Although it is too early to know just what the impact will be on comprehensive immigration reform and other refugee policy issues, a change in power may result in a House of Representatives more interested in working with the Senate to approve a comprehensive bill that would include a legalization program and a way to deal with the future flow of immigrants, as well as border security. At the same time, the new Congress will need to respond to the voters’ messages on other issues, particularly the war in Iraq, which may dominate the congressional calendar in the early months.

Before the new Congress convenes in January, however, the current Congress must wrap up a number of appropriations bills that were left unfinished when Congress recessed in September to campaign. The lame duck Congress has adjourned for the Thanksgiving holiday, to return only for one or two weeks on December 4. In order to wrap up pending business before the end of the year, Congress may have to roll the remaining bills into an “omnibus bill” or a long-term “continuing resolution.” Either way, this will provide funding for federal programs throughout the current fiscal year 2007. Congress must also confirm outstanding nominees, including the new Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates, and also intends to pass a tax extender bill, which is set to expire at the end of this year. With this jam-packed agenda, it is unlikely that we will see Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform or the DREAM Act in the lame duck session, leaving these and other important immigration and refugee issues to be addressed by the next Congress.

U.S. Refugee Program Admissions & Funding
For FY 2006, the President set a target of 70,000 refugee admissions. However, only a total of 41,000 will be admitted this year under the U.S. refugee resettlement program, which falls short of the President’s target and our request of 90,000 for FY 2006.

Though the President set a goal of 70,000 admissions for FY 2006, by mid-fiscal year the State Department only had enough funds to resettle 54,000 refugees. In mid-June, the President signed an emergency spending bill, which included $75.7 million for the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account, the State Department's principal budget line for refugee resettlement and overseas refugee assistance. The bill contained no emergency funds for the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) account, which provides funding for unexpected refugee crises. HIAS and Refugee Council USA (RCUSA) had advocated for the Senate-recommended amounts of $110 million for MRA and $20 million for ERMA. Due to insufficient funding and new material support bars to admission under he PATRIOT and REAL ID Acts, admissions for FY 2006 did not even reach 46,000, as originally projected by the State Department.

HIAS is continuing to work with RCUSA to advocate for 90,000 admissions for FY 2007, and sufficient funding to meet that target. The President once again set the target at 70,000 admissions and requested $833 million for MRA and $55 million for ERMA (which is less than the amounts recommended by HIAS and RCUSA). The House passed its Foreign Operations appropriations bill (which funds MRA and ERMA) in early June with only $750 million allocated for MRA and $30 million for ERMA. The Senate's version funds MRA and ERMA at the President's requested levels, but has not yet passed the full Senate.

Funds to assist refugees once they have arrived in the U.S. - including the care of unaccompanied alien children, asylees, torture survivors, and trafficking victims - are provided by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, which includes ORR funding, has stalled in both chambers and is always the most contentious and difficult spending bill to pass.

To facilitate refugee processing, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has created a Refugee Corps, comprised of a permanent, professional staff, charged with addressing the changing needs of the U.S. Refugee Program. DHS began staffing the Refugee Corps last year and it has since become fully functional during FY 2006.

Material Support
In September, the Senate held a hearing on the issue of refugee admissions, which was primarily focused on the issue of material support. Testifying for the refugee resettlement and advocacy community, Father Kenneth Gavin of Jesuit Refugee Services called for a legislative fix to the material support problem. Michael Horowitz of the conservative Hudson Institute emphasized the Administration's failure to use the tools it already had to admit refugees unjustly barred by the current interpretation of the law. Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey said that the material support problem has resulted in decreased admissions during the past year and was likely to impact admissions in the future, but did not explicitly endorse a legislative fix. In fact, the material support problem may result in as many as 13,000 refugee admissions slots going unfilled in FY06. In addition, 565 asylum cases are on hold for material support, and 1400 refugees and asylees are unable to obtain green cards because they were admitted to the U.S. prior to the change in the interpretation of "material support" and are now subject to the bar.

Representative Joseph Pitts' (R-PA) recently introduced legislation, H.R. 5918, to protect the U.S. refugee program from the unintended consequences of overbroad “material support” related bars on admission, remains pending with 20 cosponsors. This bipartisan legislation would address the problem and clarify its intent with two narrowly targeted fixes to the law. First, the legislation would prevent groups that have supported the United States or that the United States itself supports – such as the Burmese pro-democracy movements, anti-Castro movements, and groups of Hmong and Montagnards that supported the U.S. during the Vietnam War – from inadvertently being labeled “terrorist organizations.” This will not affect the classification of current designated terrorist organizations whose members will continue to be barred from the United States. Second, the legislation would protect victims of terrorism who were forced under threat of death or serious bodily injury into providing goods or services to armed rebels from being defined as “material supporters” of terrorism.

