U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–611 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–686

REFUGEES: SEEKING SOLUTIONS TO A GLOBAL

CONCERN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER 

SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 21, 2004

Serial No. J–108–97

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JOE JACQUOT, Majority Chief Counsel 

JAMES FLUG, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ..................... 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 48

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ... 2

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 71

WITNESSES 

Aguirre, Eduardo, Jr., Director, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. .......................................... 3

Dewey, Arthur E., Assistant Secretary, Population, Refugees and Migration, 

Department of State, Washington, D.C. ............................................................. 5

Franken, Mark, Chair, Refugee Council, USA, Washington, D.C. ...................... 15

Kuck, Charles H., Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Georgia School 

of Law, and Partner, Weathersby, Howard and Kuck, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia .......................................................................................................................... 13

Limon, Lavinia, Executive Director, Committee for Refugees, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 16

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Adler, Alan, Executive Director, Friends of Falun Gong USA, Tenafly, New 

Jersey, statement ................................................................................................. 25

Aguirre, Eduardo, Jr., Director, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ....... 30

Bacon, Kenneth J., President, Refugees International, statement ...................... 36

Dewey, Arthur E., Assistant Secretary, Population, Refugees and Migration, 

Department of State, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ......................... 41

Franken, Mark, Chair, Refugee Council, USA, Washington, D.C., prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 49

Kuck, Charles H., Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Georgia School 

of Law, and Partner, Weathersby, Howard and Kuck, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, prepared statement ....................................................................................... 59

Limon, Lavinia, Executive Director, Committee for Refugees, Washington, 

D.C., prepared statement and attachment ........................................................ 73

Stein, Daniel A., President, Federation for American Immigration, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................................................... 82

(1)

REFUGEES: SEEKING SOLUTIONS TO A 

GLOBAL CONCERN 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 

UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Saxby Chambliss, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Chambliss and Kennedy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. The Subcommittee will come to order. I 

thank our witnesses for being here today to talk about a very important issue, and that is the number of refugees around the world 

and what the United States is doing to resettle them here or to 

seek other viable solutions to their displacement. 

According to the United States High Commissioner for Refugees, 

there were about 9.7 million refugees worldwide at the end of 2003, 

down from 10.5 million at the end of 2002. The U.S. Committee for 

Refugees’ World Refugee Survey estimates that of the world’s refugee population, more than 7 million refugees have been restricted 

to camps for 10 years or more. 

While the overall decrease in the world’s refugee population is 

promising, the numbers remain staggering. The United States has 

long been a world leader in providing permanent resettlement to 

refugees around the world. In fact, it is U.S. policy to admit half 

the refugees identified by the United Nations High Commissioner 

for Refugees each year. 

For fiscal year 2004, President Bush authorized the resettlement 

of 70,000 refugees to the United States. And according to the State 

Department, we are on track to admit just over 50,000 by the end 

of the fiscal year. As many of you know, after September 11, 2001, 

security concerns resulted in a number of changes to our refugee 

program and the U.S. admitted fewer than 30,000 refugees for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The numbers for this fiscal year reflect 

the hard work of the administration and all of those involved, and 

I would like to commend them for this achievement. 

Despite all the work the U.S. has done to offer resettlement to 

some, the worldwide refugee population remains a vast concern. I 

hope today’s hearing can shed light on what the United States is 

2

doing bilaterally or multilaterally to encourage other nations to increase their efforts to resettle refugees. 

I was surprised to learn that the United States historically resettles half of all the refugees that get resettled in the world, leaving 

the rest of the world combined to resettle the other half. Of course, 

I realize that permanent resettlement is not the best option for 

every refugee, and I believe we should look at creative, new solutions to deal with refugees within the countries to which they first 

flee. 

Our witnesses today bring a depth of knowledge and experience 

on the issue of refugee policy. Secretary Dewey serves as Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration in the State Department, and previously served as the 

United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees. Eduardo 

Aguirre is the Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services at 

the Department of Homeland Security, and as a former refugee 

himself has a unique personal experience to bring to this discussion. 

I know the issue of refugees is one that my colleague, Senator 

Kennedy, is very passionate about, and I would like to commend 

him for his good work on this issue for a number of years. I would 

have to say that he has certainly enlightened me to this issue. Because of his passion and his commitment to this issue, this hearing 

has been brought about today. 

I would like at this time to turn it over to Senator Kennedy for 

any comments he would like to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Chairman Chambliss. 

I want to thank you for holding these hearings, and also for our 

recent meeting with the Secretary of State to have a chance to talk 

with the administration about the general challenges of refugees, 

and also about the administration’s policy on the admission of refugees. 

The provision which mandates the meeting with the Secretary of 

State was put in by our good friend and former Chairman of the 

Subcommittee, Al Simpson, with my support. It has been adhered 

by Secretaries of State over a period of years and it does give a 

highlight to both the problems of the refugees and also to policy. 

We have benefited from this meeting. We thank our two witnesses 

who attended those meetings with the Secretary, and we certainly 

commend the administration for the progress that we have made 

over the period of this last year. 

We thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your kind words 

and for your attention to this issue and the leadership you are providing. 

Refugees are a global concern. As the late refugee and human 

rights scholar Arthur Helton said, ‘‘Every refugee is a story in some 

sense. They are a physical, flesh-and-blood manifestation of the 

ways in which people cannot live together and the failure of governance and international relations.’’ 

Those words are true today. From the war in the Middle East to 

the political upheaval in Haiti, to starvation in North Korea, to 

3

genocide in Sudan, war is front-page news, but refugees seldom 

dominate the headlines. The troubles of our time are exacting a 

heavy toll on people fleeing from conflict and oppression. Throughout the world, people are on the move, and more and more refugees 

are silent witnesses to the cruelties that stain our age. 

America has a proud history as a haven for refugees, and we 

must continue to live up to it. since the end of World War II, refugee assistance has been a conspicuous aspect of our leadership in 

the world. No other nation has made the political, financial and 

moral commitment that the United States has made to protecting 

the persecuted from harm. 

In light of the vast refugee population and the enormous humanitarian need, the United States must continue to support refugee 

policies, and other industrial nations must do a good deal more as 

well. By maintaining a generous refugee program, the United 

States sets an example that other nations are more likely to follow. 

While we try to find durable solutions for the world’s refugees, 

we also need to do more to improve their daily lives. Today, as the 

Chairman pointed out, over 7 million refugees are warehoused, confined and deprived of their basic rights under the Refugee Convention, including the right to work, to travel, to have an education. 

In the most serious cases, they are confined in refugees camps for 

10 years or more and have no hope of returning to normal lives. 

Especially in the post–9/11 world, we cannot let refugee youth 

waste years of their lives in harsh camps. If we don’t provide them 

with an opportunity to receive an education and earn a living, some 

of them may be susceptible to influence by terrorist groups who 

want to do us harm. 

The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security have made significant progress in the last year to increase the 

number of refugees admitted to the United States. We must continue this progress and restore refugee admissions to a generous 

level. I also commend the United Nations High Commissioner for 

Refugees and the countless refugee humanitarian organizations for 

their extraordinary commitment in resolving these problems. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, particularly in the 

area of funding for migration and refugee assistance accounts, solutions for long-term refugees and issues relating to asylum. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming 

our witnesses. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Gentlemen, we are pleased to have you back with us today. We 

look forward to your testimony and to dialoguing with you with a 

few questions. 

