Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Heated hearing on bill to end New Hampshire's state refugee resettlement office draws dozens of speakers
Loading...
Summary
HB 17‑06 FN would terminate the state's refugee resettlement program and refuse federal refugee funds; DHHS warned repeal would forfeit ~$4.4 million in federal funding and disrupt contracted services, while resettlement agencies, faith groups, employers and refugees urged preserving the office for coordination and workforce benefits.
The committee conducted an extended hearing on HB 17‑06 FN, which would end New Hampshire’s participation in the state‑administered refugee resettlement program and decline federal refugee funding.
Sponsor Representative Corcoran argued the program imposes net costs on citizens and should be ended. He referenced academic and municipal reports during a long opening statement alleging fiscal and social burdens from resettlement.
DHHS legislative affairs director John Williams and Laura McGlashan, the state refugee program manager, testified that repeal would not stop refugees from arriving but would cause the state to lose federal funds — a $4.4 million fiscal impact cited by the department and a recurring Refugee Support Services grant of roughly $1,000,000 that is available only to states administering a refugee office. Williams said NGOs would still operate but warned that state contract management, oversight and coordination would be lost and that a lapse of at least 60 days might produce service gaps.
A broad coalition of witnesses — refugee resettlement agencies (International Institute of New England and Ascentria Care Alliance), faith groups (New Hampshire Council of Churches, Catholic Diocese), employers and workforce trainers — testified against the bill. They described the federal funding flow (federal grants administered via contracts), services the state office coordinates (contract monitoring, refugee support services, workforce programs, English instruction and health access), and argued that refugees contribute to the workforce (home care, health care positions, small businesses) and pay taxes over time.
Representatives of refugee and immigrant advocacy coalitions (Building Community NH, American Friends Service Committee, New Hampshire Immigrant Rights Network) and many individual refugees and volunteers offered personal testimony about integration, employment pathways and entrepreneurial activity. International Institute managing director Henry Harris and others emphasized the long vetting process, noted that refugees are assigned to resettlement agencies and that many arrive with skills relevant to state labor shortages.
Opposing witnesses included speakers who said the state should not accept the federal program or funding and raised concerns about local school and housing costs. Testimony also included allegations (by some pro‑repeal witnesses) of malfeasance or high executive pay at NGOs; those claims were contested by nonprofit witnesses who described federal and private funding models.
No committee vote occurred; members requested clarifying fiscal and program detail from DHHS and the agencies. The hearing produced a substantial record of arguments about federal funding mechanics, local fiscal implications and workforce contributions.