Supplemental Security Income for Refugees
HIAS continues to advocate for a restoration of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to elderly and disabled refugees. Legislation to extend SSI eligibility for this vulnerable population remains pending in both the House and Senate (H.R.899/ S.453). The lead Senate sponsors are Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Herb Kohl (D-WI); the chief House sponsors are Phil English (R-PA) and Ben Cardin (D-MD).

In the meantime, thousands of elderly and disabled refugees continue to lose eligibility for this life-sustaining program. The current seven-year limit on SSI eligibility is a result of the 1996 welfare law, which imposed severe restrictions on legal immigrants' access to public benefits, including the SSI program. Without legislative action, over 40,000 refugees will lose SSI benefits by 2016. Of these refugees, over 8,000 are expected to be from the former Soviet Union.

While advocates remain hopeful that an extension could still pass this year, work has already begun to seek inclusion of an SSI restoration provision in the President's FY 2008 budget proposal to Congress.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Upon returning to Capitol Hill in September, the House GOP leadership announced that they would not compromise with the Senate on the Senate-passed “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006” (S.2611). Instead, they held a forum during which committee chairs reported on what they learned from the House field hearings held across the country in August. Following the forum, House Speaker Hastert announced a new "Border Security Strategy," which they planned to pass as stand-alone bills and as part of must-pass spending bills. The first such bill, H.R.6061, passed in the House in mid-September and duplicates measures found in the House-passed enforcement-only bill, H.R.4437, calling for 700 miles of double-layered fencing and barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. Despite calls for comprehensive reform by Senators Specter, McCain, and Kennedy, among others, Senator Frist announced that the Senate would consider H.R.6061. This decision effectively killed any chances of passing a comprehensive reform bill before the mid-term elections.

Rep. Sensenbrenner then introduced three border security bills in the House as part of the GOP leadership’s new border strategy. All three bills passed in the House by wide margins. Two of the bills – H.R.6094 and 6095 – contain provisions that limit due process for immigrants and require local and state law enforcement to enforce civil immigration laws. The third bill, H.R.4830, criminalized the building of tunnels across the border. House Speaker Hastert threatened to block agreements reached in conference committee on the DHS appropriations bill and the Defense authorization bill unless the enforcement-only provisions from H.R.6094 and 6095 were included in the bills. However, Hastert was unsuccessful in getting these provisions added in large part due to allies in the Senate such as Specter, Craig, Feinstein, and Warner, who opposed adding the controversial provisions to the must-pass spending bills.

The Senate on September 29 approved H.R.6061 by a vote of 80 to 19, which has been signed into law by the President. Most CIR advocates opposed passage of the Fence bill because it circumvents the progress the Senate has made on a comprehensive immigration reform package and will not stem the flow of illegal migration across the border without comprehensive reform. Even though the bill passed, there’s a good chance the fence will not get built. The DHS appropriations bill only included $1.2 billion in funding for a fence that’s estimated to cost twice as much.

As the dust begins to settle from the 2006 mid-term elections, one thing has become clear – the hardliner candidates who staunchly opposed comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) lost big. Facing many tight races all across the country, Republican candidates seized on illegal immigration as “the issue” that would help them retain the majority. Yet election results have made it clear that candidates who supported comprehensive immigration reform performed much better than those who took a hard-line enforcement position, and exit polling shows that the majority of Americans want a comprehensive and practical solution. With both chambers under a new leadership that’s more supportive of comprehensive reform and an American public that’s made their support for comprehensive reform known, immigration advocates are hopeful to pass comprehensive immigration reform in 2007.

DREAM Act
Approximately 50,000-65,000 undocumented students graduate from American high schools each year who are not able to access higher education because they have no legal status. In recent years, legislation has been introduced that offers an opportunity for these students to apply for legal immigration status. While the reintroduction of this legislation was stalled for much of 2005, in late November the Senate officially reintroduced the DREAM Act, cosponsored by Richard Durbin (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Richard Lugar (R-IN). Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Howard Berman (D-CA), and Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) reintroduced the American DREAM Act in the U.S. House of Representatives in April 2006. The DREAM Act was also incorporated into the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 by voice vote in the Judiciary Committee, which passed through the Senate in May 2006.

DREAM legislation would provide immigration relief to students brought to the U.S. at a young age and who demonstrate good moral character. Once such a student graduates from high school, he or she would be permitted to apply for conditional legal status, which could lead to legal permanent residence and eventual citizenship. During the period of conditional legal status, the student would be required to graduate from a 2-year college, complete at least 2 years towards a 4-year degree, or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years. Permanent residence would be granted at the end of the period if these requirements have been met and if the student has continued to maintain good moral character. The legislation would also eliminate a federal provision that discourages states from providing in-state tuition to their undocumented immigrant student residents, thus restoring full authority to the states to determine state college and university fees. HIAS will continue to work in coalition with the United We DREAM coalition to press for the inclusion of the DREAM Act, both as part of a broader CIR effort and as a stand-alone proposal to address the needs of a particularly compelling population of undocumented migrants.

November 20, 2006