Speech #1000106995

Cambodia Is Drowning in a Sea of Despair". September 21. front page of the New York Times. "Trapped at Thai Camps. Cambodians Despair". and finally. the new Atlantic magazine article "The Last Bus." which tells of the misery and hopelessness of another group. the Hmong refugees who live to the north of the Cambodian refugees. and who are in no better shape. Mr. President. those news clips paint an ugly portrait of life in the refugee camps of Southeast Asia. Thailand. Hong Kong. Malaysia. and the asylum countries in the region have asked us for a commitment because they have seen our decreasing refugee ceilings and the conflicting and ambiguous signals from Washington. and have given us an ultimatum: "Speak now. or forever hold your peace. If you want these refugees protected until they can return safely to their countries of birth. then give us a commitment. yes or no." Mr. President. this amendment is the moment of reckoning for the U.S. Senate on Indochina refugee policy. The Senate has depended upon the Immigration and Refugee Policy Subcommittee for the last 7 years to draft annual refugee programs. and to balance all of the complex. competing interests involved. In large part due to the able leadership of Senator SIMPSON. and this year. Senator KENNEDY. the U.S. refugee program has been perhaps the greatest humanitarian initiative of the U.S. Government this centuryif not in quality alone. then certainly so in duration. But it is unfair for the Senate to place this heavy burden of politically volatile policymaking on a subcommittee of three Senators. and to abdicate our individual responsibilities to participate in the process of charting refugee policy in Southeast Asia. a process that really represents a constant battle to choose among undesirable options. Today the Judiciary Committee is fulfilling its primary responsibility to consider the Bork nomination and has little time to address the refugee emergency in Indochina. It is a small miracle that the committee was able to get a refugee consultations letter together which confirms Department of State admissions recommendations. Unfortunately. the Refugee Act procedures do not adapt themselves to the exceptional circumstances in Southeast Asia that demand more than a "year to year" lease. The firstasylum countries are asking for a specific commitment of a longer duration. and I believe we can and should make such a modest commitment. It appears the Judiciary Committee will not have the opportunity this year to consider substantive legislative action to commit the United States to an Indochinese refugee resettlement and protection program through the end of the decade. and therefore I and my 23 fellow cosponsors turned to this authorization bill. and will turn again to the State and Justice Departments appropriations bill. In light of the critical situation in Southeast Asia as reported by the press. by the Citizens Committee on Refugees. by the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights. and by so many other individuals and groups who have returned from the camps. I believe this amendment. title VIII. is absolutely necessary to stop the bleeding in the firstasylum situation in Southeast Asia. I am certain that the situation in Southeast Asia is a matter of life and death. and that if the Senate remains silent and does not go on record in support of a continued humane and generous refugee program. there will be consequences of our inaction that will be deeply regretted. Mr. President. the events of this past year indicate beyond doubt that the protection of refugees in Southeast Asia is linked to a reasonable resettlement effort by donor countries. For the past several years there have been conflicting signals sent by administration and congressional officials about the resolve of the United States to continue to assist with firstasylum camp populations. So for those who question the necessity of title VIII of this bill. I suggest you listen to what the firstasylum country chiefs said at the June ASEAN meetings. Why did Foreign Minister Siddhi of Thailand issue a public statement in March in support of S. 814. the Indochinese Refugee Resettlement and Protection Act of 1987? Thailand and Hong Kong and other asylum countries have an understandable apprehension about U.S. resolve in a continued resettlement partnership. These countries look to the rollercoaster rejection rates of the INS. they look to the admissions ceiling numbers that have decreased steadily since 1980 and have approached the point of being almost too low to matter. they look at the United States unwillingness to give more than 6month commitments on refugee resettlement processing. they listen to the voices of some U.S. Government officials citing "compassion fatigue" or urging a movement toward the elimination of a refugee program in favor of an immigration program (as if there were such a consensus in Congress and as if the United States could not accommodate both programs). and. they look at the Department of States strained logic in opposing S. 814. as proof of the lingering mean spirit identified with a former U.S. Coordinator for Refugees who sought to "manage down" to death the refugee program. These countries look to the aforementioned signs of reluctance and indifference from Washington and conclude that U.S. resolve is dying if not dead. Mr. President. these signs and signals send messages that I do not believe represent the sense of the Senate or the American people. I believe the United States remains committed to a responsible resettlement program in Southeast Asia for the next 3 years. Only such a commitment will ensure protection for the overwhelming majority of refugees in the region who will not be resettled and who can not go home at this time. All of us favor repatriation. But there can be no doubt whatsoever that repatriation at this time is foreclosed as an alternative. The other preferred solution. local resettlement. can be further explored. but ASEAN countries face economic problems of their own. And furthermore. local resettlement was not the agreement we struck with them when the refugees first started pouring out of postVietnam War Southeast Asia. I am confident that the progress in the reestablishing of U.S. dialog with Vietnam through General Vesseys efforts bodes well for a future repatriation agreement that is humane and capable of monitoring. This amendment puts the Senate on the record on a question which for too long has languished in neglect: the question of the U.S. commitment to the refugees of Southeast Asia and to our ASEAN friends who are providing asylum for them. For those who suggest that this amendment is unnecessary. I say they are terribly naiveit has been the avoidance of this question which. in part. has led to the steady erosion of trust between the United States and our great friend Thailand and others. We need to go on record whether there is an American commitment through the end of the decade to the refugees of Southeast Asia. I target the next 3 yearsthis is fundamentalbecause experts are in agreement that this is the earliest date for a possible resolution of Cambodia. Mr. President. we had better start addressing the source of aggravation for many of these refugees which is the unresolved MIAPOW question. and the humanitarian issues relating to MIAPOW which have to be settled first. before Cambodia can be resolved. I commend the administration for having now elevated that issue to the focus that they have in sending General Vessey to Vietnam for preliminary discussions. And I think that we can all take pleasure in that there has seemed to be a welcome response on the part of Vietnam. The bill also addresses the lingering INS difficulties in processing refugees. a difficulty that dates back to 1982 and Regional Head Joseph Sureck. and a difficulty that apparently was purposely ignored by the U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs. While the President himself had to intervene in May 1983 to settle the immediate problem. there still persists INS inconsistency and rollercoaster rejection rates. Mr.