[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 28, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7322-H7326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       RESETTLEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 2015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to speak tonight on an issue 
that impacts the safety and the security of our country. There is a 
grave

[[Page H7323]]

threat to our national security that no one seems to want to talk about 
or to address--we talk around it; we allude to it; we look the other 
way or vainly hope that it will just go away--but sticking our heads in 
the sand will not make it go away. Instead, the threat is growing, and 
a lack of knowledge, foresight, and action on our part could jeopardize 
the future of our children and our grandchildren. The threat that I am 
referring to is the Refugee Resettlement Act.
  Today, I want to share with my colleagues and the Nation some very 
important aspects of the Refugee Resettlement Program, which, I hope, 
will result in serious debate and in an effective reevaluation of our 
current refugee resettlement policies.
  After events like 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing, you would 
think that America would have implemented a more rigorous screening 
process for allowing entry into the United States. On the contrary, as 
the world becomes increasingly more dangerous, significant security 
gaps remain.
  President Obama has recently announced his plans to increase from 
70,000 to 85,000 the number of refugees allowed into the United States 
in 2016, next year, and, for 2017, he plans to bring in 100,000. Most 
of the increase is from Syria and western Iraq, a direct result of the 
conflict of ISIS and of Mr. Obama's own weak, disjointed foreign 
policy.
  In addition to the alarming national security concerns the 
resettlement program poses, there are significant costs that will be 
placed on the U.S. taxpayer and on State and local governments. The 
numbers that we have seen suggest a large economic burden on Americans, 
and we don't even know the full extent of all of the costs of this 
program.
  This is why I have introduced H.R. 3314, the Resettlement 
Accountability National Security Act of 2015. My bill places an 
immediate moratorium on the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program until the 
Government Accountability Office conducts a study to determine the 
economic costs to the American taxpayer and until Congress analyzes the 
risks to our national security.
  According to the U.S. Refugee Admissions' database, nearly 500,000 
new refugees have come into the United States under the Refugee 
Resettlement Program since President Obama first took office. As a 
first-term Representative from Texas, I immediately began to 
investigate this issue because the State of Texas and its taxpayers 
have been asked to take in more refugees than any other State.
  I found out that no one was asking--much less answering--the 
questions of who, how, when, where, and how much regarding these 
refugees. I also found out that aspects of this program are very hard 
to determine even by the government agencies supposedly overseeing it, 
mainly because these agencies contract and provide funding to 
nongovernmental organizations to administer the program and because the 
United Nations gets to choose the majority of the refugees who enter 
the United States.
  Since the Resettlement Act was signed into law by then-President 
Jimmy Carter in 1980, more than 3 million refugees from Third World 
countries have been permanently resettled in the United States; and as 
I said earlier, nearly 500,000 refugees in just the last 6\1/2\ years 
of the Obama administration have been resettled by private Federal 
contractors across this country in over 190 towns and communities whose 
local citizens have little to no say in the matter.
  The private government-contracted organizations that administer the 
Refugee Resettlement Program and choose the locations of resettlement 
within the United States are nonprofit groups. However, these 
nonprofits are paid, literally, millions of Federal dollars. I am very 
troubled by the Refugee Resettlement Act's cost to America.
  The stark financial problems of our nearly $19 trillion national debt 
argue against asking the American taxpayer to take on the further 
financial burden of tens of billions of dollars for refugee 
resettlement. According to official statistics published by the U.S. 
Office of Refugee Resettlement, or ORR, more than 90 percent of recent 
refugees from the Middle East are on welfare. This is alarming from a 
budgetary standpoint alone.
  The Congressional Research Service's memo that was issued to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee on the Office of Refugee Resettlement 
Admissions from the Department of Health and Human Services revealed 
that 74.2 percent of all refugees up until the year 2013 received food 
stamps while 56 percent received some sort of medical assistance. The 
very next year, in 2014, the ORR reported that 92 percent of Middle 
Eastern refugees were on food stamps, and over 68 percent received 
direct cash assistance.
  According to the ORR's annual report to Congress for fiscal year 
2013, the majority of the refugees who enter the United States are 
without any income or assets to support themselves and are given 
benefits paid for by State-administered programs.
  Families who have children under the age of 18 are eligible for the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program. Refugees who 
are older, blind, or disabled are eligible for Medicaid benefits and 
Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, whose trust fund right now is 
nearing insolvency. The Federal Government does not reimburse States 
for the costs or for Medicaid programs, which places a huge economic 
drain on the State governments. As a former mayor and local school 
board member, I know of the strain this places on local municipalities 
and school systems as well.
  Refugees in certain States who do not meet the specifications listed 
above, such as single adults, childless couples, and two-parent 
families, are still eligible to receive benefits under the Refugee Cash 
Assistance, or RCA, and Refugee Medical Assistance, or RMA, programs 
for up to the first 8 months that a refugee is in the United States. 
While the States are reimbursed for these programs, they cost U.S. 
taxpayers about $302.4 million each year.
  For 2013, the Office of Refugee Resettlement allocated $400 million 
for transitional and medical services, $150 million for social 
services, and nearly $50 million in targeted assistance. Along with 
several other allotments, the total refugee appropriation was over $620 
million.
  What many Americans do not realize is that refugees are eligible for 
lawful permanent residence, or LPR, status and for all Federal benefits 
after being here 1 year in the United States. In addition, if they have 
children born here in the United States, they are eligible for benefits 
as well. Robert Rector of the respected Heritage Foundation puts the 
cost of accepting just 10,000 Syrian refugees at more than $6.5 billion 
for a lifetime of costs.
  Again, I ask: Is this wise for a country that is nearly $19 trillion 
in debt?
  It sounds noble for the Obama administration to propose bringing in 
more refugees next year, yet there is no full accounting or 
transparency over what this will cost the taxpayers at the Federal, 
State, or local level. In a critical time when we must be economically 
responsible and prioritize our finite resources accordingly, allocating 
over a half a billion dollars for a program with unknown consequences 
is not the best use of our government resources.
  The question at the end of the day is: Can we really afford not to 
take a further look at the resettlement program?
  Let's also take a few minutes to examine the national security 
threats of this.
  Perhaps even more disconcerting than the enormous costs are the 
numerous security risks posed by accepting refugees without properly 
screening or vetting them. As entire regions of the Middle East 
dissolve into chaos, the ability to conduct the proper vetting of 
refugees by verifying places of origin, political orientations, 
criminal records, or sometimes even basic identities is, all too often, 
simply nonexistent.
  Already, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI 
Director James Comey, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh 
Johnson have testified under oath that they cannot properly screen the 
refugees who are streaming out of these war-torn areas of the Middle 
East.
  FBI Director James Comey said he had serious concerns about bringing 
in refugees from conflict zones. We cannot just call up the Damascus or 
Libyan police department and run background checks on these refugees 
from conflict zones. There is already a very

