Speech #1040190249

I take the well to regrettably indicate that I do not intend to vote for this rule. and I do intend to support the gentleman from California [Mr. BEILENSON in his motion. because I think the Committee on Rules made a major mistake in deciding which amendments they were going to allow this House to voze on. We have a very serious issue facing this country with respect to refugees. and I am talking about legal refugees. not illegal refugees. The problem is that the U.S. Government makes a foreign policy decision to allow thousands and thousands and thousands of refugees to come into this country and then it dumps the cost of educating and training and supporting those refugees onto local units of government. Now. I think that ought to stop. So I offered an amendment before the Committee on Rules which would simply say that if the Federal Government is going to make a foreign policy decision to allow refugees into this country. that they then ought to pay for the cost of educating and training them and providing worker training and providing language training so that a foreign policy decision of the U.S. Government does not become an unfair burden on local taxpayers. Now. Gov. Pete Wilson of California has been making this point strenuously for years with respect to immigrants. I think the point is equally correct with respect to refugees. So my amendment would have required that Uncle Sam pay for the costs of those refugees for the first 3 years rather than dumping it off on the local governments. and it would have required something which both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration tried to do but which they were blocked from doing by the court. And that is to require that. for the first year. those refugees be enrolled in intensive language training programs and job training programs so that they do not become long term burdens to local taxpayers. I see absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with that amendment. and I would point out this is not a new idea. Catholic Charities tested this approach in Chicago and they reduced the longterm percentage of refugees who remained on welfare by astounding percentages. They tried the same thing in San Diego and had similar very successful results. They tried it in Florida and also had very successful results. So what the amendment would have tried to do is simply take a proposal which has already been tested at the local level in pilot projects and implement it. so that we require for any refugee that comes into this country for the first year. rather than marching them right into the local welfare office. as now occurs. that what you do is instead put them in a private program run by local PVOs to teach them job training and to teach them English. The longterm savings of that cannot be doubted. For the life of me. I do not understand any substantive reason why the Committee on Rules did not make that amendment in order. We can talk all we want about cleaning up the immigration and refugee problems that this country faces. but until this Congress recognizes that they have absolutely no moral right to stick local property taxpayers with the cost of foreign policy decisions. this Congress is not living up to its job in dealing with major problems presented to local governments by actions of the Federal Government. I do not see. for instance. why local school districts should be burdened with the inordinate cost of providing education and language training to legal refugees. rather than having the Federal Government meet the costs. since the Federal Government made the decision to require those costs to be incurred by somebody in the first place. This is a case of the Federal Government. in my view. bugging out on its responsibilities to both the refugees they allow into this country and to the local communities and school districts who get hit with the consequences. and I think it is also a case in this instance of the Congress itself bugging out on its responsibilities to correct the situation. which is why I intend to support the amendment of the gentleman from California. if given that opportunity.