umrfr.y 0>-K K-<--> . Congress. Hnu^r . CIO) i , •. t^^ ri, 7>)t^i

INDOCHINA REFUGEES

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP,

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

INDOCHINA REFUGEES

MAY 5 AND 7, 1975

Serial No. 4

I'rinted for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

K-MU WASHINGTON : 1975
$%&b

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

PETER W. RODINO, JB., New Jersey, Chairman

JACK BROOKS, Texas EDWARD HDTCHINSON, Michigan

ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois

DON EDWARDS, California TOM RAIL8BACK, Illinois

WILLIAM L. HUNQATE, Missouri CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California

JOHN CONYERS, JE., Michigan HAMILTON PISH, JH., New York

JOSHUA EILBERG, Pennsylvania M. CALDWELL BUTLER. Virginia

WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine

JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio

JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

GEORGE E. DANIELSON, California THOMAS N. KINDNESS, Ohio

ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts

BARBARA JORDAN, Texas

RAY THORNTON, Arkansas

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York

EDWARD MIBZV1NsKV. Iowa

HERMAN BADILLO. New York

ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky

EDWARD W. PATTISON, New York

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey

MARTIN A. RUSSO, Illinois

EARL C. DUDLEY, Jr., General Counsel

GARNER J, CLINK. Staff Director

HERBERT FUCHS, Counsel

WILLIAM P. SHATTUCK. Counsel

ALAN A. PABKEB, Counsel

JAMES F. FALCO, Counsel

MAUBICE A. BARBOZA, Counsel

THOMAS W. HUTCHISON, Counsel

ARTHUR P. ENDRES, Jr., Counsel

DANIEL L. COHEN, Counsel

FRANKLIN G. POLK, Counsel

THOMAS E. MOONEY, Counsel

MICHAEL W. BLOMMER, Counsel

ALEXANDER B. COOK, Counsel

CONSTANTINE J. GEKAS, Counsel

ALAN F. COFFEY. Jr., Counsel

KENNETH N. KLKE, Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

JOSHUA EILBERG, Pennsylvania, Chairman

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN. New York WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

MARTIN A. RUSSO. Illinois

GARNER J. CLINE, Counsel

ARTHUR P. ENDRES, Jr., Counsel

ALEXANDER B. COOK, Associate Counsel

(II)
CONTENTS

Hearings held on• F«*e

May 5, 1975 1

May 7, 1975 59

Text of H.R. 6755.. 3

Witnesses•

Bernsen, Sam, General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization

Service 63

Brown, Ambassador L. Dean, Director, Iuteragency Task Force,

Department of State 5

Prepared statement 56

Chapman, General Leonard F., Jr., Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service 5

Gardiner, Arthur Z., Assistant Administrator, Bureau for East Asia,

AID _ __ 5

Greene, James F., Deputy Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service

McLaughlin, Frank, Budget Officer, Department of Defense 63

Malmborg, Knute E., Legal Advisor's Office, Department of State.. 5, 63

Marinelli, Lawrence A., Agency for International Development 63

Michel, James, Legal Adviser's Office, Department of State 63

Poe, Colonel Eugene M., Budget Officer, Department of Defense.. 63

Rodino, Hon. Peter W., chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary. 59

Taft, Julia Vadala, Deputy Assistant Secretary of HEW for Human

Development, HEW Budget Officer 5,63

Wilson, James M., Deputy Director, Interagency Task Force, Department of State 5, 63

Wisner, Frank G., Deputy Director, Interagency Task Force, Department of State 5, 63

Additional material•

AFL-CIO executive council, prepared statement on Vietnamese

refugees 62

American Jewish Congress, press release, "Resolution Adopted by the

National Governing Council of the American Jewish Congress on

Sunday, May 4, 1975" 68

Americans for Democratic Action, prepared statement 91

Catholic Conference, press release, "Catholic Bishops' President

Makes Plea for Acceptance of Refugees" 115

Department of State, press release, "Assistance to Indochina Refugees•Toll-Free Number Established for the Public" 92

Estimated expenses for evacuation, maintenance, and resettlement

of Indochina and Cambodian refugees as of May 5, 1975 64

Khmer Armed Forces military personnel communication dated

April 29, 1975, to President Gerald R. Ford ._ 7

Preliminary estimates of evacuation, temporary care, and resettlement costs, May 2, 1975 38

Refugee flow chart

"Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary 46

Instruments," Customs Service Form 4790, Department of the

Treasury 110

"Sponsorship Information Format," form

Text of telegram sent May 3, 1975, to the Governors of all 50 States

by Ambassador L. Dean Brown 11

(ill)
IV

Appendix-•

Appendix 1: "Summary of Evacuation Instructions," Department of P»B«

State... _ 125

Appendix 2: "UNHCR Assesses Situation of Vietnamese Outside Their

Country," United Nations press release 126

Appendix 3: "Preliminary Estimates of Evacuation, Temporary Care,

and Resettlement Costs, May 2, 1975," Department of State 127

Appendix 4: "Analysis of the Indochina Refugee Situation," Department of State 128

Appendix 5: "Immigration and Naturalization Service Directive to

Officers-in-Charge at Refugee Reception Centers" 129
INDOCHINA REFUGEES

MONDAY, MAY 5, 1975

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OX IMMIGRATION,

CITIZENSHIP, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIART,

Washington, D.C

The subcommittee met. pursuant to notice, at 10:40 a.m., in room

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joshua Eilberg [chairman of the subcommittee] | presiding.

Present: Representatives Eilberg, Sarbanes, Holtzman, Dodd,

Russo, Fish, and Cohen.

Also present: Representative Mazzoli.

Staff present: Garner J. Cline, counsel; Arthur P. Endres, Jr., assistant counsel; Alexander B. Cook, associate counsel; and Janice

Zarro, assistant counsel.

Mr. EILBERG. The subcommittee will come to order.

In the past 10 days, the United States has conducted what may well

be the greatest mass movement of refugees, over the longest distance,

that we have ever witnessed.

The President has authorized the parole into the United States of

over 130,000 Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees. These refugees

come into the U.S. territory seeking, first, asylum, and in most instances, permanent resettlement as well. In fact, this is only the second time in the history of the United States that this country has become a country of first asylum.

Less than 10 years ago. the United States offered asylum to those

Cubans who wanted to leave the Castro regime, and over 600,000

Cubans came to the United States for resettlement. The primary issues confronting us at this time are not whether the evacuation was

proper and legal, nor whether the President has exceeded his authority

m admitting refugees, but rather, what efforts should lw made to resettle these refugees and what funds must be made available to meet

this problem.

We must try to solve this problem at a time when the United States

faces the highest rate of unemployment in 30 years. We are also faced

•with a shortage of housing, a high cost of living, and a growing apprehension about foreign aid.

The Congress is faced with a great dilemma•should the United

States abandon its traditional role of offering asylum to the needy

and to the persecuted ? Can the United States ignore the convention

and protocol on the status of refugees to which we are a signatory?

It has been suggested that the events of last week constituted the

final chapter of the Vietnam conflict. In my mind, however, this final

(1)
chapter can only be written after we have decided what actions are

to be taken for the unfortunate victims of that war, particularly for

those who reach our shores and seek refuge here. We cannot underestimate the capacity of this country to respond to this serious problem.

At the same time, we must strive to insure that the presence of large

numbers of refugees does not. disadvantage the American people. In

anticipation of this difficult dilemma, I took the floor of the House on

April 16th and stated:

It is imperative that the President immediately present the Congress with

detailed, long-range plans to resettle any Vietnamese who are able to depart

from South Vietnam.

At my direction, members of the committee staff visited Camp

Pendleton, Calif., over this past weekend to review and study the

Vietnamese refugee situation there and observe processing procedures

which have, been established. Through the efficiency of the Marine

Corps, particularly the base commander at Camp Pendleton•Gen.

Paul Graham•facilities have been set up to accommodate some 18,000

refugees.

Notwithstanding the thoroughness of the Marine Corps, the staff

report points out the urgent need to resettle the refugees rapidly. Although the health of the refugees appears to be good at this time, any

protracted stay in this different climate and overcrowded conditions

in reception centers could result in disaster.

Greater participation by the voluntary agencies in finding resettlement opportunities is also necessary. We must turn to the obvious

questions. What is the responsibility of the United States to provide

resettlement facilities and financial assistance? Has the State Department succeeded in seeking the agreement of the international community in offering resettlement opportunities ?

These, and other important questions, have been presented to the

officials of the executive branch during the course of three hearings,

and numerous consultations with the committee. Unfortunately, the

committee was unable to receive any comprehensive answers.

[A bill, H.R. 6755. was later introduced "to enable the United States

to render assistance to, or in behalf of, certain migrants and refugees."

A copy of the bill follows:]
Oter CONGRESS ¥W T* S*f9r*m*

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAT 7,1975

Mr. RODTKO introduced (In- following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To enable Hie United States to render assistance to, or in behalf

of, certain migrants and refugees.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Ecpresenta2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That this Act may be- cited as the "Indochina Migration

4 and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975".

5 SEC. 2. (a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b),

6 there are hereby authorized to be appropriated, in addition

1 to amounts otherwise available for such purposes, such sums

8 as may be necessary for the performance of functions set

9 forth in the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962

10 (76 Stat. 121), as amended, with respect to aliens who

I
I have fled from Cambodia or Vietnam, Mich sums to remain

o available until expended.

3 (b) None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by

4 this Act isliall be available for theperiormaiune of'functions

5 after June 30, 197G, other than carrying out the provisions

6 of clauses (3), (4), (5), and (ti) of section 2 (b) of the

7 Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1902. as amended,

g None of such funds shall be available for obligation for airy

9 purpose after September 30, 1977.

j0 SBC. 3. In carrying wit functions utilizing the funds

H made available under this Act, the term ''refugee" as deJ2 fined in section 2(b) (8) of the Migration and Refugee

33 Assistance Act of 1062, as amended, shall be deemed to

54 include aliens who (A) because of persecution or fear of

15 persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion,

10 fled from Cambodia or Vietnam; (B) cannot return there

17' because of fear of persecution on account of race, religion,

18 or political opinion; and (C) arc in urgent need of assistance

19 for the essentials of life.

Mr. EILBERO. I trust today that our witneas. Ambassador L. Dean

Brown, Director of the special Interagcney Task Foree on Indochina,

can provide this committee with a thorough, complete and comprehensive report on the Cambodian and Vietnamese refugee situation;

the status of the resettlement plans; as well as concrete proposals for

future action.

It is a pleasure to welcome yon here today, Ambassador Brown, and

we welcome your associates as well.

Ambassador BROWX. Thank yon, sir. •

Mr. EILBEKG. And if my list is correct, we have, in addition to yourself, Mr. James M. Wilson, Deputy Director of the task force; Mx.
Frank G. Wisner, Special Assistant to the Director of the task force•

which is he, Mr. Wisner ?

Mr. Arthur Gardiner, Assistant Administrator, Bureau of the East

Asia, AID; and Mr. Knute E. Malmborg, Assistant Legal Adviser for

Management; Ms. Julia Vadala Taft. Deputy Assistant Secretary of

HEW for Human Development; and, of course, General Chapman,

Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR L. DEAN BROWN, DIRECTOR, INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ACCOMPANIED

BY JAMES M. WILSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TASK FORCE; FRANK

G. WISNER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO DIRECTOR, TASK FORCE;

ARTHUR Z. GARDINER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU

FOR EAST ASIA, AID; KNUTE E. MALMBORG, ASSISTANT LEGAL

ADVISER FOR MANAGEMENT; JULIA VADALA TAFT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEW FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT; AND

GEN. LEONARD F. CHAPMAN, JR., COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION

AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Ambassador BROWN*. Mr. Chairman, during the last 2 weeks as Vietnam collapsed, the United States undertook a humanitarian mission of

gigantic proportions. In response to the tragedy, the administration

acted with speed and determination.

Specifically, we succeeded in evacuating about 40,000 Vietnamese

through our airlift before the airport was closed. We also evacuated

over 7,000 American citizens through fixed wing airlift and the final

helicopter evacuation.

The number of Vietnamese has swelled beyond this number as

a result of the thousands of Vietnamese picked up by our naval vessels in the South China Sea. We now estimate the total number of

Vietnamese who have fled Vietnam to exceed 125,000.

We have had to make some very rapid decisions on how to receive

such a large flow of people. As Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay

became congested during the initial phase, wo quickly established

staging areas in Guam and Wake. We also established three reception centers in the United States at Camp Pendleton, Camp Chaffee,

and Eglin Air Force Base where the refugees could be moved from

Guam for further processing.

A massive effort was required to put the staging areas and the processing centers into operation. Our military services responded magnificently to the emergency, and we owe. them a great deal of thanks.

And they quickly moved to make the facilities ready to receive the

large flow of refugees.

The civilian arms of Government were also mobilized and teams of

INS, HEW. State, and AID were dispatched to the staging areas and

the centers in the United States to assist in the effort. Also, and perhaps most importantly, the voluntary agencies have acted positively

to the emergency. They are sending, or have sent, representatives to all

of the centers in the United States.

After consulting with Congress and the President, the Attorney

General, on April 25, extended parole to four generalized categories
6

of Indocnina war victims. These categories represented the best estimate we had of the evacuation problem. We could not then define, with

any precision, the numbers of Vietnamese who would flee their country by their own means, or would be stranded abroad.

Now that Vietnam has fallen, we have a clearer understanding of the

evacuation problem. It has four basic components to it. We planned

an evacuation of certain specific categories of Vietnamese, and estimated the total would not exceed 130,000. The plan was formalized in

the Attorney General's parole after consultation with Congress.

In fact, through our planned air and sealift evacuation, we succeeded in moving almost 5,5,000 Vietnamese. With the exception of a

few, they appear after initial screening to fit the criteria specified by

the Attorney General. They will be accepted into the United States

unless any wish to emigrate to third countries or return to their native

land. As you know, we have a small group on Guam of 45 who said

that they did not want to be evacuated; I have sent very firm instructions that these people are to be turned over immediately to the United

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who will have a representative on Guam, and they will be returned through his good auspices to

wherever they want to go. We are not forcing anybody into our process. And any that we find later, as people are interviewed, if they want

to go back, we will send them back through the United Nations.

The second category includes those who received American assistance in their flight. About 69,000 Vietnamese were picked up either by

U.S. vessels, or are presently sailing on Vietnamese vessels. These are

men, women, and children without a country. The choice we have before us is to force them to return to their own country, which they

fled from for fear of persecution, to leave them at sea, or to accept

responsibility for them. We propose to accept responsibility for them.

The third category includes about 3.000 Vietnamese and Cambodians who. since the fall of their governments, fled to third countries•

some of which are presently threatening to return them to Vietnam

or Cambodia. These include Vietnamese and Cambodians who fled

using air and navy craft furnished under the U.S. military assistance

programs•valuable equipment we plan to reclaim.

We propose, to require that they seek asylum in these countries where

they are, and, if refused, ask for resettlement assistance from the appropriate international organizations before considering them for parole on a case-by-case or class-by-class basis.

The President just l-eccived a letter from 145 Cambodians, which I

would like to insert for the record; people who fled, who are not in

any present category, and who say in very pathetic language what

fate they fear lies before them if they are returned involuntarity to

Cambodia. These are soldiers who brought out equipment.

Mr. ErLBERo. Where are they ?

Ambassador BROWN. In Thailand.

Mr. EIIJJKRG. Without objection, that letter will be made a part of

the record.
[The information referred to follows:]

U TAPAO AFB, TENT CITY,

Thailand, April 29,1975.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD,

President of the United State* of America,

The White House, Washington, D.G.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT : We, the undersigned on the adjoining list, personnel of

the Khmer National Armed Forces, have the honor to present you this request

with a view to obtaining political asylum in the United States of America.

After five years of terrible struggle in the "cause of ideals of the free world,

against tbe Indochinese Communists, invaders of the Khmer Republic, we are

now, by force of circumstances, refugees at U Tapao, Thailand, preferring liberty to Communist domination. We refused to leave when the occasion was favorable to do so, preferring instead to stay and fight, which we did, until the last

minutes of the republic life. When we did leave, under fire, and we did so in

good order, we brought out with us all the U.S. provided military equipment we

possibly could so that it could be returned to the proper authorities.

We see in the United States, our erstwhile benefactors, the only possible

adoptive country, in consonance with our ideals and aspirations, in which we

could start a new life in Democracy and Liberty.

Moreover, we have learned with profound emotion that the American State

Department, with the approval of the Senate, has authorized the immigration

of 132,000 South Vietnamese and Khmer refugees to the United States, which

reaffirms our confidence in our future.

However, certain of our Khmer compatriots, employed by the American Embassy in Phnom Penh benefit from a special treatment on the part of the American Government; that is to say, they were offered the opportunity to be

evacuated from Phnom Penh with the U.S. Mission, and have been assured of

immigration to, and employment in, the United States.

We. military men who were not so fortunate and only escaped with our lives

at the last minute, would hope that comparable treatment will be accorded us. in

consideration of the tireless service we, and any who may follow us, rendered in

good faith to our country and the cause of free men everywhere.

In the hope of obtaining a favorable response to this request and, as soon as

possible, since we have been allowed only a short transit period in Thailand, we

offer you, Mr. President, our very best wishes and deepest gratitude.

Attached is a list of Khmer military personnel and their families who are

requesting political asylum in the United States.

125 KHMER ARMED FORCES MILITARY PERSONNEL.

Ambassador BROWN. With regard to these Vietnamese and the Cambodians who reached Thailand, we know they will not be able to stay,

and we will have to take charge of them.

The outcome of the Vietnam war lias left other Vietnamese stranded

in third countries. This last category includes Vietnamese diplomats

and their families•the Ambassador and his staff, for instance•students, travelers, and businessmen. We do not know how many Vietnamese fall into this categorv, but we believe many of them will make

arrangements to settle abroach

Others will enjoy the protection signatory powers of the United

Nations Protocol and Convention on the Status of Refugees. Some•

and we do not yet know how many•may not be able to find safe haven,

and may torn to the United States for help. We intend to ask international organizations to take responsibility. Only where we fail will

we consider entry into the United States. As soon as we have a clearer

estimate of the numbers involved here, we will communicate our findings to the Congress.
8

Based on this four-part assessment of the evacuation problem, we are

asking the Attorney General to extend parole on a contingency basis

to an additional 20.000 individuals and to li!)eralize the present limitations on categories. While we do not expect to extend parole to 150,000,

we need to have the standby authority which a new determination could

provide. Only in this way can we be equipped to care for those Vietnamese and Cambodians who are not able to find homes elsewhere.

We intend to press the international community to accept refugees

and we have moved energetically to enlist its cooperation. Specifically,

we have been in frequent contact with international agencies, principally the United Nations and the United Nations High Commissioner

for Refugees and the Inter-Governmental Committee for European

Migration.