[[Page H7324]]

good chance that, of the 70,000 refugees per year coming into the 
United States, terrorists and ISIS followers who are posing as refugees 
may have slipped through the gaps.
  ISIS has promised that it will exploit this refugee crisis, and it 
has already, indeed, been caught attempting to do so. According to a 
senior Lebanese official, at least 20,000 jihadists have already 
infiltrated the Syrian refugee camps and are plotting to enter Western 
Europe. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, jihadist groups 
typically target European countries that have generous and liberal 
immigration policies and that are allies of the United States.
  In line with this, the Hurriyet Daily News, in Turkey, stated this 
past February that the Turkish intelligence service had warned police 
that 3,000 trained jihadists were attempting to cross into Turkey from 
Syria and Iraq and then make their way into Western Europe to target 
countries involved in the U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition. What 
is even more alarming is that the news publication reports that some of 
the members of the group, including their leaders, have already entered 
Turkey and have already established cells of terrorist operation.
  Palestinians and citizens from Syria who are between the ages of 17 
to 25 have entered Turkey as refugees and plan to travel to Europe 
through Bulgaria in order to attack anti-ISIS coalition-member 
countries. In fact, one ISIS operative has claimed more than 4,000 
covert ISIS gunmen have been smuggled into Western nations and are 
currently hiding amongst innocent refugees. He then warned ``just 
wait,'' according to the International Business Times.
  In May, the International Business Times also cited Libyan Government 
adviser Abdul Basit Haroun, who warned that ISIS operatives were being 
smuggled into Europe by boat. Haroun said that ISIS militants are 
taking advantage of the crisis by using boats for their own operatives 
whom they want to send to Europe, and the European authorities can't 
differentiate between those from ISIS and the actual refugees. If this 
is not disturbing, then I don't know what is.

