Speech #1010146892

Mr. President. I rise to comment on the amendment of Senator ARMSTRONG. which would require the State Department to expend some of its fiscal year 1990 funds being provided in this supplemental appropriations bill on the admission of 2.000 Soviet refugees who are Pentacostals or Evangelical Christians. I will not oppose this amendment. because it has been worked out in such a way that it will not act to disrupt the admission of other needy refugee groups which the Congress and the administration have agreed to admit during the annual refugee consultation. In addition. I believe the amendment has an appealing aspect of basic fairness to it. given the extreme and inordinate attention that our Government has given to some other refugee groups from the Soviet Union. However. this amendment still effectively serves to earmark a certain amount of the Refugee Bureaus budget for the admission of a particular refugee group. and I think earmarking is very bad public policy. Earmarking is the congressional micromanagement of foreign policypersonified. Earmarking restricts the Refugee Bureau from allocating these resources intelligentlya tricky task given the rapidly changing environment of international refugee assistance and resettlement needs. Finally. earmarking is often done by Congress in response to the powerful pressure of the special interest groups. These groups typically have their own narrow interests in mindnot the national interest. If Congress cannot create and guide a refugee policy that is in the national interest. then it should keep hands off of refugee policy. period. We should not fail victim to the pressure tactics of narrow special interest groups. We must do what is best for our country as a whole. and what is best for the needs of all refugees. worldwide. Let me give an example of what we have been up to. For fiscal year 1990. the Refugee Assistance Program must now comply with the following $22.1 million in earmarks: $9.5 million for Bulgarian Turks. $5 million for Iraqi Kurds. $4.8 million for refugees to Israel. $1.5 million for the headquarters budget of the International Committee of the Red Cross. $500.000 for antipiracy efforts. and $250.000 for Burmese refugees. I do not think that any of these fine groups or activities are necessarily undeserving. But lets face it: If they really deserve our money. then the Refugee Bureau will get it to them. If the Bureau does not give it to them. it is probably because there are more important refugee priorities somewhere else in the world. For example. the $22.1 million in earmarks I mentioned required the Refugee Bureau to make an 11 percent reduction in U.S. contributions to meet the basic needs of refugees in camps overseasand those needs include simple food. basic shelter. and medical assistance. I do not mean to be an absolutist about this. Certainly there will be a rare occasion when an earmark might be necessary. I might even go for one myself now and then. However. earmarking has become a regular national pasttime around here. It hurts our Refugee Program. and I believe it should stop. While I will not oppose this amendment today. I would like to put my colleagues on notice that future attempts to earmark refugee assistance funds will be met with spirited resistance from me.