I am sorry to report that the United Nations High Commissioner

for Kefugees has not moved as rapidly as we would have wished, but

I can assure you we will continue to press them to assume those responsibilities for which they are mandated, and I will be meeting

this afternoon with the lJ.ll. HCR people. I have asked them to fly

down to Washington to see what we can hammer out together to move

them a little more quickly to accept their basic responsibilities that

they have.

I would like, however, to extend my thanks to the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration•ICEM. We have had

John Thomas, the head of that, who is an American, in the oflice over

the weekend; he has a team out on Guam, and he himself is arriving

in Pendleton about now en route to Guam and Wake. The International Committee of the Red Cross is sending a delegate to Guam to

issue brave! documents which will facilitate the movement of refugees

to third countries.

Now, on our own part, bilaterally, we launched a diplomatic initiative to bring our concerns on the plight of the Indochina refugees to

governments around the world. I sent a message to every Ambassador

and Charge in every country and said, take this up on the highest

level. And we are beginning to get those responses. Vi e have asked for

their help and an expression of willingness to accept some refugees

into their own lands. The reaction thus far is incomplete and mixed.

We have received some preliminary positive responses from certain countries from French-speaking Africa, Europe and Latin America. Canada has publicly declared its willingness to take at least 8,000

people, and the Canadian immigration service, has now established

offices at Guam and Pendleton. France is receiving many who have

special ties to that country.

At this point I cannot predict how many will find homes in third

countries, but we will continue to make a maximum effort to bring

out* concern, which is humanitarian, to the attention of the world

community.

For those Vietnamese and Cambodians who do not find homes

abroad, and are accepted into the United States, it is vital that we

provide them with essential reception facilities, health care, clothing,

education, vocational training and resettlement assistance which they

will require if they are to settle quickly and become productive members of our society.

We must extend to them the same warmth of welcome that hundreds

of thousands of other refugees have received in the United States in
tire postwar period. "We. know that we must at all costs avoid additional charges to financially hard-pressed State and local governments.

And we have to be ready to contribute to international resettlement

elForts. The bill which the President is submitting this afternoon

meets these requirements.

With regard to resettlement in the United States, we are working

very closely with nine voluntary agencies who specialize in refugee

relocation. We have agreed with them that the new arrivals should bo

dispersed as evenly and equitably as possible through the United

States, avoiding in particular, resettlement in economically hardpressed areas.

I am impressed by the competence, cooperation, and ability of the

voluntary agencies and believe they are capable of finding new homes

and making new lives for the majority of those Vietnamese and Cambodians who come to this country without American relatives or sponsors. We also have the full cooperation of HEW. DOD, Labor, and

Interior in studying alternative resettlement possibilities for those

refugees voluntary agencies cannot help.

I am aware of the public concern over the reception of Vietnamese

and Cambodian refugees in the United States at this time of economic difficulty. I am confident, however, of our ability to carry out

a successful resettlement program. The numbers are not too large,

and more importantly, the Vietnamese and Cambodians arriving here

in America have suffered deeply, and are deserving of our help and

hospitality.

It is part of our tradition to respond rapidly and generously to

people in need.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBKUO. Thank you. Mr. Ambassador.

Mr. Ambassador, you referred to a bill that is being submitted this

afternoon. I believe it would be proper for us to discuss the major

thrust of that bill, and the background of it, if we may at this time.

Could you tell us something about the bill'!

Ambassador BROWX. Yes, sir.

This is a draft statutory authorization for a temporary program of

relief and resettlement in the United States. It is a program which

would not extend beyond fiscal year 11)77, and the moneys appropriated

to it would be contained in the Migration and Kefugec Assistance

Act of 1002. as amended.

Inasmuch as we are not asking for a permanent authority, we are,

putting this forward in a separate law, rather than as an amendment

to the 1962 act. The authorization, sir. basically anticipates the expenditure of $.~)07 million in new funds. And to make sure we understand

fully what we are talking about in the way of moneys, we must

remember also that we have already obligated, or have available for

obligation. $98 million in AH) money that we have transferred, and

$5 million in refugee money that we have already used.

So this would be, sir, an authority for $507 million in new money.

Mr. EITJIERG. Xow we realize that we are just a little bit early,

perhaps, in breaking that figure of $o07 million down, but would you

give the subcommittee a tentative breakdown of that figure?

Ambassador BROWX. Yes. sir.

To DOD for sealift. $30 million: for airlift, $13-2 million. For the

establishment of staging areas, and the expenses of opening the proc-
10

essmg centers, $35 million. A figure payable to DOD, once apain, for

the maintenance of people at the. processing centers, medical care,

food, utilities, all other expenses, $185 million.

Resettlement costs, which would go to the Office of Refugees and

Migration, and then go to the voluntary agencies, $78 million.

For HEW, for subsequent welfare and medical expenses, $125

million. And for the movement of 20,000 refugees to third countries

for resettlement, $20 million.

This comes to $605 million, sir. That comes to $605 million, less the

$98 million, comes to the figure of $507 million new appropriation,

sir.

If we are going to break it down bv agencv, then we are talking

about Defense, $382 million; State, $98 million; and HEW $125

million.

Mr. En.nr.R0. Thank you for that.

Mr. Ambassador, are you aware of any effort on the parts of the

individual States to gear up their social services machinery to assist

the refugees temporarily or permanently, housed in their States?

Ambassador BROWN. May I ask Julia to speak to this ? Julia, from

HEW. has been dealing with just this problem, sir.

Ms. TAFT. HEW is prepared to respond to the influx of the Cambodians and the Vietnamese refugees much the same way as it did

with the Cuban refugees. As you are quite familiar with that program, the main role here is the Federal Government reimbursing

State and local agencies for the costs that they incur.

We have been working•and as you know, this has worked very

quickly, but during the past week we have sent some guidance out

to the States indicating the kinds of things that we hope we will

have the authority to be reimbursing. Basically, in the area of any

kind of medicaid costs, welfare costs, and social services.

Now the important thing that I think we must all keep in mind is

that the voluntary agencies are going to make every effort to insure

a wide distribution of the refugees throughout the United States. So

wo do not anticipate a high concentration in any area. Obviously, if

there is a high concentration, we are going to have to work with the

State and local agencies to develop the specific kinds of social service

programs which might be helpful.

Basically we are working on bilingual education packages that

would be helpful, both at the reception sites and after the resettlement.

Social services, such as day care, homemaker-home services, that kind

of thing will be provided by State and local agencies. This is not

unlike the Cuban program; it is not unlike what the State and local

agencies do for the millions of people who are eligible for the current

services.

So we do not anticipate any special high impact, and we will be

working alongside with them as soon as the resettlement really starts

to flow.

Mr. EILRERG. All these services are contingent upon Federal funding

however?

Ms. TATT. We feel it is appropriate for the Federal Government,

to pick up the expenses for the duration of the authorizing legislation,

as we have done with the Cuban program. What we do not want to

do is to asseit the Federal leadership for a long period of time, until
11

we really know where the people are going to be residing. And as

I say, we do not anticipate an impact in any one locality.

But to relieve any potential fiscal burden on the State and local

officials for the next couple of fiscal years, we will be proposing that

HEW does reimburse 100 percent of tnose kinds of costs.

Mr. EILBERG. Are there enough funds currently available to enable

the Statesto give the temporary necessary assistance?

Ms. TAFT. There is not now.

However, anyone who enters this country legally, as these people

are entering, are eligible for the same kinds of social services and income maintenance and health programs as other-people in this country

•who are in need. And then we reimburse the State and local agencies

for whatever proportion of the Federal matching is required.

Instead of setting up matching rates here, we will be planning

100 percent reimbursement.

Mr. EILBKUO. Under what authority did HEW notify the State and

local governments last week that they would .receive 100 percent

reimbursement ?

Ms. TAFT. We need that legislation which would be forwarded that

Ambassador Brown discussed.

Mr. EILREEO. Will that be in the draft bill that is being presented

by the administration ?

Ambassador BROWN\ Yes, sir.

In this connection, sir, on May 3 I sent a telegram to the Governors

-of all 50 States, and, among other things, it was basically a description

of the program of what we are doing, which I will be glad to insert

in the record. But we did tell the Governors at that time, State and

local authorities will suffer no direct fiscal hardship and little indirect

hardship from influxes. The Federal Government is seeking authorization and funding from the Congress on an urgent basis to provide

resettlement health income maintenance and social service funds to

reimburse 100 percent of the costs incurred for these services. Backup

Federal funding authority exists for any residual problems which

individual cases may present. HEW is also prepared to provide full

assistance for destitute repatriots and their dependents as soon as

Congress makes funds available.

[The information referred to follows:]

TEXT OP A TELEORAM SENT MAY 3. 1075 TO TTIE GOVERNORS OF ALL 50 STATES BY

L. DEAN BROWN, SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE AND DIRECTOR OF THE INTEB-AGENCY

TASK FORCE FOR THE PRESIDENT

As a result of the tragedy in Vietnam the President has authorized the

admission to the United States of up to 130,000 Vietnamese citizens. The largest

percentage of these unfortunate people are relatives of American citizens or of

permanent residents. The others, as many as 52,000 are those we call high risk,

meaning their lives would he in danger if they had remained in Viet-Nam.

In this cable I would like to give you a picture of what we are doing to make

the resettlement of Vietnamese as humane and decent as possible and to avoid

hardship to communities where they will live. It is a task in which I hope all

Americans will participate.

We currently estimate that over 100,000 Vietnamese have left their country

to date through the American air and sealift and by their own means. Now

that we have begun movements to reception centers, we expect 5,000 a day to

arrive in the United States at designated reception centers.

We have two problems: (a) reuniting Vietnamese with their American families and sponsors; (b) finding permanent homes for the high risk Vietnamese

(estimated 50,000). We believe the social and economic Impact will be minimal.
12

Those Americans with Vietnamese dependents are widely dispersed. For those

coming without sponsors, our policy is to share the responsibility equitably

among all regions of the United States. The Vietnamese coming to the United

States are predominately a skilled group; many have Knglish capability.

Resettlement will be the responsibility of voluntary agencies who have traditionally been most effective in settling refugees from abroad•Hungarians and

Ugandan Asians, in addition these agencies identify sponsors who provide housing. Jobs, counseling and education. Many agencies report charges will not

become financial burdens to state and local governments. The voluntary agencies

believe all refugees we are presently planning for can be oxpeditionsly resettled.

Voluntary agencies will avoid resettlement in economically hard-hit areas and

will not concentrate the refugees in specific localities. The voluntary agencies

engaged in resettlement efforts include the following:

U.S. Catholic Conference,

Migration and Refugee Services.

3312 Massachusetts Avenue, N\V.,

Washington, D.C.

American Fund for Czechoslovak Refugees,

1709 Broadway, Room 1316,

New York, New -York

Church World Service,

Immigration ft Refugee Program,

475 Riverside Drive,

New York, New York

Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Sen-ice,

315 I'ark Avenue South,

New York, New York

United Ilias Service. Inc.,

200 I'ark Avenue South,

New York, New York

International Rescue Committee,

380 I'ark Avenue South,

New York, New York

American Council for Nationalities Sen-ice,

20 West 40th Street.

New York. New York

Travelers Aid-International Social Services,

345 East 46th Street.

New York, New York

Private contributions in money or offers in resettlement should be referred

directly to the agencies concerned.

We have strong Indications of support in resettlement and job identification

from other groups including the AFL-CIO. We have been deluged with offers

of private a-ssistance.

Strenuous international efforts are underway. France, Canada and Australia

have indicated they will take Vietnamese refugees. There are Latin American

nations and countries in Asia and Francophone Africa interested.

To facilitate the health and immigration entry Into the U.S., we have set «p

our staging areas in Guam and Wake. Oar health verification system is rigorous.

The Army Medical Corps together with HEW (Public Health Service•Center

for Disease Control physicians and other health personnel) are strongly represented on Guam. The refugees are in good health and pose no moreof a problem

to the health of the American public than thousands of other travelers who

enter this country annually from Southeast Asia. (Of 29.000 refugees on April 30

in Guam, only about SO have been hospitalized due to such conditions as measle+i.

mild diarrhea, maternity and pneumonia but no serious disease or communicable

disc.isc.) At this time, there are no unusual health problems present and we are

maintaining expert (Center for Disease Control) snn-eillnnce. The nutritional

status of the refugees is surprisingly good. Further health and curative treatment and preventive measures will take place in reception centers. Local health

authorities will be alerted for any appropriate follow on, should individual cases

require it.
13

State aud local authorities will suffer no direct fiscal hardship and little indirect hardship from the influx. The Federal Government is seeking authorization

and funding from the Congress on an urgent hasis to provide: resettlement,

health, income maintenance, and social service funds to reimhurse 100 percent

of the costs incurred for these services. Backup Federal funding authority exists

for any residual problems which individual cases may present. HEW* is also

prepared to provide full assistance for destitute repatriates and their dependents

as soon as Congress makes funds available. Also additional moneys for voluntary agency resettlement ami transportation support and reception center casts.

Three reception centers have been designated to receive those arriving•Camp

Peudleton (California), Camp Chaffee (Arkansas), Kglin Air Force Base

( Florida). We and the voluntary agencies anticipate being able to process those

arriving quickly. Screening and counseling services for families whose sponsors

are ready to receive them should take less than a week. Other families should

he on their way to new homes and jobs within a reasonabel period of time, many

of them in a few weeks.

L. DEAN BROWN.

Special Representative and Director of the

lntcr-Agency Task Force for the President.

Mr, EIU-EKO. After a minimal amount of processing, can yon give

the committee some indication of the types of services required for the

Vietnamese refugees who will be resettled in the. United States?

Ambassador BROWX. I think the types of services that would be required were described in a sense by Julia. That is, the type of services

that we provide for American citizens, generally, phis one or two

others which are quite important. And among that is the bilingual

training program which HEW hopes to establish and work on quickly

so that these people can enter into productive capacities.

"We have found, by the way, a very interesting•in a survey we ran

on heads of households in Guam and that a great majority of the

heads of households speak English•either excellent English or a good

English; 70 percent of them.

Mr. EtLBERO. A very important question, Mr. Brown.

You referred•as I did in my statement•to the economic situation,

the, unemployment situation, in this country. Would you attempt to decribe for the committee how many jobs might lie needed by these

refugees, assuming that 150,000 refugees come to this country.

Ambassador BROWX. Yes, sir.

I think the one thing we are finding with the refugees is that there

are large numbers of women and children that have come along. I

would say that of 1.50,000 entering, we are talking probablv about

30.000 heads of households; 30.0(H) jobs, sir.

Mr. EiLi-ERo. Now is it not true that many of the refugees entering

are financially able or competent, or else are parts of families that

would be very well able to take care of themselves ?

I would like to get•as far as possible at this time•to a tentative

maximum figure, based upon all the considerations as to what the impact on the job market will be in the United States.

Ambassador BROWX. Yes. sir.

You are quite right, Mr. Chairman. What we arc seeing in the

arrivals at Chaffee, Kglin. and Peudleton. is a large number of professional people coming through. These are doctors, lawyers, trained

people, who should be able to move very quickly into the job market.

Another factor, as you mentioned very well, is that large numbers

of these, people are related to Americana, or to permanently admitted

52-H9•7"
14

aliens, here in the United States. These people are moving very

quickly out of the camps to their relatives homes and will be taken

care of.

The other thing that is interesting is that the church groups will be

placing large numbers•the voluntary agencies and church groups

have had tons of thousands of offers of homes, placements, and jobs

come through to them. I think the great majority of these people will fit

in rather easily, that they will be productive citizens in a year or so,

contributing to our tax base.

Mr. EILBKKG. You referred briefly to efforts made with other countries, and we have been struggling•I think, valiantly•during the

last few weeks to try to find out what contacts, and the effects of those

contacts•and this subcommittee has somewhat despaired of learning

either the facts or what the results of those efforts are, so I wonder if

you could

Ambassador BROWN. Right. Yes. I will try my best on that sir, but

if I may return to your earlier question, the AFL-CIO Community

Action Organization has been very helpful and supportive of all of our

efforts in the problem of finding jobs for people, and they are playing

a role with the voluntary agencies at this time.

Now we look at what we did in the interational field. We went two

paths: One is to go to the international agencies that have responsibilities in the field. And the second one was to go to the countries bilaterally. So we have gone both ways.

As I mentioned earlier, we do have ICEM working hard right now

on Guam, planning the movement of those people who are there

who want to go to third countries. And there are Vietnamese who say,

no; I don't want to go to the United States, I want to go to Australia;

I want, to go to France, I want to go elsewhere, and ICEM is working

on that.

Now ICEM has also undertaken a quick swing through Latin America. John Thomas went down to Latin America because he, over the

last decade, has been moving people from Europe to Latin America in

fairly substantial numbers. The Latin Americans have certain skill

requirements they want, and what he will be doing on Guam is matching up those skill requirements with the people that are there.

Mr. EILBEKG. May I just interject »

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, sir!

Mr. En.BKRO. It strikes me as odd, if not inconsistent, that at the

very time you are calling upon John Thomas and ICEM, that frankly,

tho administration is cutting the budget of ICEM, or the contribution to ICEM.

Would you have any comment on that ?

Ambassador BROWN. If you will notice in our proposal for authority

and appropriation, there is a sum in there for movement to third countries. Wo would expect that ICEM would largely carry this out.

Mr. EILBERG. So that funds would be added, or be made available to

ICEM?

Ambassador BROWN. That is right, sir.

Mr. Russo. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. I will yield to Mr. Russo.

Mr. Russo. I have to appear before the Public Works Committee

at 11:30, but at the request of Chairman Rodino and also of Chairman
15

Eilberg, I have recently returned from the ICEM Conference in

Geneva, and I would like to share some of my feelings with you Mr.

Ambassador. The feedback that I received from the people with whom

I discussed this problem is that it is America's problem, entirely, and

America had bettter get itself out of it because there will be limited

i f any resettlement in foreign countries•according to the members of

the ICEM nations that 1 talked to.

I also was interested in the fact that they had a conference in

Dublin. The European Common Market countries had a conference

in Dublin where they set their policy, so to speak, that they were not

going to accept many South Vietnamese refugees. In their opinion, it

was America's problem.

While in Geneva, I stressed the point that America is doing its fair

share, and all I asked, and all that the Congress asked, and this country

asks, is that they contribute their fair share. Frankly, my feeling was

that they have little intention of assumming any responsibility regarding this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBEEG. Do you have any comment on that ?

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, sir.

I think that Congressman Eusso has probably hit certain things

rather well. We were very disappointed in the response of the EEC

countries, or the EEC as a body. We have gone back since then on an

individual basis to each one of those countries and said, now let us

talk bilaterally about this; that we bilaterally•the United States•

thinks that you should take on a share of these people. I think we will

get some of it from some of the countries in Western Europe, but we

will not get the large numbers that I would like to see them take.

