If the administration continues to feel strongly about these amendments. I suggest that they be considered in the other body. and we then can take up the subjects in conference. Today I will offer my comments on two of the issues: H.R. 5879. in its present form. authorizes "such sums as may be necessary" with additional specified amounts for social servicesprimarily English language training and employment servicesand reimbursement to State and local health agencies for their costs associated with providing health screening and initial treatment to refugees. While the "such sums" approach in the bill recognizes the difficulties inherent in attempting. at this point in time. to predict the amounts that will be needed for refugee cash and medical assistance. a more responsible approach would seem to be to specify in the authorization the maximum overall amounts which we feel the country can afford at this time. The administrations fiscal year 1983 budget request for domestic refugee assistance. including social services and preventive health care. is $514.8 million. This figure. in my judgment. realistically takes into account anticipated refugee admissions and levels of welfare dependency. My amendment accepts the administrations figure by specifying an overall ceiling of $514.8 million. The explicit authorizations for social services and reimbursement for health screening and initial treatment become unnecessary if we impose an overall ceiling. The deletion of the ceilings on these two items. moreover. allows the administration flexibility within the constraints of the overall total. This body. in my judgment. has an obligation to determine the amounts needed for our domestic refugee assistance program and assure the necessary budgetary control by specifying that figure in the authorization. Fiscal year 1983 will begin in just a little over 3 months from today. It would be reasonable and appropriate. at this point in time. for this body to exercise its best judgment on the maximum amount the domestic refugee resettlement program should cost and require the appropriations process to operate within the constraints of a responsibly set limitation. Also. I would like to discuss another proposed amendment in which I have decided not to offer today. Present law authorizes the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to reimburse up to 100 percent of refugee cash and medical assistance provided to a refugee during a 36month period. H.R. 5879. as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. deletes the words "up to" in the phrase "up to 100 percent." This amendment. favored by the administration. would eliminate the change in the language of the reimbursement provision. The deletion of the qualifying words "up to." in my opinion. is inadvisable for a number of reasons: First. the deletion of the qualifying words "up to" might lead to litigation in the event appropriated amounts prove insufficient to fund 100 percent reimbursement. Although the Judiciary Committees report states that the deletion of the words "up to" clearly expresses "the committees belief that. to the extent of available appropriations. States should be fully reimbursed for their refugeerelated cash and medical costs." States may not be satisfied with the committees conclusion that the right to 100 percent reimbursement is limited to the extent of available appropriations. The change in existing statutory language invites possible lawsuitswhich we can avoid by retaining the present language of the statute. Second. the Department of Health and Human Services. under the new statutory language of H.R. 5879. will be placed in the anomalous position of having to either reimburse States 100 percent or provide no reimbursement at all. This would be strange indeed. since an equitable distribution of limited funds might lead to decisions to reimburse a substantial percentage of the cost of States rather than provide a 100 percent reimbursement in some cases and no reimbursement in other cases. Third. the deletion on the "up to" language might lead HHS to give priority to cash and medical assistance reimbursement rather than other programs that contribute directly to the goal of promoting refugee selfsufficiency. Such a result would prove costly to the Government and harmful to refugees and the communities in which they live. Other sections of H.R. 5879 emphasize the critical importance of reducing welfare dependency. The change effected by the deletion of the "up to" language. however. would have the opposite result. HHS has concluded that[Bly making cash and medical assistance the first priority. the [provision] may limit HHSs capacity to provide ... other services or to respond to emergency situations. Fourth. the deletion of the "up to" language will deny HHS the flexibility to provide reimbursement at less than 100 percent in a case where a particular State funds refugee support at an excessively high level. HHS to date has provided for 100 percent reimbursementand I am hopeful that with reductions in refugee welfare dependency rates the Federal Government will continue to be able to provide reimbursement at 100 percent. No developments in recent years. however. justify the change H.R. 5879 attempts to make in the language of the Refugee Act of 1980. The key to an effective refugee resettlement program is flexibility to respond to changed circumstances. The "up to" language gives the administration the maneuverability it may someday need. It would be shortsighted of us to limit administrative flexibility in the future. The Judiciary Committees desire to express clearly "the committees belief that. to the extent of available appropriations. States should be fully reimbursed for their refugeerelated cash and medical costs" can be accomplished by appropriate statements in the legislative historybut do not justify a change in the language of the Refugee Act. We should be wary of tampering with statutory language which has not created a problem during the 3 years the Refugee Act of 1980 has been in effect.
Keywords matched
refugeerelated Refugee refugee refugees