                              {time}  1900

  There are also thousands of former refugees who have settled in 
Europe over the past several decades now going to join ISIS in the 
Middle East. According to Gilles de Kerchove, the European Union's 
counterterrorism chief, nearly 4,000 Europeans are estimated to have 
left Western Europe and gone and joined ISIS.
  We have even seen this in the United States refugee settlement 
communities as well. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, there have been 22 
young Somali men that we know of since 2007 that left their new refugee 
home in the United States to join the terrorist organization al 
Shabaab.
  In Somalia, they are fighting against U.S. allies and U.S.-trained 
troops. There are 27,000 Somali refugees in the Minneapolis area, and 
President Obama's plans call for thousands more.
  In Texas, 37-year-old Bilal Abood is an Iraqi American who is 
suspected to have come to the United States as a refugee or an asylum 
seeker in the year 2009. When the FBI went to his home, they found 
evidence of ties with ISIS, including pledging an oath to its leader, 
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
  A former cab driver in Virginia, Liban Haji Mohamed, who came to the 
United States as a Somali refugee, is on the FBI's Most Wanted 
Terrorist list for providing material support to al Qaeda and al 
Shabaab. He is considered particularly dangerous because he worked to 
recruit other U.S. terrorists for these terrorist organizations. He 
lived in Alexandria, Virginia, just a few miles across the river from 
where I am standing right now.
  According to Mike Mauro, a professor of homeland security and 
national security analyst at the Clarion Project, a poll was conducted 
in November of 2014 of 900 Syrian refugees. In this poll of recent 
refugees, 13 percent, or roughly one out of seven, claim to have 
sympathies toward ISIS. Alarmingly and incredibly, that amounts to a 
potential 130 ISIS sympathizers.
  The Immigration and Nationality Act, known as the INA, specifies that 
applicants for the resettlement program be subject to various grounds 
of inadmissibility, including criminal, security, and public health 
grounds.
  The grounds of inadmissibility applying to refugee applicants include 
the broad terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds, or TRIG, in 
section 212 of the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  Very disturbing is the fact that, beginning in 2005, the Department 
of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Department of 
Justice began exercising their discretionary authority to waive these 
categories of inadmissibility for refugee applicants.
  Then, in 2015, the Department of Homeland Security began implementing 
new additional exemptions for individuals if they only provided 
insignificant or certain limited material support to terrorists--this 
includes routine commercial and social transactions--or provided 
humanitarian assistance to undesignated terrorist organizations.
  As of this past June, the United States Government has granted more 
than 15,560 TRIG exemptions to refugee applicants. That is right. More 
than 15,000 times the Government of the United States has waived past 
participation with terrorist organizations so that refugees could come 
and enter into the United States. This must stop.
  The warning signs are everywhere of the potential of terrorist 
suspects posing as refugees while President Obama redoubles his efforts 
to bring these people in the United States and put at risk the lives 
and safety of the American people.
  We have recently had two terrorist gunmen in Garland, Texas, who 
linked themselves to ISIS; the shooter in Chattanooga, Tennessee, who 
killed five U.S. servicemembers, recruiters; and the Tsarnaev brothers 
in the Boston Marathon bombing, who killed three spectators and injured 
an estimated 260 others. What we need to ask ourselves is: How did the 
Federal Government fail the American people with respect to vetting 
these refugees?
  Of course, not all refugees are Islamic jihadists. Indeed, most are 
not. But the few that are pose a very real threat to the safety and 
security of the American people. The 9/11 terrorist attackers numbered 
19, the Boston terrorists only 2.
  As elected representatives, our responsibility to the American 
citizens and our communities should be our number one priority.
  The Refugee Resettlement Program has long operated under the radar of 
most Americans. The average American has no idea that this resettlement 
program is a U.N. plan that chooses which refugees come to the United 
States and that the United States taxpayer foots the bill.
  But as it has grown over the last few years and its implementation 
has become a threat to small communities, saddling them with the 
problems that refugee resettlement brings without their say-so and 
often even without their knowledge, residents in several States, 
including Texas, are starting to ask hard questions.
  No longer satisfied with past answers, they are showing up at 
townhall meetings, starting blogs and email lists, digging up 
information and informing their friends and neighbors of what is really 
going on with refugee resettlement in such diverse American communities 
as Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Lewiston, Maine; Amarillo, Texas; 
the State of Idaho; and many other locations, just to name a few
  To really see what America's future will be, we have to look no 
further than western Europe, which has taken in over half a million 
refugees just this year, not to mention the millions over the past 
decades.
  A very popular destination for refugees coming to Europe is Sweden. 
The country is currently facing a large-scale refugee crisis, and the 
government does not know where these refugees will live, how they will 
work, and who will foot the bill for them.
  According to Boverket, the Swedish National Board of Housing, 
Building and Planning, Sweden needs to build half a million homes by 
the year 2020. This costly housing initiative will cost about $387 
million a year and will only fund half of this by 2020.
  Sweden is also known for its horrific rape numbers. Recent refugees--
and now their Swedish-born children--are responsible for more than half 
of those convicted of rape, murder, and robbery.

