Speech #1010077026

Mr. President. I would like to comment on the funding provisions in this appropriations measure for domestic refugee resettlement issues within the Office of Refugee Resettlement at HHS. The Refugee Act of 1980 forged a partnership between the Federal Government and State and local governments. In- essence. that agreement stated that the Federal Government would be responsible for decisions surrounding issues of eligibility. overseas processing. admissions levels. and the initial placement and costs associated with domestic resettlement. Moreover. the act was intended to hold States harmless for the eash and medical programs that they provide to refugees during the first 36 months of resettlement. In turn. States agreed to administer resettlement programs and accept the longterm responsibility for the Integration of these refugees into their communities. Unfortunately. Mr. President. we are finding that the Federal Government is shifting the burden of domestic resettlement onto the shoulders of the States and local governments who have been forced to absorb cuts in these programs despite a steady increase in the number of new refugee admissions. Already. funds for cash and medical assistance programs have been cut by onethird. I am pleased to note that the bill before us would. at the very least. fund these resettlement programs at last years level. While at first blush this may be seen as a positive step given our fiscal constraints. Senators may not be aware that this same amount of funds must be spread among a larger refugee population. It is particularly Interesting to note that while the administrations fiscal year 1990 budget request was predicated on an admissions level of 84.000 refugees. its recent consultation with the appropriate congressional committees reveals an admissions figure of 125.000 new arrivals. We all agree that the U.S. Government should work toward the most open and undiscriminating refugee admission policies. However. there must be a recognition that actual refugee admissions should be linked with domestic resettlement costs. This action signals that added costs will be shifted onto the shoulders of local governments. I want to commend the subcommittee for including report language pointing out this discrepancy and urging the administration to seek additional funds. There is one aspect of the committee report that I find especially troubling and that is the report language on page 208 of the committee report. As I understand. this language to read. the Office of Refugee Resettlement [ORR] would reserve up to 20 percent of the targeted assistance account for grants to localities most heavily impacted by the influx of refugees. including secondary migrants for local schools. hospitals. employment services. and other institutions. The report language further indicates. in part. that the most heavily impacted localities would be those with populations of 75.000 or more. of which no less than 20 percent of the population Is made up of refugees. including secondary migrants who entered the United States after October 1. 1979. Under current law. targeted assistance funds are made available to communities where there are high concentrations of refugees who require increased levels of resettlement assistance to promote economic selfsufficiency and to eliminate dependency on public assistance programs. Because California is home to almost 50 percent of the Nations refugee population whose welfare dependency rate exceeds 75 percent. one might ask why I am raising an objection. Well. Mr.