Mr. Aguirre, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Thank you, Chairman Chambliss and Ranking 

Member Kennedy. I am again honored to have this opportunity, 

alongside my colleague, Assistant Secretary Dewey, to discuss the 

President’s proposal for refugee admissions in fiscal year 2005 and 

4

the role of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

USCIS, in the United States refugee program. 

As you have heard me say previously in this very chamber, refugees issues hold a special place in my heart. I know what it is like 

to be a refugee because, in fact, I was one. Forty-2 years ago, I 

came to this land of freedom and opportunity as a 15-year-old unaccompanied minor from Cuba. I arrived without family or money 

and no working knowledge of the English language. 

I was welcomed and cared for by charitable organizations that 

provided support and guidance to me as I began my new life in the 

United States. I would like to again offer my personal thanks to 

those organizations and to those that continue to provide a warm 

welcome to refugees arriving today. 

I followed in the footsteps of millions of others who have come 

to America from other countries in search of freedom, in search of 

opportunity and in search of a better life. I myself found all three, 

for which I am grateful beyond words. 

Having realized my version of the American dream, it is poignantly gratifying for me to lead an organization that plays a critical 

role in offering a new home and a brighter future to individuals 

who have fled persecution. 

Some may find it remarkable that as an immigrant, I would be 

in charge of United States immigration services. Instead of remarkable, I think it simply underscores the fact that naturalized citizens in the United States are not second-class citizens. Native-born 

or naturalized, as Americans we shoulder the same rights and responsibilities. 

I share Assistant Secretary Dewey’s pleasure in being able to report good news to you today. After 2 years of low numbers of refugee arrivals, admissions in fiscal year 2004 will exceed the allocated level of 50,000. This year’s admission of the allocated levels 

and some of the reserve reflects the hard work, adaptability and 

commitment of governmental, non-governmental and international 

organizations, all partners in the refugee program. 

This past year, USCIS deployed nearly 140 temporary duty officers on 60-day assignments overseas to supplement our existing 

refugee adjudicators who are permanently stationed abroad. Our 

officers conducted refugee status interviews of over 70,000 individuals in nearly 50 different locations for applicants from at least60 

nations. 

Two new programs that have been noteworthy in this year are 

focusing on the resettlement of the Meshketian Turks in Russia 

and the Lao Hmong in Thailand. Among other indicators of this 

successful year, 2004 admissions reflect the program’s increased responsiveness to vulnerable refugees in need of resettlement. 

While 10 years ago fewer than 6,000 African refugees were admitted to the United States, this year more than 28,000 African 

refugees will be admitted. Our officers conducted eligibility interviews in 18 different African countries, often processing in remote 

and difficult locations. 

It is indeed a positive development that the refugee program has 

become more diverse, with small at-risk populations processed in 

more locations. This shift in focus, however, presents new chalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:49 Nov 12, 2004 Jkt 096611 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\96611.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
5

lenges, perhaps the most difficult being the need to balance national security concerns with humanitarian objectives. 

Although the use of temporary duty officers has allowed us, 

USCIS, to meet our refugee processing responsibilities to this date, 

the complexity of refugee adjudications in the wake of September 

11 calls for officers with sustained overseas processing experience 

who have developed regional expertise. 

I therefore am pleased to announce that we have begun the work 

necessary for the hiring and deployment of a dedicated core of refugee officers in fiscal year 2005. This new cadre of specially trained 

officers, funded through the examinations fee account, will improve 

the quality of refugee adjudications, enhance our ability to combat 

fraud and screen for national security risks, as well as fulfill the 

humanitarian objectives of the refugee program. 

One of the missions of USCIS is to restore public confidence in 

the integrity of America’s immigration services; that is, to provide 

the right benefit to the right person in the right amount of time, 

while preventing the wrong applicant from accessing our benefits. 

The high priority that we place upon maintaining the integrity 

of our program reaches throughout the organization. Our efforts to 

verify the claimed family relationships of all refugee applicants are 

continuing and have resulted in the identification of numerous 

cases involving identity fraud and relationship misrepresentation. 

By adopting a strong, unequivocal position on fraud, we have been 

able to ensure that U.S. protection is extended to legitimate refugee applicants, while not compromising the security of our Nation. 

In closing, I would like to assure you that along with my personal commitment to the mission of the U.S. refugee program, you 

also have the commitment of the Department of Homeland Security 

as well. One-and-a-half years since its creation, refugee issues are 

a visible, high and important priority within the Department. My 

hope is that 1 day freedom and liberty will be enjoyed by all people, 

and that there will be no longer individuals who are forced to flee 

their homeland due to war or fear of their lives or for their political 

or religious beliefs. In the meanwhile, we will be here to do our job. 

I will be pleased to respond to any questions or comments after 

Secretary Dewey. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguirre appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Mr. Aguirre, and 

your personal situation allows you to bring a very unique perspective here. Under your leadership, obviously, good things are happening there and you are doing a great service to our country as 

well as your Department. So thank you. 

Mr. Dewey, we are certainly glad to have you here and we look 

forward to hearing from you at this time. 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR E. DEWEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

POPULATION, REFUGEES AND MIGRATION, DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. DEWEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Kennedy. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss where we are and 

where we are going with the U.S. refugee admissions program. I 

6

would like to provide a brief summary of my written statement and 

then submit that longer statement for the record. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Certainly. 

Mr. DEWEY. The Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration 

is responsible for refugee protection and refugee solutions. This 

year has been a banner year for refugee solutions. The return of 

approximately 300,000 refugees to their homes in Africa and nearly 

1 million this year on top of about 2.5 million last year returning 

to Afghanistan has brought the worldwide refugee population down 

by about 17 percent this year alone, and we have a realistic prospect of another 17-percent reduction next year if this pattern continues. This pattern, of course, is not just a matter of providing the 

welcome back home for our refugees who have left, but also to provide the funding for sustainment of these solutions. 

The performance of the U.S. refugee admissions program this 

year has also struck a significant blow for refugee protection. Increasingly, we are reaching out to some 60 nationalities in 46 different locations around the world in our rescue and protection effort for those who have no other hope for their future. 

At day’s end today, we will have admitted over 48,000 refugees 

in this fiscal year. Confirmed seats on aircraft will bring the total 

up to over 52,000 refugee admissions by September 30. This is an 

increase of 80 percent over our total last year. We will not only 

have met our allocated refugee numbers for 2004, but we will also 

enter fiscal year 2005 with a healthy pipeline of approved cases in 

the final stages of processing. 

This record, I believe, shows that we know what it takes to maintain and to grow a healthy refugee admissions program, and this 

despite the major Earth shift when the Cold War ended, a major 

shift for those people fleeing oppression, and also despite the 

daunting requirements after 9/11 to keep our borders open for refugees, and at the same time keeping those borders secure. 