[[Page H7325]]

  Clearly, the existing approach to addressing the plight of refugees 
is simply not working. Are these really the sort of problems that we 
want here at home and the United States?
  Again, I am not saying that brutal rapes, gang violence, and domestic 
terror are the norms, but, rather, they are the risks that have been 
seen in Europe that come along with accepting large numbers of refugees 
without proper vetting and screening.
  While refugee crises are tragic, crimes committed by transplanted 
people against unsuspecting, unprotected victims in their own country 
are even more tragic.
  The five wealthiest countries on the Arabian Peninsula--Saudi Arabia, 
United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain--have not taken in a 
single refugee that we know of.
  Instead, they have argued that accepting large numbers of Syrians is 
a threat to their safety, as terrorists could be hiding within an 
influx of people.
  The only help so far from Saudi Arabia is an offer to build 200 
mosques in Germany. It is quite apparent that the fear of importing 
terrorists is real for American communities if Syria's own neighbors 
will not admit these refugees.

  My investigation of the refugee resettlement policies have also led 
to a concern for the most persecuted religious minority in the entire 
Middle East region: Christians.
  Of the nine nongovernmental organizations which receive Federal 
grants and contracts to resettle refugees, six are designated religious 
charities. However, I could find no mission statements from any of them 
about saving Christians.
  The U.N. connection could explain why so many non-Christian refugees 
are chosen to be brought into the United States while persecuted 
Christians in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and other nations there have a very 
hard time getting within sight of the Statue of Liberty.
  In fact, the glaring shortcoming of the U.N. refugee program is that 
it falls short of helping one of the most persecuted groups around the 
world, and that is Christians.
  According to reporting by Nina Shea and Elliott Abrams, the United 
Nations High Commission on Refugees refuses to classify Christians as a 
persecuted group eligible for resettlement on this basis.
  Why? Because our Department of State chooses to adhere to a 
definition of refugees as people persecuted by their own government. 
The murders of Christian men, the rapes of Christian women, and the 
butchery of Christian children apparently do not count. These people 
are routinely beheaded, crucified, burned at the stake, sold into 
slavery, or have their property confiscated.
  In Iraq, ISIS has blown up dozens of churches, kidnapped Christians 
and held them for ransom, even after they have already murdered them. 
Last summer they started marking Christian homes with a red letter 
``N'' for ``Nazarene'' before they took the homes and exiled the 
owners.
  Unfortunately, for many Christians, exile is a better option than the 
inhumane atrocities that many in the region are currently facing. Many 
are sexually enslaved by ISIS, like Kayla Mueller.
  Kayla Mueller was a Christian American human rights activist from 
Prescott, Arizona. She was taken captive in August 2013 by ISIS in 
Syria after leaving a Doctors Without Borders hospital. After she was 
taken by the terrorist group, she was repeatedly raped by Abu Bakr al-
Baghdadi, who is the leader of ISIS.
  There are still many other Christian ISIS prisoners, including 460 
taken from Syria and many more who have already been killed. Many have 
been taken by al Shabaab in Africa. Pope Francis has even gotten 
involved and is calling this targeting of Christians a form of 
genocide.
  Many Christians who want to flee persecution face the difficult 
decision of where to turn and where will they be safe.
  A decision of how to flee and what mode of transportation to take can 
be critical to Christian families. It was reported this past April that 
12 Christian migrants trying to get to Europe by boat were simply 
thrown overboard by fellow Muslim migrants and drowned.
  Most are afraid to go to the U.N. refugee camps and fear the actions 
taken by some of their more radicalized Muslim neighbors within the 