Now we are gomg to be talking to Mr. Whitlam who is coming

here this week, and saying that we think that Australia should take

a large number of these people. We have been fairly successful so far

with the Canadians. Now the Latin Americans, the indications are•

did you talk to some of the Latin Americans, because there is an indication that the Brazilians, the Uruguayians, in their search for

qualified people, will be moving in the right direction. I hope they

will.

And I would just add one more point. We do have the foreign

ministers of the Latin American countries in Washington next week,

and we will be hitting them again individually and collectively on the

issue.

Mr. Rrsso. I hope the response provided to you is much better than

the one I received.

Ambassador BROWN. I hope so too. sir.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Brown, why are we having so much trouble with

the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees? It seems to me that he

could not care less as far as this problem is concerned. This is the net

conclusion thatI come to.

Ambassador BROWN. I am not sure, sir.

There seems to be a delay factor built into their response techniques.

Mr. EILBERG. YOU are being very, very polite.

Ambassador BROWN. And all I can do is pound on them and say to

them, look, we have been one of the principal supporters of UNHCR

in the past; we are one of the principal supporters of the United
16

Nations; this is a United Nations responsibility to take on: we do have

a convention of wluch the United States is u signatory, and unfortunately, not enough countries around the world are signatories about

refugees, and ask them to take on their responsibilities, both of the

signatories and nonsignatories. "What I want from the UNHCll is a

good solid public statement that refugees that take refuge in third

countries an? not to be driven back to the countries from which they

fled, which is part of the convention.

Mr. EILHEKO. You stated a few moments ago you were hopeful of the

cooperation of the U.N. in assisting some of these refugees. Do you

really mean it, Mr. Brown!

Ambassador BROWX. All I can do is hope, sir.

We finally persuaded (hem to send two people out to Guam, and t beware on their way: A Canadian and someone else. We will talk to them

out there. And as I said 1 am talking to Dyale, who is the deputy, this

afternoon; I have asked him to come down and bring his people down.

All I can do is pound the table as hard as possible•and you can l»e

assured it will happen.

Mr. EILBERO. We certainly wish you great success in that area.

Ambassador BROWX. YOU tell me to pound it harder, and I will do it.

Mr. EU.BERU. Please do.

Ambassador BROWX. J will sir, and I will tell them that.

Mr. EILBERO. Mr. Fish ?

Mr. FISH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Ambassador Brown. I welcome yon. and at the outset. I would like to

say that. I certainly hope that the United States will adhere to its traditional role of welcoming these refugees, and being generous about it.

1 am very sorry that news accounts in the past, few days seem to indicate that some Americans, at least, do not share that feeling, and are

not rolling out the welcome mat for Vietnamese.

So I think it would be helpful if we can put this matter in some perspective. And your mentioning the fact that only 30.000. who would be

heads of households, are seeking employment in the United States,

1 think is a very good point.

Is it not also true that of the 40,000 Vietnamese, in the first paragraph of your prepared statement, that were airlifted out of Saigon,

that many of these would l>e in the category of parolees that we approved? It would be families of American citizens and families of

Vietnamese in the United States legally, here for permanent residence (

Ambassador BROWX. That is correct, sir. Absolutely.

Mr. Fisir. So can we not expect that the families that petitioned for

their parents and brothers and sisters to come to the United States

would share a responsibility for their maintenance I

Ambassador BROWX. Yes, sir. We expect that, and we have already

processed into the United States about 11,000 people, all of whom hare

sponsors. And we think they will never become a public charge.

Mr. FISH. IS that not part of the assumption, when an American citizen•the person here of permanent residence•petitions for his or her

parents and brothers and sisters to come to the United States, which is

a normal process 1 understand, that there is an obligation to see that

the people coming into the country would not become a public charge'.

Ambassador BROWX*. Yes, sir. That is a moral obligation.

Mr. FISH. There is no waiver of that in this case, is there ?

Ambassador BROWX. No; that is not waived, sir.
17

As a matter of fact, let me just check with General Chapman, but

I think last year we took in 400,000 immigrants into the United States.

Is that right, sir?

General CUAPXKS. That is right.

Ambassador BKOWN. 400,000 people came into the United States

through the ordinary process and have settled here, and no one has

even noticed it.

Mr. Fisir. That is the next point I wanted to make. I think it was

Ms. Taft who mentioned that the resettlement in the United States

would be scattered throughout the country to avoid any concentration.

If my arithmetic is right, if we have 180,000 Vietnamese coming into

the United States, that would be one Vietnamese for every 1,610

Americans. Is that true'. Is that your rough arithmetic I

Ms. TAFT. Your guess is as good as mine.

Mr. FISH. In other words, they would not be very noticeable, would

they, Mr. Brown'.

Ambassador BROWN. NO, sir.

Mr. FISH. I wonder if one of you could tell the subcommittee more

.about the role of the voluntary agencies. When we had our last

meeting, Ambassador Kellogg Said lie was very anxious for the voluntary agencies to assume responsibility at the staging areas in the

United States, and I wonder how that is proceeding and what the

function of the agencies are.

Ambassador Bnowx. I think the way I like to look at it is, it is

really a flow process. What we have' is somebodv coining out of Vietnam with the American Government, involved, and the American

Government has now moved them through the Pacific, and he is in

the staging area in the United States. He is then processed by the

health authorities to make sure he is healthy, by INS to make sure

lie meets the criteria. He is given a security clearance, and then this

man moves sort of down the row of tents and he hits the voluntary

agencies. And they are there physically in the camps.

We have, had enormous problems getting going with this program

l>ecause we had to move so quickly. It is moving, honestly, better in

ChafFee than at Pendleton, because we were able to get a few days

advance in Pendleton and get people there before the flow started.

But there they are•the voluntary agencies are there with their

representatives with telephones, dealing with their constituencies,

that is, the church groups around the country. Let us take the

Catholics, for instance; they are dealing with the bishops, the bishops

are dealing down with the churches which are making offers to take

people•saying, we can take, in this parish we can take six families,

ov two families, or three. And we will work this out, this flow through

to the voluntary agency man at the camp. And he can make a determination then, using a lot of telephones, a lot of cables, and eventually

move someone on directly to tin- sponsor.

It is a constant flow that way, sir. And you know, these voluntary

agencies have had a lot. of ex|>erieiK'e doing this, and we have nine

of them out there working with us. And there ate other people that

have started to get into the game as well•the International Rescue

Committee, the Red Cross is bein<r helpful. And I expect the community action organization of AFL-CIO to move into this pretty

quickly.
18

Mr. FISH. Could I interrupt for a moment ? Do you have any breakdown of the religious affiliation of these people ?

Ambassador BROWN. NO, sir. Well, we do know, for instance, that the

churches themselves, the American churches, which have missionary

efforts in Vietnam made considerable efforts to make sure that at least

their leaders were moved out, so we will have a large number of the

people who will be•well, we have Catholics, we have some Mormon

groups, we have the Church Missionary Alliance, some of their people.

These are Vietnamese who are members of these faiths.

Mr. FISH. Then you are getting the cooperation of the affiliated

churches in the United States?

Ambassador BROWN. Absolutely. Every church group in the United

States is with us.

Mr. FISH. That is marvelous.

I wonder if I could turn to Ms. Taft again because I do not want

to monopolize the time again, but I wonder Ms. Taft if you want to

address yourself to the public health problems, and just give us an

account of the way things are at these staging areas.

Ms. TAIT. I am glad you asked that because this is one of the areas

that we have been quite pleased with the high level of health in Guam,

in Wake, and at these staging areas here. We have a center for disease

control specialist at each of the reception centers and the staging sites

that are providing around-the-clock health surveillance, looking into

issues of communicable disease and general health care.

To date, we have found no serious health problems whatsoever. As

a matter of fact, these people seem to be healthier than the normal

average American cluster of people 30,000 or 40,000 large. There hare

been about 90 hospitalizations at any one time on Guam, and those

are primarily for maternity cases. There have been about six babies

bom, mild inflammation of the eyes, and digestive tract problems, but

there have been no serious illnesses whatsoever, and we are quite

pleased at the sanitary conditions.

We are concerned, of course, with the crowding, and for this reason,

we are trying to move as expeditiously as possible to bring the people

stateside and out. We are immunizing all children ages 1 through 5

for all of the typical immunizations: pertussis, rubella, mumps, that

kind of thing.

Actually, we are quite, confident by the time all children get out

of the reception sites here, they will be immunized, which is tetter

than the American public at large.

Mr. FISH. SO immunized, they might be sick from that.

Ms. TAFT. NO; we are very pleased with the health condition and

Public Health Service is working very closely with the military medical corps that are at all of the staging sites, and we feel that there

is no problem. Emergency medical cases that cannot be treated at the

hospitals, at the staging sites, will be handled at Public Health Service

hospitals or clinics, and as soon as people leave the reception centers,

and if they find a job obviously they can enroll in the health care

plan of whatever employer they have.

Or second, if they are unable to pay for medical expenses, this is

the kind of costs that HEW would be picking up, pursuant to legislation.

Mr. FISH. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19

Mr. TCU.BF.RO. Thank you, Mr. Fish.

Mr. Sarbanes?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Ambassador, I would like to get a little clearer

picture on the numbers. I take it the numbers that we are talking

about are set out on pages 3 and 4 of your statement, is that correcti

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SARBANES. NOW, the 55,000 in the first categories essentially come

within the previous categories of parole authority issued by the Attorney General, is that correct ?

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SARBANES. That does not apply to the 69,000, or is it that it may

or may not apply to the 69,000 ?

Ambassador BROWN. It may or may not,sir.

Mr. SARBANES. DO you have any estimate with respect to the 09.000 ?

How many would be covered under the existing categories provided

for parole authority ?

Ambassador BROWN. Sir. I can give you no firm estimate on that

until we land those people and have our preliminary process. They are

all still at sea.

Now, I would assume that large numbers of them will fit under the

various categories, particularly those fleeing because they feel their

lives are threatened. Otherwise, they would not be on the high seas.

Mr. SARBANES. Isthere any profile ofthe refugee population in terms

of age. sex, skills, language abilities?

Amlmssador BROWN. Yes, sir, we have that. As a matter of fact,

what this is here is something we tried this time perhaps for the fii-st

time in a thing like this. This is everyone we have had in Guam is now

here in the computer, 44,000. We are refining this data all the time.

First of all, it gives us a name check. It gives us an age, nationality,

and what we are trying to get into, this is a skill code as well, and hand

this to the voluntary agencies. It will be the first time that we have

really given them a working document of this nature that they can

handle in a better way than just dealing with individuals.

Now, this has been basically done by U.S. facilities. IBM is moving

into it. IBM on a voluntary basis is going to take over and help us run

the computer facilities.

Mr. SARBANES. Do you have a summary sheet with respect to that

situation which gives us any general information ?

Ambassador BROWN. Yes; let me give you an analysis that we did.

We ran some soundings on the bases in Guam. There are five camps

in Guam. Thisis 500 households. Twenty-eight percent of them already

have U.S. sponsors; 34 percent of them have relatives in the United

States; 10 percent wanted to go to third countries; 10 percent had no

particidar ties in the United States: 18 percent are U.S. Government

employees; 10 percent were employees of U.S. firms, agencies, political

leaders in the threatened category, military, and others; 30 percent

spoke excellent English; 40 percent fair English; 40 percent are male;

60 percent female: 60 percent children.

Breaking it down a little further

Mr. SARBANES. What was that•40 percent were male and what was

the. next figure ?

Ambassador BROWN. Forty percent of the adults were male, 60 percent female, and then 60 percent ofthe mass are children.
20

Mr. SAKBANES. I see.

Ambassador BROWN. From the computer, of the 44,000 people on

Guam•this was a survey•but running through the computer, we get

this: Of the 44,000, 48.</male, 51.1 female of 44,000 people; under 10

years, 25 percent; 10 to 17, 20 percent; 18 to 24, 15 percent; 25 to 55,

34 percent; over 55, 5 percent, and I will be glad to put this in rather

than hare you•I will be glad to put this into the record, these figures.

Mr. EII.BERG. We will be glad to make that part of the record.

[The material referred to follows:]

INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GUAM DATA BASE

Number Percent

Number D( military personnel:

Enlisted

Officers

Total

By sex:

Male

Female

Total

546 ....

801 ....

1,347

21.575

22,512

48.9

51.1

44,087 100.0

11,406

9, 024

8,606

14.960

2,091

25.9

20.5

15.0

33.9

4.7

44,087 100 0

2,244

40, 965

876

5.1

92.9

1.9

By aie;

Under 10

10 to 17

18 to 24

25 to 55

Over 55

Total ...

By nationality:

United States

Vietnam

Other

Total _ 44,087 100.0

Mr. SARBAXES. Is there any report on how unified or broken up are

the families that are moving? I notice that 60 percent of those figures,

-or close to 60 percent, are under 24 years of age.

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, sir, that is right. ,

Mr. SARBAXES. I am wondering, are we dealing essentiallv with

family units, or have they been totally fragmented? Are we dealing

with a lot of isolated persons, either children or adults, detached from

their family units?

Ambassador BROWX. I think the great majority are family units.

Now, in manv cases part of the family did not come, but the Vietnamese have, like so many people, very close family ties, and the household is often an extended one, and we find in the camps that the people

sort themselves out by families very quickly, but there is certainly no

way we were able to guarantee for instance that a family of threatened

individual, the entire family got out. We will find in need some isolated

people.

I think in the groups that will be coming in on ships, we may find

more isolated groups that have lost their families. We are not. quite

sure of the makeup of the ships or even the total numbers. It is rather

strange. We thought we had a count on some of the U.S. Navy ships at

one time. We thought there were 32,000. Itturns out we had 39,000 on
21

the ships. They could not even count them aboard. It is too difficult, too

crowded, too confusing.

Mr. SARBANES. NOW, on page 6, you indicate that Canada has declared its willingness to take a certain number of refugees and that

France is receiving those with special ties.

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SARBANES. Does this affect the refugee figures that you wcro

talking about, or is there another stream of refugees that is being

absorbed directly by other countries?

Ambassador BROWN. Well, I think the Canadian one will be within

our stream. That is to say, the Canadians are in our camps looking for

people. They are not taking any separately. Now, the French of coursehare large numbers of Vietnamese at an)- time in France. That has

always been a cultural center for France. They are dealing with them

and their refugees.

Now, the French of course have stayed behind, and that would be a

separate stream as far as the French were concerned. Now, of the let

us say French-speaking African countries where there are large Vietnamese populations, "West Africa•there are no Chinese restaurants,

although they call themselves Chinese restaurants. They are all Vietnamese restaurants^and this is left over from the French ties to Vietnam in the past, and they will be looking for their relatives, through

us, through the French, in any way they can.

The Australians have special ties. As do the New Zealanders, having served in Vietnam at one time, and they will be looking for people

that are of concern to them through us and perhaps separately as well,

but I think in niost cases primarily through us.

Mr. SARBANES. NOW, it is not quite clear to me why on page 5 of

your statement you are requesting additional parole authority'.

Ambassador BROWN. Yes. Let me put it this way: What we ask

for in what we call the endangered group was 50,000 people, and we

asked for a parole authority that totaled in all of the categories of

Vietnamese and Cambodians up to 130,000. What we are finding is

the composition of the group is changing because of this sea rescue.

In other words, we will have larger numbers in the endangered

group than in the close relatives group as we had originally anticipated. Perhaps not as man)' relatives

Mr. SARBANES. Well, you asked for two things, as I understand it,

and that is, first an increase in numbers.

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SARBANES. And also the lifting or the easing of the limitations

on the categories.

Ambassador BROWN. That is right, greater flexibility, sir.

Mr. SARBANES. I understand that request. I do not understand the

first request.

Ambassador BROWN. The first request is for an additional•this is

because we are simply not sure, sir, what numbers there are in third

countries or still floating around the seas that are going to get picked

up one way or another, and we are taking this on a contingency basis

in case we need it.

Mr. SARBANES. DO you think your ability to request or in fart urge

other countries to absorb part of the refugee problem will be helped
22

,or hindered as the total number we are committed to exceeds the total

refugee population ?

Ambassador BROWN. I think you put a question that agonized us,

too, sir•that is to say, the mere fact that you announce that you are

going to do something tends to take the pressure off of others, and

yet at the same time, you cannot let people drift around on the seas.

The idea of 40,000 drifting somewhere between the Philippines and

Guam in makeshift Vietnamese naval vessels and freighters was too

much, so I thought we had to move on and bite that bullet.

Mr. SARBANES. I understand that, but I thought the numbers already

authorized were sufficient to cover that problem•although not the

categories problem. I understand the problems with the categories,

but I understood that the numbers already authorized were sufficient

to cover the numbers problem; but as I understood your answer, just

a moment ago, you tied the additional numbers to the problem of

Vietnamese present in third countries who might encounter difficulties

in remaining there.

Ambassador BROWN. NO; I think we would have to add to that those

that are maybe still floating around the seas or ending up in the hands

of countries that will not take them. To be precise, sir. you know,

there are some ships, for instance, going into places like Thailand.

These are ships with Vietnamese who escaped one way or another.

The Thais are not going to take them.

Mr. SARBANES. At what point in time do you think we would be

able to have absolutely hard figures, really, on the number of refugees,

and some facts on their composition ?

Ambassador BROWN. Well, I think we would be able to get the composition once we get these people off the ships and get them into the

processing process. We will have a better idea who and what we are

talking about.

I wish I could be more precise now, but we did not try to do that pn

the ships because we thought it would be just too confusing for our

people on the ships to do that. Once we do that, we will have the figures, and we will have them cold, and now the question of timing•I do

not think we want an open-ended situation that goes on indefinitely

into the future. At some time, once these large numbers are in our

centers or are taken care of elsewhere, we should then revertto normal

practice and say these things will be handled on the case-by-case basis

rather than in any categories, so the idea of a time limit is one which

I have a certain sympathy for. We will have to work out a cutoff.

And also I want to get out of this job sometime, and I thought they

might combine.

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. COTIEN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brown, I think you indicated earlier that 400,000 refugees or

people immigrated to this country last year, and no one even noticed.

I would just point out that General Chapman has been testifying for

several weeks now that we have one-half million people who entered

this country illegally who are contributing substantially to our economic problems.

Ambassador BROWN. That is right, sir.
23

Mr. COHEN. I suppose that one could logically, but I suppose erroneously, conclude, that when they enter illegally, they are a problem,

but when they enter legally, they are not a problem.

I am concerned about the run-throughs or your computer. It is my

information that Mr. Habib testified before Senator Kennedy's committee in the Senate that they needed approximately $300 million for a

6-month period, or roughly the same amount of money for a yearly

period for about half as many refugees, and I am wondering now that

we have doubled the number of refugees, why you are asking the same

amount of money.

