Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Refugee Resettlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Agencies and resettlement groups urge senators to oppose rollbacks to state refugee resettlement program
Summary
HB1706 would curtail New Hampshire’s state refugee resettlement participation. Resettlement agencies, faith groups, municipal leaders and people with lived experience testified that the federal vetting process is rigorous, state oversight supports rapid economic integration, and resettlement fills workforce needs; supporters of repeal raised fiscal and governance questions.
A wide array of community groups, resettlement agencies, and people with lived experience testified in opposition to HB1706, which would reduce or end New Hampshire’s participation in the state refugee resettlement program. Speakers described the program as a federally funded, highly vetted pathway that helps refugees move to economic self‑sufficiency and fills urgent local workforce needs in healthcare, manufacturing and social services.
Representatives of national and local resettlement agencies explained the multi‑year vetting refugees undergo before resettlement, the 90‑day federal stabilization period, and ongoing oversight by the state and federal governments. Resettlement providers described monthly reporting, random file audits by DHHS, and required performance metrics; they argued those checks create transparency and protect public dollars.
Several witnesses emphasized economic benefits: refugees are typically of working age, connect quickly to jobs, and reduce workforce shortages that otherwise constrain local employers. Faith‑based groups and small nonprofits described direct service provision and local partnerships that augment federal funds.
Proponents of the bill argued for financial prudence and local control, expressing concern about housing and state resource allocations; opponents responded that withdrawing would not stop resettlement but would shift processes to federal contractors and reduce state oversight, coordination, and local alignment with workforce needs.
What happens next: committee members asked for continued data on placements, costs and oversight. The hearing included emotional testimony from refugees who described the program’s life‑changing effect and urged lawmakers to preserve state participation.
Provenance: hearing recorded from SEG 4524 through SEG 5336.