The team—and this has been an extraordinary team effort from 

the State Department, Homeland Security, Health and Human 

Services, together with our NGO implementing partners and advocates—has convincingly demonstrated that the administration has 

the right stuff to grow the admissions program as the President directed that it be grown before the tragedy of 9/11. 

During and immediately after the Cold War, we had access to 

hundreds of thousands of refugees in two major places—Southeast 

Asia and the former Soviet Union. Now, we must seek out refugees 

in much smaller clusters located in 46 different and often dangerous places around the world. 

My bureau and Eduardo Aguirre’s Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security have 

spent millions of dollars of unexpected and unbudgeted dollars to 

move thousands of refugees to safer locations in Africa for processing. After arrival in these new locations, we have committed additional funds to harden these facilities to permit uninterrupted 

processing. 

Other security enhancements and streamlining procedures such 

as more stringent name checks have added significantly to the new 

costs of doing admissions work today. These new measures are 

vital both to growing and to keeping the admissions program alive, 

7

and they are costly. Before 9/11, the cost per refugee admitted was 

about $2,200. This year, the cost will be $3,500 per refugee. 

To reach our goals this year, we expanded the concept of rescue 

to include new populations such as the Meshketian Turks in Russia. We have also expanded family reunification. 

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, that is $2,200 and $3,500, and 

that is for how long a period of time? What was the extent of the 

period of time, the months that you used to cover? Or don’t you do 

that at all? 

You give it a lump sum? 

Mr. DEWEY. These are the costs to the State Department per refugee for the fiscal year. That is the cost to— 

Senator KENNEDY. I will wait my turn, but I thought you used 

to do it for a period of like 15 months or 24 months, and then that 

was reduced in the last several years to a shorter period of time 

as the total amount was reduced. But I am misinformed, am I, or 

do you just give them a block grant? 

Mr. DEWEY. No. The cost after they arrive in the United States 

is up to 90 days that we fund. 

Senator KENNEDY. That is what I was interested in. thank you. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Well, I had a question about that, too. The 

$3,500 you tell me, is that just to get them here? 

Mr. DEWEY. That is to get them here and the additional costs of 

the movement to safe places, the hardening of those safe places 

and the reception and placement costs to the NGOs who receive 

them and sponsor them during that first 90 days. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Mr. DEWEY. We have worked intensively with the office of the 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees to mainstream resettlement 

and to create in UNHCR a resettlement culture. This year, we expect the UNHCR will refer at least 21,500 individual refugee cases 

to the United States through this initiative. 

Refugee advocates in the NGO community, especially at Refugee 

Council USA and Interaction, played key roles in the identification 

and sponsorship components of the resettlement process. Our NGO 

partners in the United States have helped in major ways to 

streamline sponsorship processes. 

Particularly with your interest, Mr. Chairman, in the burdensharing and getting other countries to do more, this is important 

to us because one of the major reasons we work through the United 

Nations is to get burden-sharing through the United Nations. We 

work very hard in getting financial burden-sharing for refugee assistance overseas, and it is clear that we have to work more 

through UNHCR to get more burden-sharing so that our percentage of the UNHCR referral, now at 54 percent, can come down to 

a more reasonable proportion. 

UNHCR’s improved ability to identify resettlement cases also 

helps further our mutual goal of increasing the number of countries 

involved in resettling refugees. The rest of the world combined 

takes less than half as many refugees as the U.S. does. 

Other states have accepted some 20 to 25,000 refugees for resettlement in the past 12 months, as opposed to nearly 53,000 for the 

United States. Many European nations state that they are conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:49 Nov 12, 2004 Jkt 096611 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\96611.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
8

tending with large numbers of asylum seekers and are unable to 

voluntarily accept refugees from overseas as well. 

But the U.S. receives asylum seekers, too, and that in no way diminishes our commitment to resettle refugees. We will continue to 

work with the UNHCR and other countries to encourage the expansion of resettlement as a durable solution for refugees in need, and 

this will be part of the transformation of the program going into 

next year. 

We believe that we have accomplished all of the initiatives set 

forth in last year’s report to Congress, with one exception, and that 

is that there is the need to develop targeted strategies to improve 

the protection of unaccompanied minors. This will be a key focus 

for fiscal year 2005. 

The fiscal year 2005 presidential proposal includes several program modifications, including revised definition of processing priorities; expansion of Priority 3, which is the family reunification eligibility; and limited universal in-country processing authority. 

During fiscal year 2005, we intend to examine possible changes 

to improve and streamline the admissions process without compromising national security. We will explore additional measures to 

counter fraud and corruption, and to enhance the physical security 

of particularly vulnerable refugees abroad. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2005 proposed ceiling of 70,000 

refugees, with 50,000 regionally allocated, reflects the President’s 

commitment to a continued sustained recovery and growth in our 

program. However, the per-capita cost of resettling each refugee is 

likely to remain high. There just won’t be those economies of scale, 

despite the fact that we are bringing in greatly increased numbers. 

In order to be able to admit refugees into the 20,000 unallocated 

numbers, we will have to work very hard to identify additional refugees in need of resettlement and to reach them, access them and 

process them safely. And we will need to work very hard to identify 

the funding to support them, while continuing to meet the critical 

humanitarian assistance requirements that continue to exist 

around the world. I would put in that category the need not to jeopardize or compromise the substantial costs of sustaining refugee solutions, such as the remarkable solution in Afghanistan. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dewey appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. You 

mentioned in your written statement that we have for the record 

that you are reviewing a comprehensive study of the refugee program that the State Department has commissioned. 

Does that report make any recommendations for statutory 

changes, and if so what specifically is involved there? 

Mr. DEWEY. I am not aware that there are specific statutory 

change recommendations. Our hope has been that we would get 

some ideas as to how to enlarge the eligible pool for our consideration through non-statutory means, and this is what we are looking 

at particularly for the refugees in the warehoused category that 

you mentioned. 

9

Chairman CHAMBLISS. What about the report as far as recommending for the issue addressing fraudulent claims or cases where 

individuals are from countries where terrorist groups are known to 

operate? 

Mr. DEWEY. This is part of the balance that Eduardo mentioned. 

We realize that if we admit a terrorist, we strike a heavy body blow 

to the entire admissions program. We have had some hits to the 

intelligence base, so we know that it is a real risk. It is something 

we have to be continually vigilant about. 

We will continue that, but at the same time being realistic and 

recognizing that there are some approved cases—and I am thinking 

of Iraqi cases in Beirut and other parts of the Middle East that 

have been approved that have kept in limbo—this is another 

warehousing situation that concerns me a great deal and we need 

to saw off on this and get a determination that some of those cases 

that don’t appear to have any threat to the security of the country—that those cases be brought in. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. We obviously slowed down our influx of 

refugees following September 11. Did you find any corresponding 

reduction in activity from other countries following September 11? 