Was Mr. Habib underestimating and you overestimating?

Ambassador BROWN. I hope I am not overestimating, sir.

No, we are not asking for the same amount of money. We are asking

for what is almost double.

Mr. COHEN*. I believe he testified on a 6-month period, and you are

asking for 1 year.

Ambassador BROWN. Yes.

Mr. COHEN. Does that not amount to the same amount of money ?

Ambassador BROWN. Oh, no. I see what you mean. I think the bulk

of the. money, you see, is spent almost immediately. The large amounts

of this money are for transportation and care and feeding of people

before they move into the economy.

Mr. COHEN. I am sorry. I did not getthat comment.

Mr. GARDINER. I happen to have been there when the Secretary was

testifying.

Mr. COHEN. Perhaps you could elaborate on itMr. GARDINER. We did at that point give a preliminary estimate

based on the then-estimated preliminary figures of refugees, which has

indeed increased since. Secretary Habib did give a guess of a possible

total cost in the neighborhood of one-half billion dollars for the whole

problem.

Mr. COHEN. For half as many refugees.

Mr. GARDINER. Well, yes, but that was over the longer period of

time. yes.

Mr. COHEN. Butthat was for a 6-month period.

Mr. GARDINER. The numbers that we in fact used were closer to $300

million for a 6-month period. When pressed, Phil guessed that for the

total cost for the entire program, it would be close to one-half billion

dollars.

Mr. COHEN. For a 6-month period?

Mr. GARDINER. XO, sir. for the total.

Mr. COHEN. But it comes back to the same point•one-half billion

Mr. GARDINER. This is a more refined estimate now.

Mr. COHEN. It is one-half billion dollars•the same amount of money

for twice as many refugees.

Mr. GARDINER. That is correct.

Mr. COHEN. I am a little bit concerned about the guesswork that has

been going on. Several weeks ago, 2 or 3 weeks ago•I am glad you

mention Mr. Thomas from ICEM who testified before this subcommittee•the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fish, was asking Mr.

Thomas•who was in a good position to have some feel at least for
24

the amount of cooperation by our allies or those who are concerned

with international agencies•Mr. Fish asked the question, do you

think that we would anticipate taking 100,000 or possibly 200,000

into this counU'y ?

And the response was, I do not think it is going to lie anything like

that at all. A certain number of people who have worked closely with

us should be received in this country. He would place the figure in

the neighborhood of 10,000 to 15,000 this country would have to accept. That was less than 3 weeks ago.

Have things changed so drastically with our international relations

that we no longer have the type of cooperation, that other countries

can bear their share?

Ambassador BROWN. That is a very good question. I think it is one

we are going to have to analyze oper the next 2 weeks or so as to what

our relations are with certain other countries.

Mr. Coirex. Well, when you say that, what kind of pressures can !>e

brought on other countries to bear bear some measure of responsibility (

For example, woidd it be appropriate for this committee or this Congress or this administration to consider the reduction of the amount of

people coming into this country next year? For example, if we take

an additional 150,000 this year over and above those wo normally

put through our immigration process, would it be appropriate to consider a reduction in a future year ?

Ambassador BROWN. I would not want to answer that because I am

not sure of the exact makeup of the people who come in at the present

time under the normal program, but as 1 understand it, they are generally rather high peferenec, are they not, General Chapman?

General CHAPMAN. The 400.000 ?

Ambassador BROWN. Yes. Could tlie general speak to that?

General CHAPMAN. The 400,000, of course, enter under the auspices

of the immigration laws. They are either relatives or sponsored by

their relatives, or they have a labor certification for work in this

country.

Mr. COHEN. I understand that, but I am suggesting that this 3

-

ear

wo will have approximately 550.000 as opposed to 400,000.

General CHAPMAN. Immigrants?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir: immigrants and refugees.

General CHAPMAN. Well, the number of immigrants is about 100,000

each year and has been.

Mr. COHEN. We are talking about another 150.000 coming in though.

What response have you received from the States you have written to,

Mr. Brown ?

Ambassador BROWN. I am sorry ?

Mr. COHEN. What response have you received from the States you

have written to?

Ambassador BROWN. Well, I have talked to a lot of people on the

phone as well. It varies, and I think in the beginning there was a lot

of hesitation, a lot of fear that large numbers of people were going

to be dumped on one community or another without any planning.

..If you remember, there were headlines in the California papers that

1 million people were suddenly going to arrive in California.

We have had. I think a change in attitude, a very good change in

attitude, as we have seen at both Chaffee and Egiin, the local coin-
25

munities are there; the Governors are there. Governor Pryor of Arkansas handed out to each Vietnamese as lie arrived a personal greeting

in Vietnamese. There has been an attitude of acceptance which I think

is completely in the tradition of the American people.

Always in the beginning I think you find this attitude, gee, let us

not face the problem, and then later cooperation.

Mr. EILBEKG. Would the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Mr. EUBERG. Following that, we know with the Cuban refugees

situation that they practically all settled in Miami. Ambassador

Brown, I ask you to look in the crystal ball and tell us what you see

as far as the spread of these Vietnamese refugees around the country ?

Ambassador BROWN. Well, at this time I am not sure. We have something like 16,000 Vietnamese living in the country now. 16,000 or

18,000. and if we looked at that, they are soread all over the country

as it is. These are people that have entered in previous years. Many

of them have already gone in and become American citizens, or others

are in the process, and they are spread across the country.

Mr. EILBERG. What about the rest that are coming in ?

Ambassador BROWN. I think the same pattern will hold, and that,

of course, is exactly what HEW on its part and the volunteer agencies

have assumed as a major responsibility, is to spread this out and not

create just what you said, a settlement area or a series of settlement

areas where we create whole new ethnic communities in the United

States.

Mr. COHEN. I believe Ms. Taft has suggested that the refugees coming into this country are far healthier than anyone anticipated, and I

assume that is because they are coming from the middle- and uppermiddle-class of the Vietnamese society. Is that not so?

Ms. TAFT. Partially, it is so, but Saigon and South Vietnam are not

areas where there is high contagious diseases anyway, so they came

from a health}* environment too.

Mr. COHEN. And from what you said, they tend to be professional

and those who are in the upper brackets of Vietnamese society, as far

as income is concerned, and occupations.

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, very often. That is tb say, the ones that

are coming here with relatives•I mean, these are relatives that made

it. They are in a social class where the relative came here, got a job,

and worked, so they are all educated in the family.

As I was saying, that sample of English is an indication that that

is what, they are.

Mr. COHEN. I understand that point. T would like to ask two questions pertaininc to that. How many of those who are coming into this

country have friends or relatives who would be able, would lie in a

position, to provide them with some financial assistance and other

assistance to alleviate the burden placed upon the taxpayer, and how

many of those have significant assets of their own who could contribute

to their own resettlement here in this country ?

Ambassador BROWN. Well, assets of their own•they all•not all,

but most of them seem to be traveling with something. These are the

savings that they had for this purpose, what they call their runaway

money if necessary.
26

Mr. COHEN. Well, is there any inquiry being made into exactly

how much runaway money is involved ?

Ambassador BKOWN. NO, no, not assuch.

Mr. COHEN. Why not ?

Ambassador BROWN. Because that would•oh, T am sorry.

Ms. TAFT. We have representatives atthree reception sites here from

Social Rehabilitation Services that are going through identifying assets and trying to make assumptions based on the information they get

on how many of these people may eventually end up on public assistance rolls, and from the sample that we have had are primarily the

ones that do have sponsors now or do have their own assets that are

coming through, so I cannot give you a judgment, but by and large,

these people are prepared to enter into the mainstream of society

with their professions and with their assets.

Mr. EILBRRG. Would the gentleman yield for a moment to Mr.

Sarbanes?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I yield.

Mr. SARBANES. Just to follow up on a question that Congressman

Cohen asked, are the figures you are giving us based on the sample

pertaining to those Vietnamese who are part of the U.S. evacuation

plan, are they not?

Ambassador BROWN. That is right, sir.

Mr. SARBANES. And, it is, I gueas, reasonable to assume that those

being picked up at sea that were not part of an evaluation plan may in

fact/•I mean, we do not know, but they may in fact give you a very

different refugee profile. Is that right?

Ambassador BROWN. That is right. I would say, as T said earlier, the

profile was M percent that had relatives in the United States. I expect

in the total program to see that drop, that as these other people come in

that that percentage will go down.

Mr. COHEN. Just one final point, if T may. Mr. Chairman. I was

interested in your comment that 70 percent of those people, heads of

households, are bilingual. Yet apparently you are going to request

funds for substantial amounts of money for bilingual aid, T assume

in other words you are going to give them all bilingual education, the

children as well, and T am pleased to hear that because I have been

requesting additional funding for some time, from the same administration for bilingual education, and it has not been forthcoming.

That is all I have. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ETLBERG. MS. Holtzman ?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

What does your sample show with respect to those who come and

have assets with them ?

Ms. TAFT. I do not have a figure right now. As you know, the reception centers are where this processing has been going through, and they

have only been doing it for the past, four days, but we will be collecting

some specific data on all kinds of demographic characteristics and income chflracteristics, and T will be able to

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well, I am asking about assets. Are they specifically

asking at these centers what assets people have? Is that question l>eing

asked?

Ms. TAFT. It is my understanding that this question is being asked.
27

Ambassador BROWN. This is in the centers in the United States.

Ms. TAFT. Right.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Do you anticipate that the Government, is going to

pay for the transportation, resettlement, acculturation of persons who

come here with great personal wealth ?

Ambassador BROWN. No, not at all.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Are you taking that into account in these figures

you have submitted?

Ambassador BROWN. Yes.

Ms. TAFT. Yes.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well then, if you are taking that into account, do

vou have anv breakdown of the persons who come here with personal

wealth?

Ms. TAFT. Yes, one of the things•and I am glad you raised this

question because I think the experience with the Cuban refugee program which had built into it a potential for income testing•in other

words, you would not have to pick up the financial costs for the senices if people did have their own assets to cover these expenses. That

was never invoked in the Cuban refugee program because of the high

concentration of people in one State.

Now, what we are doing here and in building our budget estimates

for HEW, we are going to, depending on the outcome of the legislation, we will be means testing the services for reimbursement, so it

would be very much the same way as our existing system is, and by

looking at the budget, you can see one of the largest costs is in the

welfare, social services, and medical assistance, and what we are doing

is basing the maximum exposure, being 65,000 cases per month at any

one time.

We think this is

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well, perhaps you have not understood my question.

What assumption are you making as to the number of people who will

come here destitute and the number who will come here able to pay

their own way? Do your figures make any assumption with respect

to that, or do they assume everyone is going to be destitute ?

Ms. TAFT. The assumption we are making from our standpoint based

on about 130.000 people is that at some point during their experience

here that half of those people will be on public assistance for some

period of time.

Mr. COHEN. Will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I would like to get this question answered.

Mr. Ambassador, do you have any plan to ask persons who have

been evacuated at Government expense to reimburse the Government

if they have the means to do so ?

Ambassador BROWN. NO ; I have no plan at this time to ask those who

were evacuated at Government expense, that is from Saigon on. at

this time.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Did you not just answer me that you would not expect the taxpayers to bear the expense of people who came here with

great personal wealth ?

Ambassador BROWN. I thought you were talking about resettlement

itself, Ms. Holtzman.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I am talking about both.
28

Ambassador BROWN. NO. At this time, we have no plans; we have not

developed any plan of trying to tap back into the total cost and factor

it out, and a plan to bill people.

Ms. HOLTZMAN, Is that 16 tons of gold available to•

Ambassador BROWN. It never got out.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Oh, it never got out.

Mr. EILBERG. Would the gentlelady yield to Mr. Cohen ?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I will be happy to yield to him now.

Mr. COHEN. I just wanted to follow up on your line of questioning.

It seems that a lot of information that we have received during the

past 2 or 3 weeks has been based upon guestimates from the 15,000 that

Dr. Thomas said we have to handle in this country to now in excess of

100,000. And I was just wondering from your point of view how much

time is going to be necessary before you will have something more than

guesswork, rather than requesting this committee to authorize on a

basis of 1 year in terms of the amount of money to be expended.

What period of time would be necessary l>efore you have some facts

as opposed to asking us to make an authorization or consider authorizing you to act on a yearly basis? What period of time is necessary?

Ambassador BROWN. Well, really then what you are asking me to do

is to complete an elaborate paperwork on each one. This we will do. but

we will not be able to do it until the people are in staging areas where

we can see them. People will !>e floating around for another week or so.

Mr. EILBKRO. Mr. Brown, the question really is, should we not start

with the lesser initial authorization anil perhaps come along later, a

couple of months later, after your facts are better known, so that we

would provide an authorization that is meaningful rather than one

based on guesswork, as the case now is ? I mean, would you not have to

do this all at one time within this week or next week, I think is the

thrust of Mr. Cohens question.

Ambassador BROWN. Yes. We need the feeling that we are going to

have enough funds so we can carry this program through, so that it

will not come to a dead stop at some time. I would hate to stop processing people or moving people because the services say there are no funds

coming along stream.

Arthur, do you want to speak to this though? He helped develop the

figures.

Mr. GARDINER. I think Jim can help.

Ambassador BROWN. Jim Wilson helped develop these figures.

Mr. WILSON. AS I think the subcommittee is aware, Mr. Chairman,

we have taken certain emergency actions to fund the cost of the refugee

program to date through a series of transfers from the Foreign Assistance Act. These transfers have now totaled a total of $!)8 million, but

the expenditures are also very large at this point.

We estimate that we may be very close to spending that entire. $9R

million by the end of this week, unless we can find an additional'

source of funds. This means then that the need for funding to continue

this operation without interruption is very acute.

Mr. EILBERO. Ms. Holtzman?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ambassador, do you have any screening program for persons

who came here from South Vietnam who may have engaged in the

misappropriation of American funds while they were in South Viet-
29

nam, who were responsible for running the tiger cages, or who were

engaged in torture of political prisoners if What are you doing with

respect to these persons I

Ambassador BROWX. Well, what we are doing very carefully through

the INS process.•INS is following out its absolutely normal procedures, just as it would in other cases, and that includes a check, a security check, to see if these people are admissible, so that if we are talking about criminals or other people who are excluded from the United

States, they would not be included. We would not take them.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. Well, I saw a television program the other night in

which, I believe, the head of the secret police in Saigon was processed

ahead of a long line of other people. Is preferential treatment being

given to these people 1

Ambassador BROWX. My instructions, as all my staff knows my

instructions were that there was to be.no preferential treatment given

to anybody. It was a first-come, first-serve basis, and this includes the

foreign services officers who were on Guam still with their wives. They

wait in line with everybody else.

Those three fellows did not jump the line, by the wa}-, they were

pulled through the line, but they were in their place. They had come

to them in the numerical system. In other words, if you are case 6.000,

when they get around to process case 6,000, you are processed. They

were off in another tent somewhere, and they went through the line,

but they had come to their numbers.

I do not like the idea of VIP processing. First of all, it is an undemocratic system, and second of all it is damn inefficient, because you stop

the work you are doing, and your people do not perform well, and

they do not like it.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. I am glad of that assurance, and I would hope, too

that there is no preferential treatment given to the so-called brass, the

big shots, and the like. I would like to get back to an earlier point.

I am not sure there is anything in the existing immigration laws that

would prohibit the entry of persons who wore involved in police tort ure methods or running the tiger cages or in corruption. Perhaps the

Commissioner can answer this: If persons have not been convicted of a

crime, though there may be substantial evidence that they committed

one, they seem to be admissible.

Do you have some other plans with respect, to the issuance of parole

for these persons, or with respect to the admission of these people into

this country ?

Ambassador BROWX. I might let the general talk about how the

parole system really works because what we are not doing is we are

not admitting people for permanent residence into the United States

under a pai-ole, but he might talk to this because it is an important

difference here.

General CIIAPMAX. Well, that is correct. The parolees are paroled

into the United States physically. Legally, they are still at the water's

edge. They are not admitted for permanent, residence as immigrants.

For each one. the security checks are made.

In the case of the relatives, we are comp]ctin<r the security checks

after they depart the processing centers and join their families, and

we may well clo that in some cases with the other categories as well,

-nn-
30

but in each case a security check will be completed, and all checks will

be completed before we issue the final parole authority.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chapman, does the security check go into questions of profiteering, misappropriation of American funds, and

whether people were involved in police torture methods and the like I

General CHAPMAN. The security check is made with each of the

cognizant Government agencies, State, FBI, CIA, Defense, and one or

two others I believe, so that if that kind of activity occurred it would

lie known.

But the parole authority, however, the parole process is not limited

in that regard. The immigration is.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Are you saying you can assure me now that the socalled security checks are going into questions of whether persons who

are seeking admission into this country, under parole or otherwise,

engaged in any misappropriation of American funds, profiteering, or

torture methods in South Vietnam ? Can you give me that assurance ?

General CHAPMAN. I cannot give you that assurance. It depends on

what information is contained in the records of the agencies to whom

we inquire with regard to security. I do not know what is in their

records.

Mr. EILBERO. Would the gentlelady yield ?

General, what are your plans, or what do you think will happen if

these people do not pass the security checks. What are you going to do

with these people ?

General CHAPMAN. They will continue to be paroled, I think. They

will bo paroled into the United States as parolees in a refugee status.

Mr. EHBERG. Even though they may be found to have been guilty

of very serious crimes ?

General CHAPMAN. Well, if they are criminals, they are excludable

under the law.

Mr. EILBERG. And sent back to Vietnam ?

General CHAPMAN. I doubt if that will happen, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERO. What will happen ?

General CHAPMAN. I think they will be parolees in the United States.

Mr. EILBERG. That is really not a very satisfactory answer, is it,

General ?

General CHAPMAN. I think it is a hard fact, an inexorable fact in this

situation.

Mr. EILBERO. I do not know whether the committee can accept that.

We will have to ponder that.

Ambassador BROWN. I think it is a hard question, Mr. Chairman,

because there is another facet to it that you have to remember, and

that is that we are signatories to the refugee protocol and convention

which says to us when someone lands in your country as a refugee, you

cannot return them if he is a genuine refugee. In other words, that is

international law in contrast to domestic law.

Mr. EILBERO. MS. Holtzman ? May I just assure the members of the

committee that we will go until the quorum call, and Ambassador

Brown has been kind enough to say he would be able to stay until

after the quorum call, so that other members of the committee will

have an opportunity to ask their questions.
31

Ms. HOLTZMAN. If I might just finish that line of questioningAmbassador BROWN. Please, because it is a very difficult one, Ms.

Holtzman.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Exactly. It is something that troubles me a tremendous amount. It seems to me in the first place that we have not

reached the point of having these people actually arrive in our country. I mean, they are still in some stage of asylum in Guam and Wake.