camps. There are very few Christians in these camps and other non-
Muslims because they fear for their own personal safety.
  Unfortunately for these persecuted religious minorities, the only 
persons able to qualify easily for U.N. refugee resettlement are those 
people who are in these U.N. refugee camps. There in the camp they can 
be designated as priority 1 eligible by the United Nations High 
Commission on Refugees, and then they qualify for resettlement.
  This is critical to know because the U.N. refugee camps are the only 
source from which the U.S. will accept U.N. refugees under this 
resettlement act. Since very few Christians feel safe in these camps, 
it is apparent that this is the reason that less than 4 percent of the 
U.N. resettled refugees are Christians.
  Former Archbishop George Carey of Canterbury said it best when he 
stated that this inadvertently discriminates against the very Christian 
communities most victimized by the inhuman butchers of the so-called 
Islamic State.
  It is a sad reality for Christians in this part of the world right 
now. They are so desperate to leave that they have said that they will 
go almost anywhere except the U.N. camps to try to rebuild their lives.
  There is another method, however, other than the resettlement act by 
which it is possible to admit Christians and other groups into the U.S. 
as refugees. The U.S. State Department has the authority to designate 
certain groups like Christians as priority 2 refugees, which would 
enable them to enter the United States without having to be living in a 
U.N. refugee camp.
  The U.S. State Department needs to act on this immediately. It defies 
logic that we would want to potentially import the problems of the 
Middle East into the very heart of America.

                              {time}  1915

  The recent terrorist attacks in Garland, Texas; Chattanooga, 
Tennessee; Oklahoma City, and the Boston Marathon should serve as a 
dire warning.
  A report submitted by the Obama administration for proposed refugee 
admissions says that in the year 2014 the median age of refugees from 
Iraq and Syria was 28 and 23, respectively, and over half of these 
refugees were of working age, between 16 years and 64 years of age. In 
fact, according to U.N. statistics, 65 percent of these Syrian refugees 
are military-age males, who should be defending their own country and 
pose a risk of having ISIS infiltrators among them.
  Again, we don't need to look any further than Europe for all the 
evidence that we need to see the dire consequences for this program to 
American safety and security.
  According to the Gatestone Institute, half a million known migrants 
and refugees came to the European Union in the first 8 months of 2015. 
This number will most likely reach 1 million by the end of this year, 
and this does not include the number of individuals who slipped in 
undetected.
  Of the maritime arrivals in Europe, the top countries of origin are 
Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Nigeria, Albania, Pakistan, Somalia, 
Sudan, and Iraq. For the refugees who arrived by land, the top three 
countries of origin are Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
  There has been much criminal activity, including multiple cases of 
rape, among refugee camps. On August 6 of this year, police finally 
reported that a young 13-year-old girl was raped by another asylum 
seeker at a refugee facility in Detmold, Germany. The rape actually had 
taken place in June, but the police had kept quiet about it for several 
months, not wanting to alarm the German local population. It was only 
after a local media outlet had published this story about the crime 
that it came to light.
  According to German social work organizations, large numbers of women 
and young girls housed in refugee shelters in Germany are being raped, 
sexually assaulted, or forced into prostitution by male asylum seekers.
  An editorial comment in the German newspaper Westfalen-Blatt said 
police are refusing to go public about the crimes involving refugees 
because they don't want to give legitimacy to criticism of the dangers 
of mass, unchecked migration from the Middle East.