Mr. DEWEY. Not really. Their contribution has been so pathetically small anyway that there really wasn’t, except that our proportion before 9/11 was much higher than the proportion now, the 54 

percent now. I don’t think that has had an effect on the other countries. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Director Aguirre, you mentioned the refugee corps on your testimony. Can you explain further how these 

specifically trained officers will do things differently than in the 

past, and what are the risks to the U.S. refugee program that these 

officers will address that have not been addressed previously? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Mr. Chairman, it is a comprehensive focus that we 

are going to have on dealing with refugees. First of all, we are 

going to hire people that are suitable to this particular environment. They are willing to travel to difficult places. They are going 

to have language skills that perhaps are not present today 

throughout our agency. They are also going to understand regional 

nuances that are going to add value to their processing of refugees. 

If I could take just a quick second, a refugee almost by definition 

is lacking in many of the documentations that we look for with 

other immigrants. Because they oftentimes fled their country with 

just the clothes on their back, they don’t bring birth certificates or 

graduation certificates or any number of things we look for to corroborate their story. 

Therefore, the science, if you will, and the art of an interview 

adds a lot of value to our understanding the story of the individual. 

So we need to have good language skills, good ability to communicate with them, and at the same time understand what are some 

of the other stories that are being told by others so that there is 

substantiation. 

That is just one of the aspects of what the refugee corps will 

bring to the table. The other aspect, of course, is that we will have 

less disruption in the lives of our existing asylum officers who are 

now being deployed on a temporary basis for 60 days at a time. 

These individuals are going to be able to maintain the continuity 

10

of their jobs by staying in San Francisco or Boston or wherever 

they may happen to be. 

So all of that, I think, is our effort to deal with this changing and 

shifting population which is the refugee population. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. As a general matter, do you feel that the 

U.S. is less at risk from security concerns or fraud concerns by facilitating people coming to our country through the current refugee 

program which pre-screens these individuals, compared to people 

who claim asylum once already in the United States? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that there is a lesser 

or greater risk, considering that we are going to put all applicants 

through the same filters of background checks and careful scrutiny 

regardless of whether they come to us as a refugee abroad or arrive 

on our shores seeking asylum. 

At our U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, we will do all 

the necessary background checks, whatever is available to satisfy 

ourselves as to the bona fides of the individuals. Of course, we are 

looking for potential terrorists. There is no question about that. 

But we are also looking for potential fraud, people that would simply be undermining the integrity of the system, and therefore reducing the value to the future legitimate immigrants that may 

come here. 

But from a security standpoint, we are not cutting any corners. 

If anything, we are adding additional layers. 

We are making sure that not only are we doing the background 

checks, but also we are establishing computer systems that are 

going to indicate to us unusual behavior or unusual patterns by 

certain populations, et cetera. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Dewey, just to get back to a point that you were talking about during your presentation about the costs of the refugees, 

as I understand it, they do reimburse the Department, don’t they, 

for their airfare? 

Mr. DEWEY. That is right, and the reimbursement record is very 

good. 

Senator KENNEDY. The reimbursement record is very good. I 

think that is important to know because when you lay these figures 

out, they are sizable amounts and the commitment that they make 

to reimburse is impressive. I was asking staff about what the 

record was, and I think it is reassuring to know that they do. I 

mean, I think it is important that they do and they record shows 

that they do. 

I imagine it varies in terms of the support of the particular individual, or if they are in a family and they are going into these different kinds of communities, what it takes to get them settled and 

to get them sort of up and running. 

I mentioned the other day when we met that we had, I think, 

1,000 Bhutanese that came into Massachusetts. All of them have 

been enormously successfully settled, very much involved. I met 

with about 2 or 300 of them once at a very impressive sort of 

church ceremony and they have just been extraordinary citizens. I 

think it is not surprising for people whose ideal has been to come 

to this country and to try and make better do with it. 

11

But I guess it does vary, doesn’t it, about what kind of support 

an individual gets or a family gets to try to get them going in the 

communities. Is that right? 

Mr. DEWEY. The per-capita amount for refugees is $800 and then 

the NGO gets a headquarters portion about that. As far as each 

refugee, they get a fixed amount. But the ability to integrate depends a lot on the anchor relative or an anchor group that has already gone through the drill of getting housing, getting language 

training, and so forth. 

We are finding, for example, with the Somali Bantus, a wonderful group from Africa that has survived all kinds of persecution and 

have still come through, they are really capable, adept, good managers. They have shown it in the camps in Kenya. They had to 

start from scratch when they came here, and I saw how they were 

starting in Utica, New York. They were given a warm welcome by 

Utica. Utica loves refugees; Utica has benefited from refugees. 

The town that was going downhill is now reviving because of refugees and Somali Bantus are coming into that welcoming atmosphere. So even though they are new and just beginning and there 

are still only a few, they are going to be good citizens of Utica. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, that is a good story. In Lowell, Massachusetts, is the second highest number of Cambodians outside of 

Phnom Penh, but most of them came into other communities across 

the country and then infiltrated down there to Lowell. 

Last year, I believe, or the year before, of our 12 high schools, 

I think 7 of the valedictorians were sons of Cambodians. I mean, 

it is very impressive. They have resettled in some of the underserved communities and are doing the job. 

Let me ask you just about—in looking over the figures that have been requested next year, $730 million, to get to your goal of 

70,000 admissions, you still need additional resources. Is that 

right? 

Mr. DEWEY. That is correct. 

Senator KENNEDY. And that is $80 million more? 

Mr. DEWEY. It is approximately $87 million. 

Senator KENNEDY. And the Department is going to get behind 

that request and do what it can to try and get it and look for support for it. 

Mr. DEWEY. They had better. 

Senator KENNEDY. I think I heard an affirmative answer on that. 

Let me ask, Mr. Aguirre, we have the cap on asylum and it is 

10,000. As I understand it, we have 140,000 asylees that have applied for adjustment of status. So they wait 14 or 15 years under 

the current cap. Now, they can work; they can get a work permit, 

but it is difficult to travel, and there is no way that they can get 

on the track for citizenship. 

They have to run through the traps in terms of being qualified 

under asylum, and that is a very vigorous regime, as we know. 

Once they make that, they are still really held back in terms of 

their ability to become full-fledged involved in the community and 

the country. 

I was wondering what your position on that is. Once they quality 

for asylum, should we make it easier for them to be able to get the 

green card and move on the road toward citizenship if they qualify? 

12

Mr. AGUIRRE. Well, Senator, as you know, the issue of the cap 

here has to do with adjustment, as you indicated, of those individuals that are already granted asylum in this country. 

Senator KENNEDY. That is right. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. And indeed it takes probably the better part of 12 

years for whoever is coming in now to get on that conga line, if you 

will, to get to that cap. I think the cap needs to be revised, and 

I think the Congress and the administration would do well to look 

at it again, making sure that we don’t in any way dilute the security aspects of things. But I feel that the security aspect can be 

ameliorated from the standpoint that these individuals are already 

here. 

There are differing aspects to the administration’s position. The 

position that our Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau 

would take is more progressive, if you will, than those who perhaps 

are concerned, and rightly so, about the enforcement side of this 

particular aspect. But I think a dialogue is very much in place. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I hope we can continue. I think you are 

right. We are not talking about any loosening in terms of the clearances on this; those all have to be conformed with. But once they 

do that, then to sort of hold them back and treat them, for 14 to 

15 years, separated from their families and the rest, is something 

that we ought to give some thought to. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy alluded to our meeting with you gentlemen and 

Secretary Powell recently, and that was a very informative and 

very open meeting and we look forward to continuing that dialogue. 