Secondly, I want to get back to the point that General Chapman

answered. Is the security check of these persons going into such

questions as whether they were in a position to and did in fact mishandle. American funds? We have been hearing the press for years

talk about corruption going on in Saigon, and we surely have enough

people who break the law in this country without importing them

gratuitously. Is any question being asked in these security checks

about whether or not these people engaged in torture, police methods.

And secondly, is any question being asked in these security checks

about whether or not these people engaged in torture, police methods.

Ambassador BROWN. Unless they were in the file. You see that is

what my problem is in answering you. It is not a direct answer. If it

is in the file and your security people, your evaluators say, this is a

security risk, then it is a non-admissible person.

That is not a direct answer, but that is the way those files work, as

yon know.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Dodd ?

Mr. Donn. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

I would just sort of like to proceed with that line of questioning

because it was my understanding earlier from you. Ms. Taft, that one

of the problems with the Cuban refugees is that there was not really

the collection of data or a very limited amount of collection of data

when those refugees came to this country. Is that a correct summarization of what you said ?

Ms. TAFT. No, I said we provided services without, regard to whatever the income was of the refugees that came in. It was not that we

did not make the assessment or that they had money and they could

not pay for it. The problem was there was a heavy impact in one State,

and that has continued. We had 660.000 Cubans that went basically

into Florida, and that was such a heavy influx that we covered the

costsregardless ofthe income.

Mr. DODD. I was not just referring to income. I was talking about

the collection of data and information not only as to income, as to

job skills, as to possible background checks into certain alleged

criminal activities, so forth and so on, that kind of data, collection.

Wasthat a part ofthe Cuban refugee program ?

Ms. TAFT. There is still a very large computer data bank in Dade

County in Florida that does maintain information on job skills, the

people, where they have gone, what has happened to them. I do not

know what kinds of political or intelligence data was collected by

that, but I do know that we do support a demographic and sociological

breakdown in Miami of all the other kinds of characteristics.

Mr. DODD. Let me ask you, Mr. Ambassador•you mentioned in

your testimony that it was your intention to try to distribute the
32

evacuee?, refugees throughout the country and not to place them in

those labor markets that had heen most severely affected. Is there

interface going on with the Department of Labor, Department of

Commerce in this country ?

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, sir. I might say the interageney task

force that we established has representatives of anybody you could

think of that would have a role to play in this, and that does include

ITI'D, Labor, and all the others that you can think of.

Mr. Doon. Is, there any funding going to these local communities

where the refugees will be going? Is there, any preparation through

chambers of commerce or through local business groups or whatever

to educate the communities wherein there will be a large influx?

Ambassador BROWN. This is exactly what the volunteer agencies

have historically done in finding places and finding sponsors for

people. They prepare the local community. That is part of the process.

Bight here in the city of Washington, there are people now collecting

funds, getting together in groups, and volunteering to take a family

or (wo. In a sense, t,hat is community preparation.

Xow. the other part of it•I did last week address the heads of

about 40 organizations, Kiwanis, Lions, and all of the others, who

came for that conference with the President. After I talked to them,

the President talked to them about the same line, in other words,

putting on them a sort of community responsibility for the community

organizations to help.

Mr. DODO. It is my understanding that in the $507 million request

by the administration there is funding for education, if you will, for

the lack of a letter word, to inform those communities wherein there

will be an influx of refugees, as to what they should be doing in order

to lessen the severity of the blow, as it were, in the communities.

There is funding, in other words.

Ambassador BROWN. YOU mean is there direct funding in this money

for that ? No, that is the normal task. I think, of Government agencies.

Mr. Donn. The reason I raise that is that these statistics we see with

regard to the recent polls, 54 percent of the American public is opposed to this entire program, as opposed to 36, I guess, who are

willing to accept it. And, a lot of reasons are being given, but it

would seem to me that this is a fact that we are going to do it.

How. then, do we minimize the possible violence or difficulties that

can occur in communities where there is an influx of refugees?

Ambassador BROWN. I agree completely. I think we need to continue and improve the general education program, which we are

trying to do, in the interageney task force, and throughout the Government, of informing people that the impingement on their own

personal li res and economies is not going to be bad.

Xow. a week ago there was a poll down in the Eglin Air Force

Base area in which 80 percent of the people said they were opposed.

Three days ago there was another poll and that had dropped to

40 percent, because the people were starting to arrive.

I think you will find this is going to go right down, in the American

body politic, as people realize that first of all there is not any large

influx into any particular community: that there is not suddenly an

adding in the community to a 10-percent, or a 20-percent, or 30-percent

unemployment rate, liecause large numbers of people are coming in.
33

I think the American body politic is a tolerant and understanding

one, and as these things go through the local chinch organizations, the

local community organizations, and people start feeling that they

can be involved in a useful project, that tliis opposition tends to disappear.

This has been true in the communities around Pendleton where there

was an awful lot of fear in the beginning that these people would

move, right out of Camp Pendleton directly into the local communities.

Now. at Pendleton, they have to sort of fend people oft' who want

to help.

Mr. EILBERG. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DODD. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Brown, I am certainly quite impressed with your

efforts to go into the community, and your efforts for the community.

Hut now a question I think that is a very big one. is have you gone into

the labor union organizations in the community to test their reaction and seek their responses to the very important questions being

raised here?

Ambassador BROWN. Absolutely, right from the, beginning when

tliis thing started when I took over, I got in touch with Ernie Lee

Mr. EILBERG. Who?

Ambassador BROWN. Ernie Lee•Meany's son-in-law, and he has

put the Community Action Organization of the AFL-CIO into this.

They have sent letters around to their chapters all around the United

States, and I understand but cannot speak for, George Meany that he

is iroinjr to give a speech in the next day or so on it.

Mr. EILBERG. Excuse me. Mr. Dodd.

Ambassador BROWN. He is very positive on this, sir, on what this

is, and he looks on it as not only the American tradition, but that we

have a responsibility for these people.

Mr. EILBERG. Can you speak for any other members of the organized

labor community?

Ambassador BROWN. I do not know, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. Excuse me, Mr. Dodd.

Mr. DODD. Mr. Chairman, I have one other line of questioning. It

has to do, again, I guess, with the data collection and the processing

in terms of trying to collect information, specific information, as to

the people coming to this country.

Is there at this point refugees who are in Wake or Guam•is there

any exchange of currency going on ? In other words, a refugee coming

out with Vietnamese currency, are we exchanging currency ?

Ambassador BROWN. Oh, yes. The banks are there on Guam.

Mr. DODD. HOW do we recognize the currency of South Vietnam ?

Ambassador BROWN. NO, we are not taking piasters. In other

words, we are not exchanging piasters. If people have piasters, that

is too bad. But a lot of people have greenbacks or gold.

Mr. DODD. There is gold, then, coming out ?

Ambassador BROWN. Yes. You know all through Southeast Asia

people collect, these little bars of gold and put them under the bed

for emergencies.

Mr. DODD. Well how much? Do you have any data or information

as to the amount of gold that has been exchanged ?
34

Ambassador BROWX. I would have to go back to Deak & Co., but

the Deak & Co. people who are there told me the total they received,

a little under $2 million.

Mr. DODD. $2 million in gold ? And is that both in Wake and Guam ?

Or in just one spot ?

Ambassador BROWN. That would only be in Guam.

Mr. DODD. Do you have any information on Wake ?

Ambassador BROWX. NO, but the population in Wake is very small.

That is 5,000 people. You coidd take a percentage of that, if you

wanted.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. Would you yield to mc ?

Mr. DODD. I certainly will.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. How many heads of household did you say there

were in Guam now ?

Ambassador BROWX. We have right at this moment on Guam•the

figure changes constantly•we have 26,000, so I think we could estimate

that you have 5,000 or 6.000 heads of households.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. 5,000 or 6,000 heads of households now in Guam

and #2 million in gold was exchanged ?

Ambassador BROWX. Yes.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. Do vou have a time period on that exchange of

gold?

Ambassador BROWX. That was up through yesterday, or the day

before yesterday. It is not very much if you look at it that way.

Mr. DODD. YOU do not consider itto be very much ?

Ambassador BROWX. When you divide it out. I mean this is the

people's life savings, often. This is the way you keep your life's savings

in a country where you have political problems.

You know, it is like in France where they have got $5 billion in the

banks and $10 billion in the mattresses.

Mr. DODD. Mr. Ambassador, please, I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting that people should be deprived of their

rights to their life's earnings. The question really here is whether or

not we as taxpayers in this country ought to be funding an evacuation refugee resettlement program when we have people who are

capable of supporting themselves in a resettlement process.

And that is really what we are trying to get at. I do not think

there is any hesitancy on my part, or the members of this committee, to want to help destitute people to relocate in this country.

There is a tremendous hesitancy on my part, anyway, to support

individuals who are more capable of sustaining themselves, economically, than Tarn.

Ambassador BROWX. I agree with you completely. I mean the point

is that in the resettlement, efforts, these people that come with money

there they are. They are on their own, out in the economy. They get a

house and they get. to work.

I mean we are not going to be spending money on resettlement of

people that have money, no way.

Mr. DODD. It is my understanding that earlier you said there would

lie no breakdown. There would be funding for resettlement for all of

these people. There would lie no reimbursement.

Ambassador BROWX. NO, no. just transportation we are talking

about. We are talking about transportation. And let us divide the

figure. That is $400 a household.
35

Mr. DODD. If it were broken down evenly.

Ambassador BROWN. Which I doubtit is•I doubt it is.

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Russo ?

Mr. Russo. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to clarify a previous question with General Chapman. It

seems that we have a problem in this subcommittee whenever we discuss private bills concerning individuals who have a criminal record.

I am appalled at your comments that it is a hard fact that we just

have to accept.

I do not accept that statement at all. And I am in no way going to

allow any dangerous precedent to be set by the Immigration Service

of allowing a criminal into this country just because of persecution in

another country.

It is imperative that we screen the people entering into this country.

There are probably more people who are deserving of coming into this

country that are still in Vietnam that I would rather see Tiere than

some of the criminal elements fortunate enough to escape.

Itis not a hard factthat I am willing to swallow.

General CHAPMAN. It is not a hard fact that there are any such. The

first 55,000 were lifted out under our auspices and were screened in

one degree or another by the Embassy in Saigon.

The additional 69,000 or whatever it is, on the two different flotillas,

we do not know who they are yet. But I would just say that

Mr. Russo. My question is

General CHAPMAN [continuing]. Any person setting foot on U.S.

soil, under the provisions of the Asylum protocol, is entitled to apply

for asylum. He cannot be returned forceably to his country of origin,

so here they are. If there are any such, we will, presumably, know it

from the security checks. But they are here.

Ambassador BROWN. But, sir, if I may, the General lias made a

point that of those 55,000 people we lifted out in the days before the

final collapse, there was some kind of a check run by the Embassy on

most of them.

That is to say, I think probably•and we know, for instance, that

certain airplanes left with a crowd of so many people, and arrived

with a few more. That is so. The conditions were so chaotic out at the

airport at the. time, but the vast majority of those people that were

moved by airlift did have Embassy documents.

Mr. Russo. I was just concerned by the GeneraTs statement that it

is a "hard fact," because in our subcommittee meetings we do not accept anybody from any other nation that has a criminal background.

And I do not see why we should make

Mi*. FISH. Would the gentleman yield ?

Mr. Russo. Certainly.

Mr. FISH. I think part of the problem here is that the actions that

General Chapman and INS take, must be in accord with the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 212(a) of which defines those

categories excludable from admission into the United States. And it

has, as you know, a great many different categories, one of which is

aliens who have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

As I see the problem, the category of individuals that Ms. Iloltznian

enumerated, and which started off this line of questioning, would not
36

necessarily be people who had pone through any judicial process in the

government for winch they worked, and which condoned these actions.

So, they are not criminals in the sense of having a record that would

come to tne attention of the INS. The other categories listed here are

people with narcotics offenses convictions, and mental incompetents,

and so forth, and all of those other excludable categories, neither,

would they reach this issue.

I point this out l>ecause I think the General is operating under severe restraints that the Congress enacted. He cannot make up categories of excludable individuals.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Rrsso. I thank the gentleman.

General CHAPMAN. Those people that you described, and the people that are enumerated in the Immigration law, are with respect to

ent py into the count ry for permanent residence.

There is a different situation here. If there are any people who fall

into these categories, in that they will have landed on U.S. soil, and

they are entitled to asylum.

Mr. Itusso. On the way over this morning from Chicago. I was reading an article in the paper where they quoted Americans who were

signing signature affidavits for $3,000 each, enabling certain Vietnamese people to be listed as relatives of American citizens.

Is there any security check regarding the documentation process and

its alleged abuses?

(Jciieral CHAPMAN*. .Well, each person who claims to be a relative and

who has a sponsor, the sponsor, of course, assumes the moral responsibility for support and maintenance, and as the person as the refugee

passes through our progressive inspection piocess, will end up at one

of our district offices where all of the final checks arc made, including

the security check, before the final parole papers and the final documents are made up and issued.

So that in that process, we will certainly make an effort to uncover

any fraud that may take place.

Mr. Russo. Fraud seems to be rampant according to the newspaper

art icle. I just wanted to bring it to your attention that they are selling

signature affidavits, and being fraudulently listed as relatives of

American citizens, for $3,000, and I hope some investigation will be

made concerning these illegal acts.

General CHAPMAN*. We will investigate each case, of course.

Mr. Russo. Referring to your statement on page 4, Mr. Ambassador,

where, you indicate that the outcome of the Vietnam war has left Vietnamese stranded, et cetera, and this last category includes Vietnamese

officials and their families.

I have one comment I would like to make. That would include the

South Vietnamese Ambassador that is here ? Is that correct ?

Ambassador BROWN*. Yes.

Mr. Russo. I would like to see you make arrangements to settle him

abroad for the simple reason that anyone who would make a statement in this country that it seems better to lx>. an ally of the Communists than the Americans, we should make sure, that he is not settled

in America.

I have no further question.

Mr. EILHEBO. Thank you.
37

Mr. Ambassador, what obligations does the United States have

under the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,

with respect to those who are in the United States, including Guam i

You mentioned that?

Ambassador BROWX. I would like to have Mr. Malmborg, who is one

of our State Department lawyers. He has a citation there that I would

like to have him read out for you.

Mr. MALMBORG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the protocol

relating to the status of refugees, and the parent Convention, which

it incorporates, there are a number of specific obligations. The one.

which is of primary importance in the present situation is article

XXXIII, which is a prohibition on expulsion or return of a refugee,

in any manner whatsoever, to the frontiers or territories where his

life or freedom would l>e threatened on account of his race, nationality, political opinion, and so on, with two narrow exceptions: where

the individual can be regarded as a danger to the security of the

country in which he is; or who, having been convicted by final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.

Then, in addition to that•which is sort of the situation that applies

to the people in Guam and Wake and other areas under our jurisdiction•with respect to people who are in the United States, and lawfully admitted to the United States, article XXXII of the Convention says that contracting states shall not expel a refugee lawfully in

their territory, save on grounds of national security or public order.

Mr. EILBERG. All right, now on that point, in connection with the

matter I was discussing with General Chapman a few minutes ago,

suppose we know that the person, a refugee, is clearly undesirable

under our law? Can we return him? Or, are we barred from returning

liiin under the Convention and Protocol?

Mr. MALMBORG. We are barred from returning him to the territory

where he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of political opinion or otherwise.

Mr. EILBERG. What can we do with them ?

Mr. MALMBORG. He, could be sent through the deportation or exclusion process to another country which is willing to accept him. If

such a third country could not be located, we would presumably have

the individual in a kind of indefinite status, subject to exclusion as

soon as a proper location could be found, or until his fear of persecution was found to be unwarranted.

Mr. EILBERG. Ambassador, I think you certainly would agree that

by our agreeing to admit 150,000 we do take the pressure off the international community. And yet you insist that we should do it anyway ?

Ambassador BROWX. Yes, sir. I tried to confront you with the dilemma we faced, ourselves, in this process. And the dilemma is basically

that of. as I see it, of not being able to leave people floating around on

the ocean while you arrange something witli the international community, which acts slowly on all things, and which unfortunately is sroina

to act even more slowly on things that end up with the word "Vietnam" involved in it.

Mr. Donn. Would you yield ?

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Dodd, I wonder if we could recess now and

come back at the end of the quorum call ? We beg your indulgence, if

you would. We will be back right after the ouorum call.

Ambassador BROWX. Yes; I will be right here, sir.
38

[A brief recess was taken.]

Mr. EILBERC. The subcommittee will come to order.

Ambassador Brown, just referring very briefly to the preliminary

pstimat.es of the evacuation, temporary care, and resettlement costs, on

behalf of the subcommittee, this, of course, is a useful tentative outline, but in terms of considering the bill that formally comes before

us, we would hope and expect that you would be able to give us a

more detailed breakdown of these figures.

Ambassador Bnowx. We will, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. That they would be justified. Now we know you are

relying on various other agencies, but I do not think we will be content with just totals, grand totals, without breakdowns of departmental figures.

Ambassador BROWN*. I can assure yon, Mr. Chairman, that you will

getthe detailed breakdown, as you require.

[Thebreakdown referred to follows:]

Preliminary Estimate* of Evacuation, Temporary Care, and Resettlement Costs

{150,000 Evacuees Including 130,000 Resettled in United States and 20,000 in

Third Countries)•2 May 1U75

Uillinnt

1. Sealift (DOD)

Contract shipping for evacuation.

2. Airlift (DOD)

$300 per person (110,000 people) to staging areas, ${"30 per person

(130,000 people) from staging areas to processing ceuters, plus air

supply of materials estimated at $30 million.

3. Facilities (DOD)

$20 million for establishment of staging areas, $15 million to open

processing centers.

4. Daily maintenance (DOD)

$15 per person per day for 30 days (150,000 people) at staging

areas, $15 per person per day for 60 days (130,000 people) at processing centers. Includes food, utilities, medical care, etc.

5. Resettlement costs (State/ORM)

Estimated at $600 per person to be provided to voluntary agencies

which will transport and administer resettlement, 130,000 people in

United States.

6. Subsequent welfare and medical (HEW)

Welfare and social services

Repatriation U.S. citizens 7

Medicaid

Bilingual and vocational training 20

Public health

7. Movement of added 20,000 refugees to third countries for resettlement

(State/ORM) 20

Estimated at $1,000 each to cover transport and program administration.

Total requirement

Less amount provided from IPR funds to date under Presidential

determination (614(a) waiver)

I,ess estimated amount expected to be available from IPR pipeline

$5 million from MARA•Contingency fund 60

New appropriation needed 507

Summary by Agency:

Department of Defense 3S2

Department of State 98

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 125

Total 605
39

Mr. EILBERG. I have a few other questions that I would like to ask.

