Speech #990150006

DC. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: This is to advise you of several of my deep concerns relating to the Administrations refugee admissions proposal which was presented to tile consultative members of the Committee on the Judiciary by the Secretary of State on September 19. 1985. First of all. I do not believe the proposed 70.000 refugee numbers is consistent with the Administrations previously stated objective of "managing down" the Indochinese refugee program. Since the refugee situation in Indochina has not worsened over the past year and In view of the fact that the countries in the region are following a humane first asylum policy. I see no valid reason why admissions cannot be reduced for Fiscal Year 1986. Second. there is a likelihood that the House will follow the lead of its Appropriations Committee and reduce the funding level for the refugee program. We were told that such an action could have the effect of reducing the refugee admissions level to 53.000. I am not wedded to an admissions number. but 53.000 may be an appropriate admissions level in light of possible funding cuts and in light of the fact that many domestic programs for poor and underprivileged Americans have recently suffered drastic budget cuts. As you know. I fought hard to maintain the Judiciary Committees recommended funding for the domestic resettlement program during House floor consideration of tile Refugee Reauthorization legislation. My efforts were unsuccessful. Tile recommendations of my Subcommittee which had been accepted by the full Judiciary Committee were flatly rejected by our colleagues. This underscores the need to deal realistically In setting admissions levels with likely funding reductions. The United States should not admit any more refugees for resettlement than It Is willing to properly finance. Accordingly. and in further light of the Administrations decision to terminate targeted assistance to communities heavily impacted by refugee admissions. I think the admissions numbers should be reduced. Third. Mr. President. the State Department has failed to commit the necessary personnel and resources to monitoring the use of the millions of dollars it grants to the voluntary agencies to resettle refugees. I have brought this often to tile attention of the Secretary of State. but I do not sense he shares my concerns in this regard. I continue to believe strongly that a greater commitment must be made to ensuring that the taxpayer is getting the most "bounce for the buck" in the cooperative agreements. Fourth. the Departments of State and Health and Human Services should make every effort to expand the role of Mutual Assistance Associations (MAAs) in the resettlement process. A refugees own countrymen and women. who have made the tough journey from refugee to productive U.S. citizen are often in the very best position to help that individual enter the mainstream promptly and with as little trauma as possible. The House Refugee Reauthorization bill recognizes that MAAs are underutilized. and I would urge the Administration to take concrete steps to achieve a greater use of this resource administratively without awaiting Congressional passage of the Refugee bill. Fifth. I am concerned that the State Department has not sufficiently pursued in Southeast Asia the preferred response to refugee problems. that is. voluntary repatriation. I do not feel the U.S. has actively pressed the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to intensify its efforts to voluntarily repatriate refugees back to Vietnam. particularly unaccompanied minors in closed camps in Hong Kong. Nor. have we adequately pressed the Thai Government. the Laotian Government. and the UNHCR on the question of returning Laotians to Laos who are determined not to be refugees after requisite screening. Unless these matters are addressed in an urgent fashion. I am convinced that a broad use of voluntary repatriation in suitable cases will never get off the ground. Sixth. the second preferred approach to refugee problemslocal settlement. i.e. allowing refugees to remain permanently in the country in which they sought asylumhas not been vigorously pursued by the State Department in Thailand. For many years the Committee has been told that "now is not tile time to raise the issue" of local settlement of Laotian highlanders in Thailand. I think. instead. Mr. President. that the time has come to raise the issue with the Thai Government contemporaneously with announcing the refugee admission numbers for 1986. In addition to local settlement. U.S. officials should continue to press with Thai officials the sea piracy issue prior to committing our Government to resettling a specific number of refugees from Thailand. Seventh. the fact that some 23.000 persons are already in the refugee pipeline makes the ExecutiveLegislative consultation process less a consultation than a cutanddried notice. To the extent that the U.S. has placed refugees in a Refugee Processing Center (like Bataan) the U.S. has agreed to admit tile refugees. So in future years. I hope the Administration could note clearly and in a separate category the refugees in the "pipeline". Presented this way in the Administrations consultation documents. the Committee will be able to more accurately reach its decisions on refugee admission recommendations. Finally. but certainly not the least important. is my serious concern that our admissions program is tilted too heavily toward Indochinese refugees. I believe we must have a better regional and nationality balance in our program. The Refugee Act of 1980 was intended to eliminate ideology and geography as the controlling factors in our refugee admissions program. We seem not to have accomplished this most important objective and a more balanced program would certainly be a step In the right direction. I appreciate this opportunity to share with you my views and concerns on your admissions proposal and on the refugee program in general. I believe we have made great strides since the enactment of tile Refugee Act and I look forward to discussing these matters further with your representatives in the Department of State. Justice and Health and Human Services. Sincerely.