I have to tell you you are one of the few Government agencies 

that comes in here asking for more work from Congress, and that 

is good to hear. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. It is this immigrant thing, you know. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. There you go. Well, you represent the 

country and your agency well, as I said earlier. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your 

work and for being here today. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Our second panel consists of Mr. Charles 

H. Kuck, Managing Partner of the Immigration Group at 

Weathersby, Howard and Kuck, of Atlanta, Georgia; Mark 

Franken, who is Chair of Refugee Council USA, here in Washington, D.C.; and Lavinia Limon, Executive Director, United States 

Committee for Refugees, here in Washington, D.C. 

Again, to the three of you, we appreciate very much you being 

here. We are very appreciative of the great work you do and we 

look forward to hearing your testimony and to dialoguing with you 

this afternoon. 

Mr. Kuck, why don’t we start with you? Am I saying that right? 

It is Kuck? 

13

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. KUCK, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF 

LAW, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA SCHOOL OF LAW, AND PARTNER, WEATHERSBY, HOWARD AND KUCK, LLC, ATLANTA, 

GEORGIA 

Mr. KUCK. You are. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Yes, good. 

Mr. KUCK. Thank you, Senator. I certainly appreciate that. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. It is a Southern thing. 

Mr. KUCK. It is certainly a Southern thing, and those of us that 

live in the South greatly appreciate bringing that attitude up here. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Right. Thank you very much for being 

here and we look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. KUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to briefly address 

the history of the refugee program. To bring into context what is 

happening today, I think it requires a better understanding of exactly what has happened in the past so we can make better determinations of how we should proceed in the future. 

The refugee program as it exists today did not exist from the history of the Republic. It is only in the last 55 or so years that we 

actually have an effective and working refugee program. Shortly 

after the end of World 

War II, with the shear volume of international refugees as a result of that conflict, the beginning part of the United Nations established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the 

United States was a signatory. Eleanor Roosevelt was our representative at that time, and we at that time decided that we were 

going to take in refugees into the United States. 

Now, the concept of refugees has existed for quite some time, but 

we as a country had not until that point accepted people on the 

shear fact that they were refugees. So beginning in 1948, we began 

to accept these individuals. In 1951, the United Nations Convention on Refugees was signed by the United States, along with a 

number of the other signatories to the United Nations Charter. 

The UN Convention on Refugees calls for countries to accept individuals who are displaced from their country, but even at that 

time there wasn’t a definition of who exactly was a refugee. The 

refugee program over the next several years foundered, in that we 

accepted people who might not have been refugees in the context 

that we would view them today, but were clearly individuals that 

were important for us to accept. 

I will give the court—I am sorry, Your Honor. I spend way too 

much time in court, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. That is a step up and I don’t think we 

ought to go there. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KUCK. Thank you, Senator Beginning in the Cold War, beginning really in 1952, we realized that the refugee program could 

be a tool for us to use to drive home the point that we were the 

country of freedom, that we were the country that others should 

emulate, that we were the country that people should seek to be 

like. 

We used the refugee program to admit a number of individuals 

from the countries of the former Soviet Union, then the USSR, to 

the United States, and we continued that program over the next 

14

30 years, up until the beginning parts of the 1990’s at the end of 

the Cold War. 

Through various, different aspects of that Cold War, we admitted 

individuals because of the actions of the Soviet Union. I call the 

Senators’ attention to Hungary in 1956, when the Soviet threatened and, in fact, did invade. We actually passed the Hungarian 

Refugee Act and admitted tens of thousands of refugees from Hungary into the United States. 

We did similar things with Cubans. Mr. Aguirre, who was here 

a few moments ago, was a beneficiary of that program, the Cuban 

Refugee Act of 1966. We did the same with the Indochinese in 

1977. 

But it wasn’t until 1980 when this Congress passed the Refugee 

Act of 1980 that we actually formalized the requirements of the 

1967 Convention with the UN, established a definition for refugees 

and began to admit refugees on the basis of generalized concerns 

as opposed to particular geopolitical concerns. 

We created a definition for refugee: those that had a fear of persecution based upon one of five different grounds. It could be race, 

religion, their nationality, membership in a particular social group, 

or their political opinion. It is then that we began to analyze objectively, so to speak, the individual concerns of refugees and whether 

we as the United States would accept them into the United States. 

For a period of the late 1980’s, during the Reagan administration 

and the first Bush administration, we admitted record numbers of 

refugees, many years totaling over 120,000 to 130,000 individuals. 

Virtually all of them were effectively resettled in the United States. 

Many would argue that, today, one of the reasons the Cold War 

was won was because we emboldened people to take a stand in 

their countries, knowing the United States was there behind them 

with the concept of refugees. Many folks that ended up becoming 

refugees are those that took bold stands against their own government and were punished for it. 

The refugee program can be today an effective program in that 

regard, creating an emboldening in people to stand up for what is 

right and for what is good and for what is just. If they know that 

the United States is there to back them up, to protect them when 

they are persecuted, I think that they will be more emboldened to 

take that step to increase our security in their own homelands. 

After 1980, as this program grew, a subsequent treaty was 

passed called the Convention Against Torture. In 1998, the United 

States became a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, in 

which individuals who were subject to likely torture in their home 

country could also be given refugee status apart from and separate 

from the standards of refugees as passed in the Refugee Act of 

1980. 

Today, we find ourselves in a very different world than we found 

in 1980, very different geopolitically, different enemies and different concerns. The question now becomes how should we use the 

refugee program. Should we continue to use it in the way that it 

was used during the Reagan and first Bush administrations as a 

tool to enhance our security and to send our message around the 

world, a message of hope and freedom? Or should we merely use 

it as a stop-gap, as a measure to plug the leaks, kind of the little 

15

Dutch boy effect, I call it, plugging the holes in the dam when they 

spring up? 

It is a question that Congress and the President have to answer, 

and they have to answer it to the American people. How are we 

going to use this program? I would hope that Congress would effectively consider the very extraordinary power of bringing somebody 

to the United States as a refugee, the wonderful effect they have 

on the communities here, and the message that it sends back home 

that we are here to protect you, that we are ultimately and still 

are the land of freedom and opportunity. 

Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kuck appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much; very interesting 

comments and we appreciate it. 

Mr. Franken, thank you for being here. We look forward to hearing from you. 

STATEMENT OF MARK FRANKEN, CHAIR, REFUGEE COUNCIL, 

USA, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, I am representing the Refugee Council USA, which is a coalition of NGOs 

who are committed to the protection of refugees around the world 

and the pursuit of durable solutions for them, including resettlement. 

We very much appreciate, Mr. Chambliss, your holding this hearing today on what we consider to be a matter of critical importance. 

Mr. Chairman, if my testimony and an accompanying report published by the Refugee Council could be inserted into the record, I 

could summarize in 5 minutes three points. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Certainly, we will do that by unanimous 

consent, without objection. 

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you. 