"What are the specific procedures followed in processing refugees

in Guam, Wake Island, and the Philippines?

Ambassador BROWN. In the Philippines we are basically just moving people. These are the people that came out by airlift from Saigon,

went there a very short length of time, and then immediately moved

on as rapidly as possible, to the restaging areas at Guam and Wake.

The ones that have come in by ship into Subic Bay, we are simply

reloading into ships or putting them on airplanes and flying them

to Guam and Wake. We are doing practically nothing in the way of

processing in those areas, and the reason is simple.

First of all, wet do have a political problem in the area with the

local government which does not want large numbers of people in

their territory, even though they are on the U.S. bases•and they are

all on the U.S. bases.

Mi\ EILBERO. Now is there any point in the processing where the

refugee is questioned in terms of his financial resources•his own,

or his family's? And, when I say that, the motive for the question

is if he or his family can afford his transportation or other costs, it

•would be my thought that as far as possible the individual or family

should paj'it.

Now has any thought been given to that ?

Ambassador BROWN. This process takes place, as Ms. Taft has

explained, at the last of the staging areas in the United States, Avhere

HEW is asking people what they have in the way of assets.

Mr. EILBERO. Now, Ms. Taft, do you expect, or do you contemplate

the possibility, that any of these refugees or their families will be

required to pay for the costs of transportation, maintenance, and

so forth?

Ms. TAFT. They will after their resettlement, after they leave the

reception centers. They will bo asked to pick up all of the costs. And, to

the extent possible, if they do have the resources, to actually pay for

their tickets out of the reception center.

This issue came up in terms of whether the Americans that were

being evacuated would have to pay back DOD also. And. as you

may be aware, there are a great number of destitute repatriated Americans who have come over, that do not have the funds to repay either,

nor does HEW yet have its legislative authority to be able to reimburse for these kinds of costs.

So I think we have got to keep in mind that when the U.S. Government and when the military are effectively removed. 86.000-peopleplus, wo did not sit down writing airline tickets for these people, to

ask them to reimburse.

Mr. EILBERO. I understand that. But I am trying to visualize how

you can or will develop a procedure to have the U.S. Government

reimbursed, where it can be reimbursed.

It just occurs to me that in many cases once the refugee is resettled

somewhere, it is going to be very hard to get his transportation or

other expenses paid for•after the fact so to speak•and I am just

wondering what your thoughts are on that.

Ms. TAFT. Well I appreciate your concern. As far as HEW is involved, we have jurisdiction as soon as these people leave resettlement

sites, and we will, to the extent possible, insure that the public payroll does not pick up any of the costs for resettlement.
40

Mr. EILBERG. Where there are relatives living in the United States,

are they notified? And are affidavits of support requested of these relatives, or relatives accompanying them ?

General CHAPMAN. The answer to that is yes, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. And, perhaps you can tell us•or anyone•what is

the effect of the affidavit ofsupport ? How meaningful is it?

General CHAPMAN. It is merely a moral commitment, Mr. Chairman, as I am sure the committee knows. The courts have held it is

not legally or financially hinding.

Mr. EILBERG. So that the committee should not kid itself into thinking that there is any le<ral obligation in the long run I

General CHAPMAN. That is correct, sir.

Mr. EILBERO. May I ask, Ambassador, would you have any serious

objection if this committee were to consider the position which we are

now in, with thousands of people at sea, with so many facts still not

at our disposal•we discussed this a little bit•but suppose we were

to have a limited authorization bill, say for a period of o or 6 months,

would this radically hinder or handicap your program ?

Ambassador BROWN. It might hamper it in this way, Mr. Chairman. As you know, the largest sum is really the money that we must

reimburse to DOD. These expenditures are being made now so that a

limited authorization and appropriation would hinder us in providing

money to HEW for the resettlement.

I have no way of getting out of these very large costs incurred from

the transportation that has taken place, or the fact that they have set

up camps. These are outlays that cannot be phased over time. So I

would hope, and call on the committee's indulgence, to consider seriously giving us the whole amount so that we can do this gut part of it

all. which in the end is the resettlement through HEW.

And. also, to give the voluntary agencies a hand in what they have

to do. It would strap them enormously, because they do not have those

kinds of assets available to them.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire along the lines that yon

were suggesting, where you were asking what sort of reimbursement

procedures are being followed? I might ask what about the Americans

who are working for the U.S. companies, private companies? What

about, for example, the news media, members of the news media?

Or members representing other governments? I assume we evacuated

all of those people during the final days.

Arc you going to seek reimursement, No. 1, from the American private companies for evacuating their employees? Also from other governments for theirs?

Ambassador BROWN. NO. we have not thought about seeking reimbursement from those companies. What I am seeking•-

Mr. COHEN. Is not the DOD entitled to reimbursement from them

as well i

Ambassador BROWN. If we adopted a policy of seeking reimbursement, yes. I mean you could say that yes. they should reimburse. But

1 think as Jim Wilson said, we are confronted with the fact that we

moved huge numbers of people. We said get out of town. You are in

t rouble if you stay. Get on the plane right now and take off.

And. nolxxly got a document from them saying that they would pay

it back in the future. What arc you are, suggesting is that we go to the

large companies and ask them to make a contribution.
41

Mr. COHEX. Well, to the extent thatAmbassador BROWX. Let me put it this way. What I have done with

IBM is that I have said to IBM, why do you not give us some free computer services on the bases, throw something into the pot. That is what

I would like, to see done bv some of the other companies.

Now the airlines, for instance, are being very helpful to us here in

the United States. A lot of, let us say, ATA had their employees extracted from Vietnam. ATA here lias worked out something with the

airlines in the United States, that people with no money are getting

free transportation on airplanes, including destitute Americans.

In other words, it comes back in one way or another, and I think

they owe us a debt and they have to pay it back somehow. It does not

necessarily have to be a dollar-for-dollar repayment. But. if they,

through their voluntary efforts, put some, real casli into this effort, I

feel the American taxpayer has been taken care of.

Mr. COIIEN. But the point is, you are coming here asking for the

American taxpayer to reimburse the. Department of Defense because

you have evacuated vast numbers of people. And it seems to me to be

more equitable, certainly, to say to the American companies who are

doing business over there, that we evacuated your employees. You are

in a position to pay, as well as the American people, and should you

not pay for reimbursing DOD for the amount of money we expended

for getting your employees out?

Ambassador BROWX. Thatis a good point, Mr. Cohen.

Mr. EILBERG. Do I take it. Mr. Ambassador, that you would attempt

to explore the point raised by Mr. Cohen ?

Ambassador BROWX. Yes. But, Frank Wisner just reminded me

that one of the major categories of Americans taken out were these

people who are on contracts, they are not the employees of American

firms. And those firms disappeared.

Mr. EILBERG. All right. Mr. Fish is wanted on the floor, so I yield

the floor to Mr. Fish at this point to ask a few questions so that he can

go to the floor.

Mr. FISH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, memlx-rs

who have not had a chance to have their first round. My apologies, but

I will have to leave you.

Ambassador Brown, I just want to commend you for what you have

done. I am very proud of the entire operation you have put together

here under most difficult circumstances. There seem to be two major

issues of concern that I would like to touch on.

One is the economic impact in the United States of the arrival of

tbese South Vietnamese, and I think that throughout this record, if

I could pull some of these threads together, that you have indicated,

No. 1, that we. are really talking only about 30,000 heads of households,

which would be the person principally to be employed.

Secondly, that the majority of South Vietnamese would lie coming

in as relatives, joining families in the United States that do have the

primary responsibility to see that they do not become a public charge.

Perhaps even more important is the fact that so many of these refugees are middle-class South Vietnamese, with a high incidence of

knowing the English language, either well or fairly well.

Many of you this morning have testified about the plan to disperse

Vietnamese thinly across the United States to minimize the impact in

any one community. The fact is that the AFL-CIO has been cooperat-
42

ing with you enthusiastically, and is interested in this program. It is an

American traditional response.

And, finally, that those who can afford it, who have their own

means, will certainly not be assisted financially in the resettlement, but

they will be responsible for themselves.

Perhaps a more difficult area, if I could address General Chapman

on this, General would you please•and what I would like to explore•

distinguish between "parole"' and "permanent residence"?

I am not so sure that that is clear, on the record, and I think from

that stems some other problems that were raised here today.

General CHAPMAN. The permanent resident is the immigrant, the

person who is admitted to the country here legally, to live permanently.

A parolee is a person who is bodily allowed into the United States,

but is legally still at the water's edge. lie really has no legal status in

the United States.

Mr. FISH. At what point does a parolee become a permanent resident?

General CHAPMAN. lie may never•he can, perhaps, become one by

applying for permanent resident status and taking his place on the

waiting list, from whatever is his country of origin. Or, alternatively,

as in the case of the Cubans and the Hungarians, Congress passed special legislation to authorize the special permanent status.

Mr. FISH. Well, in what way does a parolee differ from an immigrant admitted for permanent residence?

General CHAPMAN. A parolee, in effect, is here temporarily as a refugee, in this case from Vietnam. He may continue to live his life

here, but legally he is still at the water's edge. He has no status legally

within the country.

Mr. FISH. Well, as a practical matter, though, aside from the reality

of it, what difference does it make to the parolee in terms of getting

a job, and of living here, and of doing everything except voting?

General CHAPMAN. As a practical matter, there is a little difference.

It is that he can never, or may never, become a permanent resident

and may never then become a nationalized citizen.

Mr. FISH. HO may seek employment ?

General CHAPMAN. He may seek employment, indeed.

Mr. FISH. Would there be•what I am interested in exploring is.

if you parole someone in the United States•and you have testified

that under refugee protocols, our hands are tied in terms of asking

them to leave should they be found to be objectionable persons, that

it may be a response to Ms. Holtzman's inquiry about such objectionable people, if this committee saw to it by legislation, or with an

understanding with the Service, following the completion of all of

your security checks on these people, saw to it that certain ones would

simply never become eligible for permanent residence, do you see this

perhaps as meeting the problem?

General CHAPMAN. Once a person sets foot on U.S. soil, fleeing from

persecution as they do when they debark on Guam, then they are

entitled to the protections of the asylum situation.

Now, if a person is undesirable, we probably never finally issue

the parole documents. He would be in asylum status, short, of parole,

which is even less of a legal status within the country.

But, as the State Department witness has testified, we cannot under

the protocol return him to his country of origin where he fears per-
43

secution. We can seek to find another country who will take him, but

I think the chances of finding one that will do so is unlikely.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. If the gentleman would yield on that point. I think

it is useful to point to the language of the protocol itself.

The language says: "As a result of events occurring before January

1, 1D51"•that time, period has been•and owing to '"the well-founded

fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or

membership of a particular social group of political opinions outside

liis country of nationality."

So if you take someone, for example, who engaged in assassination

or torture, and he was going to be tried, or subject to penalties for those

acts, as opposed to political opinion, then that person would not qualify

as a '"refugee" under the i reatv. Is that correct ?

Ambassador BROWN. We would put our legal counsel on.

Mr. MALMBOKG. I think that is essentially correct. It may be somewhat difficult to distinguish between ''political" persecution and prosecution for a criminal offense in that circumstance, but in essence your

interpretation is correct.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you.

Mr. EiLRERO. General, you have indicated to me in private conversation•but I am sure it was not confidential•that, as many as 10 percent of those that the Immigration Service has inspected have been

rejected.

I would guess, from what I have heard here this morning, that

considering the large numbers that are just being picked up at sea, that

that percentage may very well go up. And, perhaps this question is

not addressed to you•perhaps it is addressed to counsel•but could

we, or nught the subcommittee, consider some sort of parole document

with the condition or conditions indicating that the parolee, who is

undesirable has a year to get himself out of the country ?

Would this be. perhaps, an approach? Is thought being given to

any other kind of approach for those that may be excludable?

General CHAPMAN. The number, as of midnight last night, on Guam

who did not fall within the parole category, and therefore were not

authorized to leave the island, was a little over 2.000 out of the 28,000

we have so far processed there. Or, in addition to the 28,000 we have

so far processed. So it is running at about 7 or 8 percent now. So it is

smallerthan 10 percent.

Of those, however, most simply did not fit the original parole categories. We broadened the definition of "family," so some would fall

within that category, and then in connection with seeking consultation with the committee on the additional kinds and broadened categories that the. Ambassador has spoken to, others will qualify, once

the decision is made and the consultation is complete.

That still may result in a residual number. Who they are, I do not

know at this point.

Mr. EILBERO. May I ask, General, if you would have your counsel,

or perhaps the State Department would help us on this, consider possible conditions for those parolees who are undesirable or who would

normally be excluded from this country. Let us give some thought to
44

some language somewhere so that we can try to prevent these people

from becoming a permanent part of our population.

And I am sure I express the sense of our committee when I say

that. Is that agreeable to you, General ? Would you try ?

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, sir, we will take that under advisement.

The general was right. One of the problems we had, the general and

I did not understand what a Vietnamese "family" was, in the beginning. We thought it was sort of '"mother and father and brother

and sister and children*' and actually it is broader than that.

This was particularly time with the Americans who came forward

in Guam with families that had cousins and second cousins and what

not. We excluded all of those people in the beginning and then we realized we could not extend to another type of culture and civilization

our own narrow definition of what we think of as '•immediate'' family.

So we broadened it out a little bit in that and we moved a lot of

the Americans who were on Guam who refused to go without taking

these other relatives•grandparents and things like that.

So that sort of refusal rate will tend to come down very largely as

these people move into the mainstream. It was something you had

to do. You cannot say that our definition of closeness of family is the

logical•particularly after they were there on our hands.

Mr. EILBF.RC;. I have reference not so much to the extended "family"

as to those who were clearly

Ambassador BHOWK. Clearly "undesirable," I understand that. sir.

and I understand your point. 1 just wanted to take the "family" thing

out. The rest we understand the points, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Ambassador, I notice that you have with yon a

refugee flow status chart, and I think it would be helpful to the member's of the committee if you would care to briefly describe that to us.

Ambassador BROWN. Would you like me to bring it closer?

Mr. EIIJIERO. I think we can see it.

Ambassador BROWN. This is, Mr. Chairman, the old story•and I

will repeat it again if the staff has heard it•about the fellow driving

his car down the road and he stopped upon seeing a man beating on

the side of his truck, and he said, what in God's name are you doing

beating on the side of the truck ?

And he said, well, I"ve got a 3-ton truck here with 5 tons of canaries

in it. I've got to keep the 3 tons of canaries flying at all times or the

axle is going to break.

This is, essentially, what we are doing here. We have got a float of

people

Mr. EILBERG. Could you pick up a microphone, perhaps ?

Ambassador BROWN. We have got a float of people, what I might

call a bulge, we are trying to take care of. And, essentially, you might'

say we are at the end of the real inflow of refugees. The numbers

that might come from now on I think will be smaller and manageable.

But we have a large inflow of people on ships at the present time.

These are people that were transferred from the task force to merchant

ships and to control of the U.S. Navj', which some have hit Subic.

some have hit Guam, and others are arriving at Guam, plus this flotilla

of miscellaneous ships that escaped•mostly map ships•but all kinds.

It is going A'ery slowly toward Guam, escorted by Americans. Now

what we have to do in this process here is to try to get a system so
45

that our outflow equals our intake. But we cannot quite do it, so

we are going to have to keep people on ships for awhile, floating around

Guam. I hate to do it. It is going to be very uncomfortable for them,

but we can just process so many people a day.

The real problem of processing is one back here [indicating] in the

sense of moving people out. But we want to be satisfied first We have

to be satisfied on the security, tho INS, and we have to be satisfied

that the sponsors are l'esponsible people who actually do something,

and not leave the people to drift once they get here.

So what we have, as you can see, is a large number of people here•

50,000 people at sea. And we are putting people•this [indicating] is

Thailand. If you put that aside for the moment, we have very small

numbers in Clark at the present time. We are holding that as a reserve

in case tho flow into Subic gets too large. We are putting people all

around Subic on the base. They arc sitting on Grand Island and a

couple of other installations here [indicating] in not too comfortable

conditions, but they are basically there for two reasons.

One is to reload the ships to make them comfortable. We have had

ships with 7,000, 8.000, on 10,000-ton freighters and you know

that that is impossible. We are cutting these things down to meaningful proportions, but they will not be happy with 3,500 or 5,000

people in the hold of a ship as they move around Guam.

In Guam, our capacity right now is at 45.000 and will go up to

50,000 by the end of the week. That will be the maximum capacity

we could build at Guam. These are all tent cities, hastily erected.

Then, we move the people•we also have a very small capacity,

a maximum capacity of 8,000 people in Wake. What we are trying

to do is move the people out of Guam, the 29,000 or so we have there

today, and the 2,000 in Wake, move them as rapidly as we can to

the United States in order to make room for these others that are

coming along.

And then we come here to the States where we have•when you see

Chaffee, with the capacity of 13,866, that is how many tents and

beds we have as of 5 o'clock this morning. Every day that builds up

a little bit, and we are moving to 18,000 there. Pendleton will move•

I am sorry, move ChafFee to 20.000. Pendleton is up to its 18,000 now,

and Eglin is moving up to 15,000 right now. We are trying to handle,

most of them through these two, the reason being the lack of•one

of the principal reasons being the lack of qualified people in the

voluntary agencies.

They cannot spread themselves too thin. They must concentrate.

So there is your flow pattern, essentially. Ships at sea going into

Subic, reloading and going on to Guam and Wake, and then moving

on by air•mostly commercial chartered air•into these bases in the

United States.

As I mentioned earlier to you, we have had problems in this process.

We had to move very fast in opening Pendleton. We opened it a few

days too soon. If we had had more time, we could have, done a better

job, but as your counsel can say, the Marines have done a magnificent

job under very difficult circumstances, to build the homes to house

and feed these people.

The style may seem austere to Americans, but it is not necessarily

austere to the people involved. We are trying to put every person

52-149•73 4
46

in a bed. We are trying to give them decent mess facilities. Now the

lines today, you wait 4 hours to get a meal. By tomorrow we will

have that cut down. We will cut it down to a reasonable time.

There is a shortage of cooks and bakers on the west coast. The whole

purpose of what we are trying to do is to get these people integrated

into our society as decently and as quickly as possible, given all of

the procedures of care and so forth.

[The chart referred to follows:]

REFUGEE FLOW STATUS END projection a. of: 5 AM 6 May 7 5

RELEASED total rcloated

ffom gov«rom«nI control 11113

SIART 300

mn u34

RElfASH) Li

Mr. EILBEKG. I see. Mr. Cohen, do you have any questionst

Mr. COHEN. I have just one question, Mr. Ambassador. This great

outflow of South Vietnamese to this country and others is predicated

upon a fear, a general fear, that there would be wholesale slaughter,

retribution by the North Vietnamese. And I was wondering in looking

at the Immigration and Nationality Act, it providesthatthe Attorney

General may, in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe for emergent reasons or

for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest any alien applying for

entrance into the United States, but parole of such aliens shall not be

considered as an admission. Then he can terminate that and send the

person back to the country from which he was paroled.

