currently there are over 25.000 refugees living in Minnesota. Of that total. nearly 12.000 refugees live in Ramsey County. Mr. Chairman. the people of Minnesota did not determine the criteria which allowed the refugees to enter our country but we did recognize that we had a responsibility to our friends and were willing to do our fair share. We felt that refugee resettlement was a national issue and that we all had a responsibility to insure that our new citizens would be able to meet the physical and mental demands of acclimating themselves to a new society. The FederalStatelocal partnership has been working. The new citizens of Ramsey County and Minnesota have been hard working citizens. But they still face serious difficulties stemming both from physical and adjustment problems. Yet at this critical time. the administration has sought to shift the full burden of refugee resettlement to the local community and local taxpayer. The reduction in the eligibility period for refugees from 36 to 18 months does not recognize the transitional problems which refugees face. What this policy change does do. however. is to virtually half the Federal commitment and to shift this cost to local taxpayers. Mr. Chairman. the Federal Government cannot lose sight of the national scope of our refugee program. We. as a nation. must resolve this problem together. It is unfair to dump this issue onto the States as the President proposes. The consequences of such a policy are already being felt. The State of Florida. rightly or wrongly. is advising many of its refugees to move to States such as Minnesota. New York. and Wyoming. because their programs are better. This reverse bidding war. in which a State seeks to encourage refugees to move to better welfare States. is counterproductive. It does not best serve the refugee nor the local community. The only way to address the refugee issue is through a return to the Federal commitment to aiding our refugees. The Lowry amendment properly responds to this problem in a national context. The increase in funding is a response to urgent needs and basic fairness. It does not dump a national issue onto local taxpayers and does provide essential transition services for our refugees. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.