The first point is to acknowledge and express deep appreciation 

to all involved in the remarkable achievements of this past year in 

the refugee admissions program. We are seeing nearly an 80-percent increase in admissions this year over last, and when you consider such large numbers of refugees in the world who have no 

other hope but the possibility of being welcomed here, this is very 

much welcomed and very much needed. 

To achieve these results this year took extraordinary efforts on 

the part of many in our Government and in the UNHCR and in the 

private sector. In a special way, we wish to acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Dewey and Mr. Aguirre and their staffs. We also wish 

to express appreciation to the Congress, especially this Subcommittee, for its effort to turn the admissions program around. 

The second point relates to the future. As we look ahead, the 

question becomes is this year’s achievement sustainable, and can 

our Nation resume and sustain refugee admissions to levels comparable to historic levels. We believe the political will is there. The 

American people understand our unique role in the world as a beacon of hope and refuge for refugees fleeing persecution. 

16

However, in today’s world we need a more dynamic and responsive infrastructure for identifying and referring and processing refugees in need of resettlement. 

Our written testimony and the interim report that will be in the 

record include a number of specific recommended changes, including such things as greater involvement of NGOs; augmenting the 

UNHCR’s referral capacity, creating a more dynamic outreach capacity. And one particular item here is what we refer to as rapid 

response teams that can go into where refugees are and help the 

State Department identify those in need of resettlement, expanding 

groups of refugees and designating them as of special concern to 

the United States, and allowing more refugees who have family 

members in the United States to be referred for consideration for 

admission. This is an item that the Senate has recognized as an 

important element. Our community is committed to working with 

the Government to pursue these and other necessary enhancements to the refugee program. 

The third and final point I want to raise relates to the resources 

necessary to carry out a responsive and effective refugee admissions program. We are deeply concerned about the fiscal 2005 

budget proposal which doesn’t include enough funds to admit even 

50,000 refugees, much less the higher levels that we propose. 

To fund a more modest admissions program of 70,000, for example, without adversely affecting our commitment to overseas assistance to refugees will require, in our estimation, an additional appropriation above the administration’s request of $145 million for 

the State Department. 

Then looking ahead to 2006, we have recommended that the ad- ministration request $982 million for the State Department’s admission program, and this would allow the admission of up to 

90,000 refugees. 

In closing, on behalf of the members of Refugee Council USA, I 

again applaud the Congress and the administration for their remarkable achievements this year. With collaborative and collective 

efforts in the days and months and years ahead, our Nation can 

remain a beacon of hope and a safe haven for refugees whose only 

hope for a future may lie in our welcoming them here. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Franken appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Franken. 

Ms. Limon, we are pleased you are, and thank you for the good 

work you do. We look forward to hearing from you. 

STATEMENT OF LAVINIA LIMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. 

COMMITTEE FOR REFUGEES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. LIMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy. 

Thank you for inviting the U.S. Committee for Refugees to testify 

today and for convening this most important hearing. 

Recent events in the Sudan remain us that refugees are the 

human face of war and that escape from terror and search for freedom continues today as we speak. I have been working on behalf 

of refugees for almost 30 years, mostly helping to resettle refugees 

here in the United States. But it is clear that in the latter part of 

17

the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, the search for durable solutions for refugees has been a failure for the majority, 

since resettlement even in the best of years has never been available for more than 1 percent of the world’s refugees. 

As you noted in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, 7 million 

refugees have been confined to camps or segregated settlements, or 

have been otherwise deprived of their basic human rights, laid out 

in the 1951 Refugee Convention, for 10 years or more. They live 

lives of hopeless dependency, dangerous insecurity and endless despair. 

The U.S. Committee for Refugees recommends a renewed commitment to ensure that refugees are free to exercise their rights in 

the absence of a durable solution, as specified in international law. 

These rights include the right to work, freedom of movement, the 

right to own property, basic education, among others. 

Since USCR began highlighting the warehousing problem with 

the publication of our World Refugee Survey and the rights laid out 

in the Convention, we have had an overwhelmingly positive response. Respected academics and the major donor and refugee assistance agencies involved in refugee camp management agree with 

us that the warehousing of refugees and the denial of basic human 

rights is wrong both legally and morally. However, we have been 

rightfully challenged by our colleagues to develop practical ways of 

implementing convention rights for refugees while they are waiting 

for permanent solutions. 

As we develop the next steps, we believe it is important to listen 

to refugees like Abraham, a Sudanese refugee, quote, ‘‘When I arrived in the camp, I thought I would be there for a month and then 

go back home. I arrived when I was 12 years old and left when I 

was 22. We could not travel or work outside the camp, so the camp 

was literally an open-air prison, a storage place where they kept 

human beings. We suffered the most mentally. We could not predict when this hardship would end. Even prisoners have more 

rights than refugees. Prisoners know exactly what term they are 

serving. Refugees serve indefinite terms in the camp. I thought 

maybe God did not mean for us to live like human beings.’’ 

We asked Abraham what might help change these warehousing 

conditions and he said, quote, ‘‘Keeping refugees in this condition 

is not smart for the international community or the Kenyan government. It increases the burden to support refugees. Refugees are 

not stupid or unproductive. If you give them opportunities, they 

can help reduce the burden on the host community.’’ Thanks to the 

U.S. refugee program, Abraham now lives in Vermont. Yet, almost 

90,000 refugees remain in Kakuma Refugee Camp. 

We have also consulted with several host government officials in 

Africa, who responded by noting that if they keep refugees in 

camps, the international community pays attention to them and 

provides them with assistance. If refugees were not in camps, they 

believe donor nations would not help manage the situation. 

So what can be done to end warehousing? It is clear that the answers are both complex and simple. The complex answer is that the 

UNHCR, the donor community and host governments must adopt 

new policies and devise new practices that prioritize refugee rights. 

18

We believe it would be enormously helpful if the Senate passed a 

resolution calling for the end of refugee warehousing. 

This would be a powerful signal to the world that it is time to 

honor refugee rights. 

Congress could also authorize a pilot program that would, one, 

develop a plan for the strategic use of funding to motivate the 

granting of convention rights to refugees, such as reimbursement 

schemes for expenses incurred by host governments; and, two, develop alternative models of assisting refugees outside traditional 

camp settings in a manner compatible with the exercise of their 

rights. Congress could also request a report from the Department 

of State on how refugee assistance is or could be used to promote 

these rights. 

The simple answer in response to Abraham and all the other millions of warehoused refugees is that we do believe that God does 

intend for refugees to live like human beings. The simple answer 

is that we must start honoring their rights and stop the immoral 

and illegal practice of warehousing refugees. 

Thank you, I am prepared to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Limon appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Ms. Limon. 

Mr. Kuck, let me start with you. In your testimony, you noted 

how the world has changed from communist versus anti-communist 

and become one of religious and ethnic conflict. 

In your opinion, has U.S. refugee policy adapted accordingly? 

And if not, what are your thoughts on the direction the U.S. refugee admissions program should take to respond to the current 

geopolitical climate? 

Mr. KUCK. Senator, I think the U.S. refugee policy has begun to 

recognize the difference. I think it took a little bit longer than it 

probably should have to recognize the massive changes in this policy. 