The quest-ion I would ask, assuming in a short period of time it has

been demonstrated that the North Vietnamese are granting, let us say

amnesty, total, unconditional amnesty, to all persons in South Vietnam

regardless of their affiliation in the war, would a consideration be given

by this Government or by the Attorney General to returning those who

left Vietnam solely because they were afraid that there wovdd be

reprisals against their lives ?

Ambassador BROWN. Oh, yes, of course I would assume that. Yon

would have to have certain guarantees built into this.
47

Mr. COHEN. I understand that, but from the discussion I have heard

today, we are talking aboutthose socially undesirable persons and what

to do with them.

It seems to me under the act perhaps we ought to give very serious

consideration to paroling on a temporary basis only rather than any

permanent granting of status under this parole authority you an- looking for.

Ambassador BROWN. Well, essentially, as the general has explained,

that is what parole is, it is an act of grace on the part of the U.S.

Government.

Mr. COHEN. It seems from the whole tenor of the discussion that it

is on a permanent basis as far as the State Department and others

might be concerned. We have not really had enough time to find out

what the political repercussions are going to be in Vietnam and if that

fear is not legitimate and it does not come about, I suppose we have to

give consideration about whether or not

Ambassador BROWN. What we are talking about is if there is a situation of such a nature that the j>eople themselves feel that they would

not be menaced ifthey went back and were willing to accept guarantees

of some kind, I think we would probably see a large outflow back. I

mean these are people who have valued their homeland and would like

to return.

Mr. EILBEUG. Mr. Cohen is saying once parole is granted, can it be

degranted!

General CHAPMAN. Yes, sir.

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, sir. It is an act of grace of the U.S.

Government.

General CHAPMAN. As a matter of fact, it is reviewed for each

person or class of people every year or two.

Just recently, for example, the Chilean situation, which lias reversed

itself

Mr. COHEN. But would the determination be on whether that person or that family felt they were in fear or in danger or on whether

the United States made that determination based upon as accurate as

possible information through international agencies, international

etfoits, or whatever?

Do we make the decision or do you take into account whether that

person feelsAmbassador BROWN. I think we made the decision but we would

naturally take into account•you have to take into account.•the fears

of the person and then he would have to be perhaps more specific as to

what the fears are.

General CHAPMAN. May I emphasize one point that I think I made

before, and that is, in the case of the undesirables, the known criminals

and the like, we will not parole, we will just hold them in the asylum

status.

Mr. COHEN. But even those you do parole can then be released back

to that country when the justification for their parole into this country

is determined to be terminated.

General CHAPMAN. That is correct, sir.

Ambassador BROWN. I am under no delusions that this is going to

happen very quickly.

Mr. COHEN. Well, we raise this question
48

Ambassador BROWN". Yes, I think it is worth raising.

Mr. EILBERO. On the same subject, Ms. Holtzman.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thanh you, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned asylum

status. Have you made a determination to grant asylum, let us say, to

people engaged in the Phoenix program or people that operated the

tiger cages I

Has mis country made the determination that they are refugees?

General CHAPMAN. Well, each person has to make a claim for

osyhun, if it is a person that we have not already agreed that we will

parole, if he proves to lie outside the parole criteria, as, for instance,

by being excludable for some previous activity, then he can claim

asylum, and each case has to be judged on its merits. If he has a bona

fide claim to fear of persecution, then he is entitled to asylum.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well, the reason I am asking that question is, it

seems to me that most of these people are already parolable under

the category of high risk. The question of asylum would probably not

come up and they would be granted parole as a matter of course. Consequently, they would be permitted to enter this country.

In my opinion•perhaps a majority of the committee does not agree

with me•the persons who stole American funds or who operated the

tiger cages or assassinated in ''Operation Phoenix," are undesirable.

I would hope there is some way in which we could see that they are

not permanently pait of this country, that they do not become eligible

for permanent residence or citizenship. I do not necessarily want to

see their lives jeopardized. I am not saying that. But I believe we ought

not to offer our country as a haven for these people.

General CHAPMAN. We will not issue the final parole authority. The

official issue of the parole authority will not occur until all of the

processing is complete on an individual, and that includes the security checks. And if the security checks and other information show that

he is undesirable or excludable under the law, then we will not parole

him. He will have to apply for asylum.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, just on another point. I would like

to join in Congressman Cohen's request to you that you consider very

carefully asking for reimbursement from private corporations, not

onlv with respect to American employees who were evacuated, but

with respect to South Vietnamese employees who were evacuated.

These companies made a profit from their activities in South Vietnam. The taxpayers ought not to bear the expense of bringing in their

employees.

I think also there ought to IXJ some effort to get reimbursement for

transportation costs from those South Vietnamese who can pay for it.

And I would very much urge that burden not be placed on the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Ambassador, what is the Red Cross role, if any,

in notifying relatives in the United States to cooi-dinate the arrival

of Vietnamese refugees ?

Mr. BROWN. The Red Cross is playing a considerable role. They have

a large team out on Guam right now, and naturally they have, teams

at the bases in the United States. The Red Cross has been very cooperative. Not only is the Red Cross doing its traditional thing•that
49

is, helping people, using telephones, getting people together•we have

also used it as the food distribution system on the island. The Bed

Cross has been very cooperative•also Frank Stanton•and we have

dealt with them.

Mr. EILBERG. They notify relatives in the United States and coordinate arrivals?

Ambassador BROWX. Yes, sir; their normal activity is going on

light now. They are very cooperative.

Mr. EILBERG. All right. Then this question perhaps for General

Chapman.

General, regarding parole again. Is the parole granted in Guam?

General CHAPMAX. XO, sir. The parole is granted, the official issuance of the parole occurs when the final processing is complete.

Mr. Ert.BERo. And how long does that take on the average? How

long would you say that might take? Of course it would depend on

the individual case, but is there an average length of time?

General CHAPMAX. I would think it would be a few weeks, Mr.

Chairman. In other words, if the person is cleared to leave the processing center in the United States to join his family or to go where he is

to be resettled, we pass the final processing to the nearest district director then, who completes all of the paperwork, gets the security checks,

and makes the final issuance of the parole.

Ml*. EILBERG. Is there any additional inspection of those flying from

Guam into the continental United States?

General CHAPMAX. Yes. sir; our system is progressive inspections,

the. initial screening on Guam to determine eligibility to depart the

island and enter the continental United States. Then he is picked up

by a team of inspectors at Pendleton, Chaffee, and Eglin. Then the

secondary processing takes place and that is where we clear him to

leave the camp and go to His resettlement location. That is where my

district director will pick him up and complete the process.

Mr. EILBERG. Are all flights from Guam directly to the various military bases set up as reception centers?

Ambassador BROWX. Yes, sir; we are flying directly into the centers.

In certain cases, there may be some fast reloading at bases on the

west coast such as Travis, but we are trying to cut that down.

Mr. EILBERG. I think you may have answered this, but who is absorbing now the cost, of transporting parolees or refugees from Guam,

Wake Island, in the Philippines, to the United States?

Ambassador BROWX. DOD is financing this bv money given from

AID.

Mr. EILBERG. And who is absorbing the cost of transporting U.S.

citizens and their dependents up to the United States?

Ambassador BROWX. We have up till now, sir. In the early stages

we asked people who had no money to sign repatriation loans, in other

words to pay. In the early stages they paid their own way. When we

took on the final frantic airlift, we iust. put people on airplanes, sir.

Mr. EILBERO. When you say "we"

Ambassador BROWX. The U.S. Government.

Mr. EILBERG. Which department of the Government ?

Ambassador BROWX. DOD, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. And who has the authority nt Camp Pendleton to

release refugees from Government control ?
50

Ambassador BROWN. The final authority is with INS, sir. INS has

the final check on it.

Mr. EILBERG. The commander of the base, he has no such authority ?

Ambassador BROWN. NO, sir. The commander of the base is handling

the logistics. The civilian team is coordinating activities but they must

in the end go through the final process of INS before, as I say, actually getting into the resettlement.

Mr. EILBERG. And what followup procedures has the INS established for those who have been released to relatives, General?

General CHAPMAN. Well, sir, as I mentioned a moment ago, each

case is passed from inspectors at Pendleton to the district office nearest

the resettlement area of a particular family. And the family is requested to report to that district office for final processing.

Mr. EILBERG. Ms. Holtzman.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I am a little puzzled by the answer with respect to where

final parole is issued and where a security check takes place.

I gather from your last answer, General Chapman, that somebody

who, for example, ran a tiger cage, would not have his background

checked until he got to Camp Pendleton or some place else in the continental United States. At that point what would happen to him if you

found out about his background?

General CHAPMAN. In the case of the relatives up to now we have

been permitting them to move out prior to the final security check

to join their family.

In the case of the high risk and others we have been up to now

holding them at Pendleton, Chaft'ee, or Eglin until we do get the

security checks, which takes several days. But the very large numbers of people who, it looks like, may well descend on us in the near

future, we may have to abort that procedure and not require them to

remain in the processing center until the security check is complete.

In any event, the security check does go on with the several agencies

that have those kinds of records and the results thereof will be passed

to the district directors I described. And he is the final authority as to

whether to issue the parole authority in a particular case or not. If

the security checks would indicate that he should not, then he would

have to deny parole and the individual can seek asylum.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Have you set forth any guidelines for the district

director as to the basis in which he is entitled to grant or withhold

parole ? And if so, can we see them, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. EILBERG. I did not hear the question.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I asked if there were any guidelines given to the

district director as to the basis on which he could grant or withhold

the parole. And if they are, I would like to get them.

General CHAPMAN. He would be guided by the law in that regard,

Ms. Holtzman. The law lays out the excludable categories.

Mr. EILBERG. But General, you have indicated, I think that in certain cases one may receive asylum, in other cases parole. And I think

Ms. Holtzman is driving at how do you decide which category and

how do you decide to go to parole or when to go to parole. At least I

would like to know that.

General CHAPMAN. Well, as I said, the final decision on parole occurs in the district by the district director, and he would make it unless
51

the security checks indicated that the individual fell under one of the

excludable categories in the law.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well, I gather then that, according to the excludable

categories under the law, someone is excludable only if he or she is a

Communist or convicted of a crime, or insane.

General CHAPMAN. Narcotic.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Or a narcotics addict. Someone that was convicted

for a crime involving narcotics. But the category of persons we have

been talking about would not be excludable under this provision. So

what you are saying to me is that these people would be absolutely

automatically paroled into this country•persons who had engaged in

corruption, misappropriation of U.S. funds, and those people who ran

the tiger cages and engaged in political torture. They would be automatically entitled to come to this country.

Is that correct ?

General CHAPMAN. Yes, I think you are correct. There must be a

conviction.

Ambassador BROWN. But I hope we are not overbelaboring the point

because what we have hoped for and what we have mostly as we look

at the people coming through are not people in this category at all. We

are getting those that were issued documents, a travel document, a sort

of parole document, by the American Embassy in Saigon by people

that we assume acted as responsibly as possible under enormous pressures that they had at that time. And what they were trying to bring

out were those, either the relatives or those that the Embassy considered an endangered species, not because he was a black marketeer or

something, but an endangered species because he had a relationship of

some type or other with the American Government which could lead

to him losing his head in the long run, and the type of people that are

beinsr killed right now in Cambodia.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I wish we had gotten that answer earlier as to who

specificallv was going to be automatically permitted to come into this

country. Some of these people may have been acting under orders of

this Government in some of their operations, but that does not excuse,

it seems to me. anv criminal acts or political torture or assassinations

that they engaged in. If somebody orders somebody else to commit a

crime, tho person who orders the person to commit a crime is guilty but

the person who commits the crime is equally guilty. And it seems to me

that it would be a shame if these people were permitted to come to this

country and become citizens.

Ambassador BROWN. I understand your point.

Mr. EILBERG. General, did I understand you to say that one must

have, been convicted of a crime and in fact you do not have discretion

in these matters? That was my impression.

General CHAPMAN. It is mv understanding that there must have

been a conviction for a criminal act.

Mr. EH.RERG. SO that even if you have an eyewitness statement that

someone operated a tiarer cage and there were no conviction, that would

not operate as a guideline to bar the granting of parole.

Is that correct, sir?
52

General CHAPMAN. It is my understanding that is correct, yes,sir.

I might just comment on the last point about becoming a citizen

in this country. None of these people would be eligible to become permanent residents or citizens unless they meet at some future date, meet

the requirements of the law for becoming a permanent resident They

are simply here as refugees.

Ms. IIOLTZMAN. But can you point to anything in the law that prohibits anyone who ran a tiger cage from becoming a citizen?

General CHAPMAN. NO, I cannot point to anything in the law specifically on that point. I can point, however, to the requirements of the

law for meeting the immigration requirements to become a permanent

resident. There are many refugees in this country who have been here

for years that are still in a refugee status.

Mr. ETLBERG. ifr. Russo, do you have anything else ?

Mr. Russo. Yes, I do, Mr, Chairman.

Mr. EII.UKRG. Mr. Russo.

Mr. Russo. I was noticing in the analysis draft that you have here

where you indicate that the $507 million figure is based on the 150,000

refugees.

Is that correct. Ambassador ?

Ambassador BROWN. Thatis right,sir.

Mr. Russo. And also. I think, in your fact sheet where you request

parole authority for an additional 20,000 but yet you feel that you

do not need, there is not a need for 150,000 authorization. I am just

wondering if there is a little problem, or my problem is why do we

need the $507 million for 150,000 refugees if really you do not feel

that we are oven going to come close to 150,000 refugees?

Ambassador BROWN. Well, you will notice, sir, that we have an item

in there for the movement of a possible 20,000 refugees to third countries for resettlement. This is based on the average cost that it has

run in recent years through ICEM or the other agencies that move

people.

In other words, we are not, we are trying to build into this the possibility of cooperation internationally with ICEM or with some other

international organization for movement on into third countries as

well.

Mr. Russo. In your statement on page 5 you ask for parole on a

contingency basis for an additional 150,000, then you say, "While we

do not expect to extend parole for an additional 150,000, we need to

have the standby authority which a new determination would provide/' Then you talk about the figures based on the 150,000 refugees,

the $507 million request based on the 150,000 refugees.

Is that correct?

Ambassador BROWN. That is correct.

Mr. Russo. Is there a problem with the limited authorization at this

point, say, of $400 million as opposed to $507 million?

Ambassador BROWN. I think there is, sir, because the problem is

that we. have an enormous initial expense in moving people, not only

the air and sea expense that has already been incurred but the expenses of establishing the camps, of feeding the people that are coming

through. This takes up a large proportion of the money.
53

If the authority is a lesser one, we would then be cut off. really, from

going on through HEW and the voluntary agencies in the resettlement

process. . .

Mr. Russo. I have difficulty seeing the process coming to a halt. I

would think that this subcommittee and yourself plus other monitors

involved would far in advance of any money running out, seek additional funds. I cannot see how this subcommittee Mould turn down

a legitimate claim. At the. same time I have a problem with the figure

of $507 million which we do not know whether Ave are going to spend

or not. We do not. know Avhether we are going to have 50,000 refugees

or 75.000, or 100,000 refugees to deal with. There are too many unanswered questions as far as I am concerned at this point.

Ambassador BROW.V. But I do want to go back to that point again,

though. If AVC are cut down, then our fixed costs that are already incurred or will be incurred in the next few week?*•that is the movement

costs and the establishment of facilities•all of these are costs that are

already there.

Mr. Russo. HOAV much is that cost that you anticipate ?

Ambassador BROAVX. Here, we haA-e the sea lift, $30 million. Air

lift, $132 million. The establishment of the DOD facilities at $35 million. There is $197 million already. The daily maintenance of $185

million.

Now that is $380 million and Ave have not resettled anybodv yet. In

other Avords, the Avorst that Avould happen then is we AVOUICI end up

Avith these people sitting in camps, and Ave do not haA-e enough camps

for that. We have got to move the people out into the society through

the. voluntary agencies and through the U.S. Government.

Mr. EILBERO. Mr. Russo, perhaps you were absent at the time but

Ambassador Brown indicated he Avould giA7e us a breakdown of each

of these figures. In other words, we will not rest content with a summary, as he kneAv it. He is going to be A-ery specific and giAr

e us the

breakdoAvns of each of these figures he has mentioned.

Mr. Russo. Thank you. I just have one last comment. Mr. Chairman.

On page 8 of your statement, the last paragraph, I happen to totally

agree Avith your comment there. I do ljelieve Ave haAre a moral responsibility, but to Avhat extent and IIOAV many is the only problem I have.

In light of my vary poor experience in Europe, it makes you kind of

AAonder.

Ambassador BROAVN\ Right. Well, I hope with these third countries,

that they too might be going through part of the psychological process that we are going through in this country, and that is an acceptance

of the fact that there is a real problem here involving human beings

and there are not any real alternatiA-es in the human terms. There are

no alternatives except to moAre people on and to settle them again, but

you cannot allow them to go out to sea and die. And let us hope we get

some of that from some of these people that have been hesitant up to

UOAV.

Mr. Russo. Isure hope so. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Mr. EILBERO. Ms. Holtzman.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Ambassador, on another matter, you said that

the final evacuation Avas rather hectic. Did AVC succeed in getting out

all of the immediate relatives and dependents of Americans ?
54

Ambassador BROWN. I doubt it. I cannot swear to that. We got out

every American we knew of. We got every American out who wanted

to leave voluntarily. As far as I know they were gotten out and we

have no information of any Americans that are still in Vietnam other

than a few that were captured in the north, if you remember.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. What about

Ambassador BROWN. Well, of their families and all of their dependents I cannot swear to it because if they were not living together and

they could not assemble them to get them together and bring them to

these centers where we were flying people out and someone may have

been left behind.

Wc do know that some people were, certain employees, certain Vietnamese employees of firms and whatnot, not everybody escaped who

might have wanted to escape. This is one of the tragedies of it all.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Was that because there was stalhng and delaying in

the evacuation planning I

Ambassador BROWN. NO; I do not think it was that. We got our airlift up pretty fast where we were up to 6,000 and finally 7,000 and 8,000

people a day. It was not that. The processing that went on was minimal

but they had to do some processing in the American embassy and out at

the DAO base on the airfield where these people left from.

No; we just did not have a big enough window in time. The North

Vietnamese were those that made that determination in the end as to

how many people could get out. When they closed in, that was the end.

We had to say when they started shelling and they killed the two

Marines on the airport, we stopped immediately the fixed wing aircraft

and went to the helicopter lift. That was it.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if we might get some

figures from the Ambassador as to the rates at which the evacuation

took place•how many people were evacuated each day.

