Speech #1010162889

Mr. President. as we await the conclusion of the activities of the day. I note of recent times a great deal of discussion about refugee issues and pushoffs In various countries of the Earth and reassessment of things in Vietnam and the Vietnamese war and our obligation to those people who threw their lot in with us. We have done a pretty good job of taking care of those people and It has been to our great. good benefit in the United States in every way. But It was 10 years ago In March that the President signed the Refugee Act of 1980. I had been here in the Senate just about 2 years. I know the occupant of the Chair is very vitally interested in refugee issues because of his home State. Florida. The purpose of that original bill was to increase the admissions level of refugees by establishing a normal flow of 50.000 people. That was up from 17.400 people. That is where we took it in that act. Then. It changed the cold war definition of refugee by eliminating the geographical and ideological restrictions that were then applicable and also then adopting the United Nations definition. And they are the same. So. when we passed the Refugee Act we believed that we were eliminating our former ad hoc refugee policy and were thus adopting a new policy to ensure greater equity in our treatment of refugees. We intended to begin treating all refugees in conformance with our obligations under the United Nations convention on the status of refugees. We Intended to provide for the resettlement needs of homeless people outside of their own countries. and we even included under special circumstances. resettlement for refugees who were still within their own country. For much of the past decade the new law has served us quite well. However. in these last few years. due to a combination of the rapid conclusion of the cold war and the continuing and serious budget crisis in this country. we have strayed far afield from that new policy we envisioned 10 years ago when we placed this Refugee Act on the statute books. The United States and the International community have always emphasized that the preferable solution to the refugee problem Is the voluntary repatriation of the refugee to his or her home country. returning them to their country when it is safe to do sorepatriation. If that was not possible. then resettlement in the place of first asylum was the next best solution and that was. of course. once you step onto the premise of first asylum country. you are home free. The last and the least preferable solution all through the decades before. was resettlement in a third country. This prioritizing means that most of the worlds 15 million refugees will wait in camps in neighboring countries until it Is safe for them to return or until they can become selfsufficient in the first asylum country. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. that is UNHCR. maintains most of these camps and is totally dependent upon the international community for funding in order to provide basic refugee assistance: food. shelter. medicine. Unfortunately the worlds donor na. tions. led principally by the United States. have not maintained minimum levels of support for overseas assistance and the UNHCR has had to cut back on basic refugee assistance in camps all around the world. Why have we. I question. as a nation. cut back on this crucial refugee assistance? Because in the face of budget shortfalls. we have increased refugee admissions. We are now up to 125.000 a year. while we spend $7.000 for each refugee who Is resettled in the United States. We have reduced our support of the UNHCRs fine work overseas. And for literally a few cents a day we can provide lifesustaining aid to refugees in the camps abroada few pennies a day. This means we are not in any way of course now. then. getting the biggest bang for our refugee buck by our current policy. The very survival of refugees in U.N. camps is severely threatened as support for them dwindles around the world. Part of this serious problem is that we have returned in practice to the cold war definition of refugee. With glasnost and the changes which have followed in the Soviet Union. the doors to immigration in the Soviet Union have opened wide and need to open more. and we are accepting 40.000 Soviets this year who are not outside of the country of their nationality. who have not been displaced by war or civil strife and who. in many cases. do not meet the U.N. definition of a refugee as contained in the Refugee Act. They are being admitted to the United States in response to do. mestic political considerations. under new refugee profiles and studies and assumptions and presumptions. The troubling aspect of that policy is now that 40.000 Soviets are immigrating to the United States. I am very moved and inspired by that. But it is that they are entering our country as refugees with the usual refugee funding. that is. the United States is spending a great deal to do that. and other groups also. And as a result. now we are unable to meet our commitment and obligations to provide life support to needy refugees in camps all over the world for literally pennies a day. We spend $7.000 or $8.000 to relocate a refugee in the United States who is really not a refugee. We could spend $1.39 in the camps around the world and sustain people for an entire day. or sometimes pennies. literally. for a week. We have lost track of what we are doing under political gimmickry with regard to the definition of refugee. You are either a refugee or a refugee or a refugeeand that is a person fleeing persecution or with a wellfounded fear of persecution based on race. religion. national origin. or membership in a political or social organizationthat is a refugee. Let me conclude as we wind up the days activities. We are not meeting our obligation to refugees in camps around the world. Julia Taft. former head of the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. who has a long time involvement in refugee issues. has written a very provocative article called "A Call to Action for Restructuring U.S. Refugee Policy." It was recently printed in the 1989 World Refugee Survey. She discusses in some detail the issues I raise. as well as other important refugee issues such as the possibility of returning to private sector funding of refugee resettlement. Private sector funding would mean that we would continue our most generous policy of accepting refugees for resettlement without depriving overseas refugees who truly meet the definition of the assistance they so desperately need. Mr. President.