Where should we go now is an interesting question. If we are 

going to send a message to our enemies in much the same way that 

we sent a message to our enemies during the Cold War, we first 

identify who those are and then we figure out a way to use the refugee program in that regard. I will give the Senators an example. 

If there are a number of refugees in countries that are being attacked because of their religious faith or because they are a particular part of the religious faith, how can we use our refugee program to bring them here to let them know that we recognize the 

importance of their religious faith, we recognize the importance of 

their standing up for their religious faith, and then use that program to communicate to the rest of the world that unless something else is done to help these people in their home countries, 

great and massive disruptions will occur? 

Right now in Darfour, there is a great refugee problem. That refugee problem is not one of communism or anti-communism. 

It is a problem of really internecine feuding between members of 

the same faith. To date, the international community has done 

nothing. 

19

The U.S. has taken a bold stand in calling this activity genocide, 

when Secretary Powell told the UN that was the case just last 

week. To date, however, we have not yet moved to help those people, we have not yet moved to fund the resettlement of those people, and we have not yet sent a message to those people through 

our own refugee program about what we are going to do to help 

them. They remain, as a result, without hope, without faith, with 

a great belief that the world has abandoned them. 

That breeds, we hope not to our detriment, people without hope, 

people that are more willing to listen to our enemy’s message about 

who we are. I think we can use the refugee program in that regard 

to destroy that message that they are trying to send to them. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Franken, I would say that the percentage of the American public that has any concept of this program is extremely small. So for the record just from a practical 

standpoint, tell me what happens with your organization and how 

you deal with the State Department relative to this issue. And, 

more significantly, what happens when you sort of gets your hands 

on a refugee? 

What is the process that you go through? 

Mr. FRANKEN. One of the hidden treasures, if you will, about the 

resettlement program is that it truly engages members of the community who would not otherwise even be thinking internationally, 

globally, refugees or otherwise. Here, they are confronted with new 

arrivals to their community. They bring new cultures, new languages, new gifts. Our experience has been that the American public that engages individual refugees are very open and hospitable 

toward them, very welcoming as a result of that experience. 

Our role is to, in partnership with the State Department and 

Health and Human Services, as refugees are identified and approved for admission, locate appropriate sponsorship for them in 

communities around the country. There are about nine NGO organizations involved in this and they use their local community-based 

constituency to prepare for that welcome and to provide services. 

Our formal role lasts several months after their arrival into a 

community. We provide orientation, we provide assistance in obtaining jobs, a language program, getting the children connected to 

schools, and so forth. Then the Office of Refugee Resettlement in 

Health and Human Services has additional resources available. 

Sometimes, they contract with our same organizations in the community to provide a bit longer-term assimilation and enculturationtype services. 

Senator KENNEDY. Could I just ask a quick question? 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Sure. 

Senator KENNEDY. Most of those are religious-based organizations, aren’t they? There are a number that aren’t, but an awful 

lot of them are, aren’t they? 

Mr. FRANKEN. I would say five or six are faith-based organizations, Senator. 

Senator KENNEDY. Yes. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. You just mentioned something that raised 

another thought in me. In our numbers, in our 50,000 number, if 

you have an individual who has a family of, let’s say, five total, 

20

does that five count against that number or is it just the one head 

of the family? 

Mr. FRANKEN. No. It counts as five. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Okay. 

Ms. Limon, can you elaborate a little more on the policies that 

you are envisioning developing, as you say, to prioritize refugee 

rights and develop alternative models of assisting refugees outside 

the traditional setting? And what role would you see the United 

States taking in this? 

Ms. LIMON. Well, the United States is the leader, obviously, 

internationally in the way that refugees are assisted, and provides 

the bulk of the financing, I believe, to do so to the UNHCR, in cooperation with other countries. 

I think that we can look at a lot of different possibilities. I have 

staff around the world talking to local government folks, to local 

NGOs, to academics, to the refugees themselves, to the ministries 

of interior, talking to people saying what would it take for you to 

allow refugees to move into the mainstream of your country? What 

would it take for you to allow them to work, to be able to travel 

within the country, to exercise their rights in the Convention? 

We are actually getting—we are very preliminary, we are very 

early on this, but a very interesting read that this is not beyond 

the realm of possibility for people. They do see financial problems 

because they say will the children go to school? Who will pay for 

that? What about if they don’t have jobs, who is going to take care 

of them? 

But we think as we look at this, if all the people involved in resettling refugees saw the forcible encampment of refugees as the 

last alternative and not the first alternative, there are many innovative things to do that would allow refugees to support themselves, to support their families, to have a life before and while 

they are waiting for a political solution that would allow them to 

go home. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. From the comments of all three of you, I 

assume that you would all three support an increase in the cap 

that now exists on refugees. That obviously, as I told Mr. Aguirre, 

puts additional burden on the Department of Homeland Security. 

But what about the NGOs? Are you and your brother and sister organizations capable of handling an additional cap of any significant 

number? 

Mr. FRANKEN. The overwhelming response of our communities is 

that it is an underutilized resource out there and we have the capacity to assist in the resettlement of considerably more refugees 

than is being anticipated. 

Ms. LIMON. I think also that cap, Mr. Chairman, is a real hardship on the individuals involved. They wait so long in that 12-year 

line and it keeps them from planning for their future. It is very important for them to be able to look forward to the day that they 

can become a citizen and really participate fully in the society. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Just so you will know, Senator Kennedy 

and I have talked about this, particularly after our meeting with 

Secretary Powell recently, that the United States appears to be 

doing more than its fair share. As Secretary Dewey said, we had 

21

about 54 percent of the refugees settle in the United States in the 

last fiscal year. 

We need to somehow encourage other countries to do a little bit 

better job and do their part to a greater extent. Not that we don’t 

need to do more, but we are going to try to work with each other 

to figure out a way to see if we can’t make that happen. Any input 

that you all could give us in that respect would obviously be very 

much appreciated. 

Senator Kennedy. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. Before we leave this 

last point, I welcome the chance of working with the Chairman in 

helping get other countries to do their part. I think we are always 

in a stronger position when we are doing ours, and I think you 

have given us excellent testimony. 

We have both the ceiling and then we have the limitation for the 

cap, and I gather from Mr. Franken that in terms of the ceiling on 

refugees you believe that your organizations are institutionally capable of dealing with increased numbers. We have been up to 

90,000. We have made very important progress this year. We have 

got the limitations in terms of what the requests are in terms of 

funding, but we could certainly go up. That is what I am hearing 

from you. 

Let me get, if I could, to Mr. Kuck. On this statutory limitation 

on asylum, on the adjustment status for clients who win their asylum claims, what kind of hardship does that bring? 

Mr. KUCK. It is interesting you should bring that up. I had an 

individual just come in the other day that told an interesting story. 

A husband and wife both were granted asylum. Actually, they both 

came as refugees to the United States and they both applied for adjustment of status, but the wife applied about a year before the 

husband, for various financial reasons. 