[[Page H7326]]

  In this refugee population, there are many elements that neither 
Europe nor the United States would ever invite in, and the challenge is 
separating them. Europe is dealing with a stark reality that it does 
not want to face and would prefer to turn a blind eye.
  Police in the Bavarian town of Mering have issued a warning to German 
parents not to allow their children to go outside unaccompanied. In 
another Bavarian town of Pocking, administrators at the Wilhelm-Diess-
Gymnasium have told parents not to let their daughters wear revealing 
clothes to avoid ``misunderstandings'' by the large number of refugees 
in their town.
  These are not the only troubling actions unfolding in Germany, a 
country which has pledged to take more refugees than any other country 
in the European Union. Levels of violent crime brought about by the 
groups from the Balkans and the Middle East have turned certain cities 
such as Duisburg into no-go zones for police, according to a police 
report from their headquarters in the North Rhine-Westphalia region. 
This is the most populous state in Germany. This report states that the 
ability of the police to maintain public order ``cannot be guaranteed 
over the long term,'' according to Der Spiegel, the newsmagazine which 
leaked the report.
  There are districts where immigrant gangs are taking over entire 
metro trains for themselves. Local residents and businesspeople are 
being intimidated and silenced. People taking trams during the evening 
and nighttime describe their experiences as living nightmares. 
Policemen, and especially policewomen, are subject to high levels of 
aggressiveness and disrespect.
  Unassimilated refugees and immigrants have turned large sections of 
Europe's great cities into no-go zones where even the police will not 
go. Jewish emigration from France is the highest since World War II.
  In the near term, nothing will change, according to this report. The 
reasons for this: the high rate of unemployment, the lack of job 
prospects for immigrants without qualifications for the German labor 
market, and ethnic tensions among the migrants themselves. The Duisburg 
police department now wants to reinforce its presence on the streets 
and track offenders much more consistently than before.
  I am not suggesting that every refugee or even the majority of these 
refugees are engaged in such criminal activity. It is a very small 
number. But what I am suggesting is that there are some among them who 
have terrorist intentions that have infiltrated these communities, and 
it is difficult to screen them out. Even one is too many.
  President Obama's plan is a potential national disaster waiting to 
happen. No one is saying that we should not help those who are in 
refugee camps. We should. America is the most generous and 
compassionate country in the world. We already are spending $4.5 
billion in humanitarian aid, food, shelter, and medicine for these 
displaced persons in these refugee camps. What we should not do is 
endanger the American people and the safety of our children and our 
grandchildren.
  Each of us serving in this body took an oath to support and defend 
the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic, and ISIS 
has already exploited this U.N. program to infiltrate Europe. We have a 
sworn duty to prevent foreign enemies from entering the United States 
and allowing them to become domestic enemies, particularly at taxpayer 
expense. The President's plan and the current policy of the Refugee 
Resettlement Act defies all logic.
  I am sure that I will be criticized and attacked for making this 
speech and sharing these very disturbing facts with you today, but I am 
compelled by the oath of office that I took when I was sworn in as a 
Member of the United States Congress to put the safety and security of 
the American people above political correctness.
  I didn't come to Congress to be politically correct. I came to uphold 
the U.S. Constitution and to protect our national security. Protecting 
our American way of life, the greatest experiment in liberty and 
freedom in all human history, is our highest calling as elected leaders 
of this great Nation.
  Those who criticize me for these remarks should instead turn their 
criticism toward those who are exploiting refugees and to the 
terrorists who are infiltrating these very refugees who are entering 
Europe and the United States.
  I encourage my colleagues to further investigate the Federal Refugee 
Resettlement Program and to join me in calling for a moratorium on the 
President's proposal while we fully examine the costs to the American 
taxpayer and the national security implications of his policies.
  Let us reassert our congressional authority over the refugee program 
and put the safety and security of the American people above all else. 
It is crucial that Congress take a look at the results of my proposed 
reassessment of the Refugee Resettlement Program, its cost to the 
American taxpayer, its threat to our national security, and its impact 
on our small towns and communities by passing H.R. 3314, the 
Resettlement Accountability National Security Act of 2015.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________