Well, the wife got adjusted very quickly and she is now a U.S. 

citizen. They came with three children, as well. Well, the husband 

has not been able to adjust because he got caught in the backlog 

that currently exists. One of their children is going to be turning 

18 in about 6 months. Unless the husband can get his case actually 

approved for this cap, or in other words get done quickly for his 

adjustment application and get an expedited naturalization, that 

oldest child will not be able to become a U.S. citizen through his 

parents’ naturalization. 

One of the other problems we see—just last week, I won an asylum case in the immigration court in Atlanta, and the interesting 

thing about that is as of right now, once a year passes from today 

and that person is eligible to apply for adjustment of status, it will 

not be 12 or 14; it will be 18 years before they are able to become 

a permanent resident of the United States. 

They won’t be able to vote until sometime after that. They won’t 

be able to participate in the community. They are subject to repatriation at any time during that time. It is a very disconcerting position to be in. The cap has real consequences on people’s lives. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I appreciate what you say and we will 

try and see what we can do on that. We hear, well, the security 

issues and all the rest. We all agree we have to go through whatever and they have to be found qualified in terms of the asylum, 

22

but to leave them off in this limbo doesn’t seem to me to make a 

lot of sense. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Franken, about the drop in the numbers 

coming from Africa this last year. We are going to see a drop in 

terms of this next year. Are you familiar with that? 

According to the proposed admissions, it anticipates exceeding 

the 25,000 refugee ceiling for Africa. We will admit 28,000. The 

current ceiling for African admissions is only 20,000 for 2005, so 

therefore there is a drop in that. I am just wondering if you have 

a reaction to that. 

Mr. FRANKEN. A couple of things. First of all, I think that right 

after the terrorist attacks of 2001, many of the places that African 

were traditionally processed from posed security risk as far as the 

U.S. Government was concerned. So there was an attempt to create 

conditions that were more hospitable to the processing necessary. 

As far as I know, those extraordinary steps have been successful 

and there are more places available in Africa to process refugees. 

Certainly, the need for resettlement in Africa is greater than the 

numbers in the proposal. 

The other thing, I think, that plays into this question is if a proposal from the administration calls for 70,000 authority but 50,000 

are allocated to certain regions, there is a tendency, I believe, to 

use that 50,000 as the target, the operational kind of management 

target. 

We saw that this year, and I would hope that we could look at 

the 70,000, at a minimum, to be the target, and in so doing I think 

it would benefit refugees in Africa and others. 

Senator KENNEDY. Ms. Limon, let me just ask you about the 

warehousing. One of the programs that we had heard about—and 

we remember the Secretary of the State Department talked about 

their program working through certain countries and trying to get 

some help and assistance to go through those countries, with the 

idea that it is earmarked for these refugees. I guess it is a very 

modest program that has started, but it is along the lines that you 

have said. I would be interested in whether you know about it and 

what your reaction to it is, number one. 

Then, secondly, you mentioned that in talking to some of these 

host countries about getting some of these people out there involved and being able to become more involved in the community. 

There are some countries that just won’t let these refugees out for 

political reasons. They want that sort of eye-sore out there in terms 

of the world community. So we are going to have a tough time with 

that one. 

I think you mentioned the warehousing. I don’t know how people 

live under those circumstances and how they can survive. What are 

the possibilities of working through the countries and having the 

money targeted toward getting people more involved in terms of 

the country’s life? What are the limitations? And should the Europeans be doing a good deal more or these other countries be doing 

more? 

Ms. LIMON. We are not naive about the possibility. 

Senator KENNEDY. Yes, all right. 

Ms. LIMON. It is not like all of a sudden people are going to say, 

oh, gee, we didn’t think about it; let’s let these people go. But there 

23

are possibilities and I think the program you mentioned is a small 

step forward. 

Also, we have looked at the Millennium Challenge Account and 

the different criteria within that effort to decide that some countries should have more development money, have special money out 

of this Millennium Challenge Account. And we have looked at, well, 

maybe it is possible that we could say the restoration of refugee 

rights should be one of those criteria and what would a country 

need to do that. So we have been in conversations with some of 

those officials. 

We have also looked at the nexus between development monies 

and refugee assistance monies, and there really isn’t any nexus. It 

is sort of this is one channel and here is another channel. 

Senator KENNEDY. Is that the World Bank, or what is that? 

Ms. LIMON. The World Bank. We have had conversations with 

the World Bank about this and we are approaching USAID and 

other folks to say is there some way that this can happen. But I 

will tell you it is a longstanding, very entrenched separation between assistance and development. But from a host country point 

of view, they are much more interested in the development 

money—it has to do with development of their country—than assistance to refugee monies. But somehow if those two can be linked 

in some way that is a win-win for everyone, I think we could make 

a lot of progress. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think that is very constructive. It 

seems to me that for some of these countries that aren’t willing to 

take the refugees, we ought to have a sense of expectation that 

they pony up in some of these other areas. 

Ms. LIMON. That is right. 

Senator KENNEDY. I think we ought to see what we can do on 

that. I think Senator Chambliss has mentioned that we are interested in trying to work, obviously, with the administration, but we 

would like to work with the groups, as well, and with the private 

sector. If you have ideas or suggestions, maybe we can make some 

difference in some of these areas. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was a very interesting 

panel; both panels were very, very helpful.Thank you for all your 

good works. Thanks for your commitment in these areas, as well. 

It is very impressive, and there is an enormous need. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. 

We were just talking a little bit earlier. We feel like we have 

been in here all day. Senator Kennedy and I were in here all morning on another hearing dealing with the DNA bill, and so often we 

get in contentious hearings in this room and the air gets pretty 

thick. But to have a hearing like this, it is very refreshing to us, 

and particularly to know that there are folks like you all who are 

out there working to make a real difference in the world, and particularly a difference for citizens of our country. 

America is truly the greatest and freest country in the world, in 

large part because we do have an open hand and extend a friendly 

hand to people around the world. But it is folks like you that really 

make that happen, and so this is one of those times when we enjoy 

having a hearing and enjoy hearing the stories and the message 

that you bring to us today. 

24

So, again, thank you for the good work you do and thank you for 

being here today. 

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask that a statement 

from Senator Leahy be included in the record? 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Certainly. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. The record will remain open for 3 days for 

any other statements to be submitted. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

25


96611.001
26


96611.002
27


96611.003
28


96611.004
29


96611.005
30


96611.006
31


96611.007
32


96611.008
33


96611.009
34


96611.010
35


96611.011
36


96611.012
37


96611.013
38


96611.014
39


96611.015
40


96611.016
41


96611.017
42


96611.018
43


96611.019
44


96611.020
45


96611.021
46


96611.022
47


96611.023
48


96611.024
49


96611.025
50


96611.026
51


96611.027
52


96611.028
53


96611.029
54


96611.030
55


96611.031
56


96611.032
57


96611.033
58


96611.034
59


96611.035
60


96611.036
61


96611.037
62


96611.038
63


96611.039
64


96611.040
65


96611.041
66


96611.042
67


96611.043
68


96611.044
69


96611.045
70


96611.046
71


96611.047
72


96611.048
73


96611.049
74


96611.050
75


96611.051
76


96611.052
77


96611.053
78


96611.054
79


96611.055
80


96611.056
81


96611.057
82


96611.058
83

Æ


96611.059