Ambassador BROWN. I can provide that without any trouble at all.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. What categories of people?

Ambassador BROWN. Yes, day by day.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Whether these were immediate relatives or whether

they were high risk people or whether they were people who got out

through bribery or the like ?

Ambassador BROWN. Well, I cannot break it down as much as that.

What I can tell you essentially is how many people we took out by

airplane a day, how many of them were Americans, how many were

Vietnamese. But the figures

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Did you not have a plan setting priorities as to persons you were taking out ?

Ambassador BROWN. Of course. But do not forget the decisions on

this had to be made on the spot or they knew where people were and

what they were.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. But did you not have a plan to take out as a first

priority immediate relatives of Americans* First, of course, Americans, then immediate relatives?

Ambassador BROWN. Absolutely.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. SO you cannot tell me now whether or not you followed that plan ?
55

Ambassador BROWN. We followed that plan as much as it could be

followed. That is the instructions that were given to the Embassy, were

quite precise as to the kind of people we waiited them to bring out, the

kind of people we expected to be put on the aircraft, and that is what

they put on as far as we can tell.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. Was that a written plan, by the way ?

Ambassador BROWX. Written? It was a sequence of cables, a constantseries of cables with Ambassador Martin.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. Would the committee be able to get that ?

Mr. EILBERG. Can the ambassador answer that ?

Ambassador BROWN". What we will do is we will provide a summary

of instnictions for the committee.

Mr. EILBERG. We would like to have that for the record, if we can.

Ambassador BROWX. All right,sir.

[The cables referred to are to be supplied at a later date, and will

be retained in committee files.]

Ms. HOLTZMAX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. General, you must be growing tired of this question,

but I am still puzzled about the concept of granting asylum and the

concept of granting parole.

What are the steps or requirements for the granting of asylum and

who does it, who grants asylum ?

General CIIAPMAX. First, a person must apply for asylum, and the

cases are handled on a case-by-case basis. The material is then given to

the Office of Refugee and Migration, State Department, for a recommendation as to whether or not the fear of persecution is real. And

that recommendation then comes to us.

Mr. EILBERO. And all of this so far would have taken place in Saigon, the request for a grant of asylum? I am speaking of the evacuees

now.

General CIIAPMAX. NO, sir, I do not think so. The asylum request

takes place after the person arrives on U.S. soil in these cases.

Mr. EILBKRO. What is the status of the individual who is being

evacuated ? What U.S. legal status is he in. if any ?

General CIIAPMAX. During the time lie is in the air?

Mr. EILBERO. From the time he is picked up and while he is in the

air, yes, sir.

Ambassador Buowx. I think he is in travel status, but I am going to

have to defer because we have the Kurtica case in the background

somewhere, if you remember that famous case. Perhaps Mr. Malmborg

could tell us whether people who are physically in an American aircraft being evacuated are already in some sort of a special status.

Mr. MALMBORG. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is any special

legal status for people in that situation. They are in our custody and

under our protection with their consent for that limited purpose and

it holds no particular impact as far as I am aware on their legal immigration status in the United States.

Once, of course, they arrive in the U.S. territory, they are under our

custody, and are subject to our immigration laws, and must be placed

into whatever categories are provided for under our laws and regulations.

Mr. EILBERO. Then they might be granted asylum when they got to

Guam. Is that correct?
56

Mr. MALMBORG. Yes, sir.

General CHAPMAN. Well, they •would not be. granted asylum at that

point but from that point on they are in a position of being entitled to

request asylum.

Mr. EILBERQ. All right.

Gentlemen, and Ms. Taft, we thank 3011 very much for your coining

here today, and I hope you understand the dilemma that faces the U.S.

Congress at a time of high unemployment, poor housing, low housing,

the mood of the Congress against foreign aid. We really have a dilemma here, as I said in my opening statement.

Ambassador BROWN. I understand that. We are all sharing a common dilemma today.

Mr. EILBERG. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador L. Dean Brown follows:]

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOB L. DEAN BROWN, DIRECTOR, INTERACEXCY TASK

FORCE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Chairman, during the last 2 weeks, as Vlptnnm collapsed, the United States

undertook a humanitarian mission of gigantic proportions. In response to the

tragedy, the administration aeted with speed and determination. Specifically, we

succeeded in evacuating about 40,000 Vietnamese through our airlift before the

airport was closed. We also evacuated over 7,000 American citizens through fixed

wing airlift and the final helicopter evacuation.

The number of Vietnamese has swelled beyond this number as a result of the

thousands of Vietnamese picked up by our naval vessels in the China Sea. We

now estimate the total number of Vietnamese who have fled Vietnam exceeds

325,000.

We have had to make some very rapid decisions on how to receive such a large

flow of people. As Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay became congested during

the initial phase, we quickly established staging areas in Guam and Wake. We

also established three reception centers in the United States at Camp I'endleton.

Camp Chaffee, and Eglin Air Force Base where the refugees could be moved

from Guam for further processing.

A massive effort was required to put the staging areas and the processing

centers into oi>eration. Our military services responded magnificieutly to the

emergency and quickly moved to make the facilities ready to receive the large

flow of refugees. The civilian arms of government were also mobilized and teams

of IXS. HEW, State, and Aid were dispatched to the staging areas and the

centers in the United States to assist, in the effort. Also, the most importantly,

the voluntary agencies have acted positively to the emergency. They are sending

represenatives to all of the centers in the United States.

After consulting with Congress and the President, the Attorney General, on

April 25, extended parole to four categories of Indochina war victims. These

categories represented the best estimate of the evacuation problem which we

could provide at the height of the crisis in Vietnam. We could not then define

with any precision the numbers of Vietnamese who would flee their country

by their own means or would lie stranded abroad.

Now that Vietnam has fallen, we have a clearer understanding of the evacuation problem. It has four aspects:

We planned an evacuation of certain specific categories of Vietnamese and

estimated the total would not exceed 130,000. The plan was formalized in the

Attorney General's parole after consultation with Congress. In fact, through

our planned air and sen II ft. evacuation, we succeeded in moving almost 68,000

Vietnamese. With the exception of a few. they appear ufter final screening

to fit the criteria specified by the Attorney General. They will be accepted into

the United States unless any wish to emigrate to third countries or returu to

their native land.

The second category includes those who received American assistance in their

flight. Approximately 09.000 Vietnamese were picked up at sea by U.S. vessels,

or are presently sailing on Vietnamese vessels. These are men. women, and

children without a country. The choice is to force them to return to the land
0/

they fled fox fear of persecution, leave them nt ss-a, or accept responsibility

for them. We propose to accept responsibility for them.

Tlie third category includes approximately 3,000 Vietnamese and Cambodians

who have, since the fall of their governments, fled to third countries, some of

which are threatening to return them to Vietnam or Cambodia. This category

includes Vietnamese and Cambodians who fled using air and naval crafts

furnished tinder U.S. military assistance programs•valuable equipment we plan

to reclaim. We propose to require that they seek asylum in these countries and.

if refused, ask for resettlement assistance from the appropriate international

organizations before considering them for parole on a case-by-case or class-byclass basis. With regard to Vietnamese citizens- and some Cambodian military

personnel who reached Thailand, we know they will not be able to stay. We are

taking charge of them now.

The outcome" of the Vietnam war has left other Vietnamese stranded in third

countries. This last category includes Vietnamese diplomats and their families,

students, ordinary travelers, and businessmen. We do not know how many

Vietnamese fall into this category but we believe many will be able to make

arrangements to settle abroad, others will enjoy the protection signatory powers

of the United Nations protocol and convention on the status of refagees normally

extend. Some • and we do not yet know how many • may not lie able to find

safe-haven and may turn to the United States for help. We intend to ask international organizations to take responsibility for them; only where we fail will

we consider entry into the United States. As soon as we have n clearer estimate

of the number involved we will communicate our findings to Congress.

Based on the above four-part assessment of the evacuation problem, we are

asking the Attorney General to extend parole on a contingency basis to an

additional 20,000 individuals and liberalise the present limitations on categories.

While we do not expect to extend parole to 150,000, we need to have the standby

authority which a new determination would provide. Only iu this way can we

be equipped to care for those Vietnamese and Cambodians who are not aide to

find homes elsewhere.

We intend to press the international community to accept refugees and we

hare moved energetically to enlist its cooperation. Specifically we have been in

frequent contact with the international agencies, principally the United Nations

and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM). I am sorry to report that

the UNHCR has not moved as rapidly as we would have wished but I assure you

we will continue to press them to assume those responsibilities for which they

are mandated. I would, however, like to extend my thanks to ICEM for the speed

with which it has moved on this major humanitarian problem. The International

Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is sending a delegate to Guam to issue travel

documents which will facilitate the movement of refugees to third countries.

For our own part, we launched a diplomatic initiative to bring our concerns on

the plight of the Indochina refugees to governments around the world. AVe have

asked for their help and an expression of willingness to accept some refugees

into their lands. The reaction thus far is incomplete and mixed. We have received

some preliminary positive responses from certain countries from nations in

French speaking Africa. Europe, and Latin America. Canada has publicly declared its willingness to take 3,000. France is receiving many who have special

ties to that country. At this point, I cannot predict how many will find homes in

third countries, but we will continue to make a maximum effort to bring our concern, which is humanitarian, to the attention of the world community.

For those Vietnamese and Cambodians who do not find homes abroad, and are

accepted into the United States, it is important that we provide them with the

essential reception facilities, health care, clothing, education, vocational training,

and resettlement assistance which they require to settle quickly and become productive members of our society. We must also extend the same warmth of welcome hundreds of thousands of other refugees have received in the postwar

jteriod. We must avoid at all cost additional charges to financially hard-prssed

State and local governments. We ought also to contribute to international resettlement efforts. The bill which the President is submitting this afternoon meets

these requirements.

With regard to resettlement in the United States we are working closely with

the nine voluntary agencies specializing in refugee relocation. Together we agree

that the new arrivals should be dispersed as evenly as possible throughout the
58

United States, avoiding in particular resettlement in economically hard-pressed

areas. I am impressed by the competence, cooperation, and ability of the voluntary agencies and believe they are capable of finding new homes and making ueir

lives for the majority of those Vietnamese and Cambodians who come without

American relatives or sponsors. We also have the full cooperation of HEW, DOD,

Labor, and Interior in studying alternative resettlement possibilities for those

refugees voluntary agencies cannot help.

I am aware of the public concern over the reception of Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees in the United States at this time of economic difficulty. I am

confident, however, of our ability to carry out a successful resettlement program. The numbers are not too large. More importantly, the Vietnamese and

Cambodians arriving in America have suffered deeply and are deserving of our

help and hospitality. It is America's tradition to respond rapidly and generously

to peoples in need.

[Whereupon, at. 1:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
INDOCHINA REFUGEES

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1975

HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

CITIZENSHIP, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m., in room

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Joshua Eilberg

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Eilberg, Sarbanes, Holtzman, Dodd,

Russo, Fish, and Cohen.

Staff present: Garner J. Cline, counsel; Arthur P. Endres, Jr.,

assistant counsel; and Alexander B. Cook, associate counsel.

Mr. EIMIERG. The subcommittee will come to order.

The chairman has a statement to make but the chairman of the

full committee is engaged in a markup session in another committee

room and we want to give him full opportunity to present his views,

and it is a distinct pleasure to introduce the chairman of our full

committee, Hon. Peter Rodino.

Mr. Chairman.

TESTIMONY OF HON. PETER W. RODINO, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE 10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I

appreciate this opportunity. I recognize that you have other witnesses

scheduled. However, this matter is to me of such importance that I

felt it necessary to come here before you this morning and to express

myself on this very, very serious matter of concern to all of us. I

appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, to appear before you this morning as the sponsor of the

legislation you are about to consider to authorize funding for the resettlement of refugees from Southeast Asia. This is legislation of the

highest national priority, as you have recognized by scheduling

immediate hearings, and I commend you for this. I hope you will

give it the most expeditious consideration consistent with the discharge of your responsibility to scrutinize this authorization in the

public interest.

Our national response to the plight of these unfortunate people is

not a matter of partisan differences. I am pleased to be sponsoring legislation on this subject proposed by the administration. I was gratified

by President Ford's statement last night, and as I indicated in my

(»)
60

own statement to the House yesterday afternoon, I believe that AVO

must extend our national hand of welcome to these refugees as we have

to those from Western Europe after World War II, from Hungary in

1956, from Cuba in the early 1960's, from Czechoslovakia in 1968,

and to the Jews fleeing Russia today.

When this country forgets its immigrant heritage and turns its back

on the. homeless, the fearful, and the oppressed of the world, we will

have indeed written finish to the American dream. This country is not

ready to do that, not when the marines at Camp Pendleton spend their

own money for 18,000 chopsticks.

As the son of an immigrant myself, I cannot forget how close to the

roots of America was the problem we face today. You should ask careful questions about the plan of the. administration to carry out the work

this legislation woidd authorize. You should, as I know you will, question the responsible officials closely in line with your duties as members

of this subcommittee, which 1 was proud to once chair and of which

I have been a member and had been a member for many years.

But once you have done so, I hope you will see fit to vote to authorize

the expenditure of reasonably necessary funds to achieve the humanitarian goals of this great and noble endeavor.

Thank you very much.

Mr. EiLRERG. Mr. Chairman, we are indeed indebted to you for appearing before us this morning and setting the tone of our consideration of your bill, and we hope to give it as prompt consideration as we

can consistent with the great deal of information that we must receive

from the. various departments concerned, and knowing your busy

schedule

Mr, Rooixo. I will be delighted to answer any questions, though I

must go.

Mr. Eir-nKKo. Wo are prepared to let you go at this time, Mr. Chairman, and I do not. see any members that are pressing, so thank you

very much. Mr. Chairman.

Mi-. RooiKO. Thank you.

Mr. EiLBKKU. Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. S.UIRAXES. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank you for that

statement. I think it is in the finest tradition of our heritage. I have

been concerned with reports of American attitudes toward this problem that. I do not think accurately reflect the sentiments of the

American people or the sentiments of this Congress. And I think you

have done us all a great service this morning by placing us back'on

the appropriate track and focusing our vision on those principles that

are so important to us.

Mr. RoDixn. Well, thank you. Congressman Sarbanes. Let me say

that as a member of this committee for 27 years it has been its finest

tradition to have responded in matters such as this with a great sense

of humanity and with, a great sense of understanding, and I think it

has written a proud role, and I would hope that it would carry on in

just that manner.

Mr. KiuiERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We have called today's hearing in order to review some of the

questions that were asked at Monday's, hearing and to obtain from

the respective departments justification for the funding amounts that

were requested atthattime.
61

In addition, the President yesterday addressed a letter to the Speaker

of the House in the form of an executive communication requesting

immediate consideration of legislation providing an authorization or

funds for transportation and resettlement of Indochinese refugees.

We have been advised that by the end of tliis week all available

funds will have been obligated and there is an urgent need for legislation if we are to meet the needs of, and provide the essentials of life

for, the thousands of war victims who have or will come to the United

States.

It should be pointed out that the legislation which has been suggested by the administration proposes a program for temporary

relief, transportation, and resettlement in the United States and in

third countries for an estimated 150,000 refugees. The domestic resettlement program consisting primarily of reimbursement to State

and local governments and assistance to voluntary agencies in their

resettlement activities would terminate on September 30, 1977. Funds

for resettlement in third countries or other international activities

would not be available after June 30,197G.

During today's hearing we will examine the necessity for funding

limitations which arc not contained in the Administration's proposed

bill and alternative time limitations on the various programs. The

necessity to review the operation of this proposed legislation should

not. be overlooked. Likewise, we will discuss some of the questions

which were not adequately answered at the hearing on Monday in the

hope that any congressional action is predicated on the best available

information and to insure the American people that any program

which is established is in their interest as well as the interest of those

who seek refuge in our country.

I will yield to Mr. Fish.

Mr. FISH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment you on

calling this hearing. I think it is very rare that we have a hearing

to consider legislation that has not yet been introduced but that will

take place at noon when our chairman, the Honorable Peter Rodino,

will introduce the administration's measure. And as soon as he does

that, I, on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen,

will cosponsor this legislation. I think we started off on the right note

with Chairman Rodino's testimony setting the key to this hearing.

I might add that President Ford has heard two urgent appeals,

one from the Pope and one from Mr. George Meany, the head of the

AFL-CIO.

I would hope that in our consideration of the legislation, the authorizing of humanitarian refugee and resettlement assistance, Mr.

Chairman, that we will pursue this expeditiously and resolve the

outstanding questions no matter what the time-frame means in terms

of this subcommittee continuing its deliberations, so that we can resolve this matter in a very shorttime.

Thank you.

Mr. ETLBKRG. Thank you, Mr. Fish.

Now we expect this morning to hear from all of the departments

that are involved, and I think it would be simpler if they would

attempt or let us try to do this at the head table. We have involved,

before I call you up. HEW, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and INS, and of course we have Mr. James M. Wilson,

62-149•75 5
62

Deputy Director of the Inter-Agency Task Force. And I think the

witness list is available to all of the members.

Now may I suggest to the. witnesses that perhaps, and there would

be some difficulty with the stenographers, perhaps, so that they might

identify who is speaking, if we could have HEW•who represents

HEW here?

[A hand is raised.]

Mr. EILBERG. Would you sit at the end of the table or near the end

of the table? And it might help in identifying the names again for

the purposes of the record.

This is Ms. Julia Taft, is that right ?

Ms. TAFT. That is right.

Mr. EILBERG. And the Department of Defense•is the Department,

of Defense here? Would you step up, sir? And what is your name and

title?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Frank McLaughlin, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. Frank McLaughlin, Defense Department Budget Officer.

And the Department of State•I think Mr. Wilson. No, we have Mr.

Knute Malmborg, Legal Adviser's Office, Department of State.

And the INS, Mr. James Greene, Deputy Commissioner of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service. And Mr. Sam Bernsen,

General Counsel of the INS.

We may have occasion to skip from one to the other, and so for our

convenience we have asked you to step forward in this fashion.

Now first some general questions. Permission is granted to Mr.

Fish to have the statement of the AFL-CIO Executive Council, dated

today, included in the record, unless there is objection. And I hear

none.

[The material referred to follows:]

PBEPAEEB STATEMENT BY THE AITr-CIO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

The United States has an inescapable moral responsibility to do all that it can

to aid the Vietnamese refugees who are now entering our country, just as we

have opened our doors to Hungarians and Cuban refugees from Communist totalitarianism. We cannot turn our backs on those who have fought for freedom without making a mockery of the principles upon which our Nation was founded

and by which it has served for centuries as a haven for people of all nationalities

who seek liberty.

We recognize that the Vietnamese arriving on our shores will face many difficult and unique problems. But we have faith that those problems can be overcome

by the good will and generosity for which the American i>eople are justly known

throughout the world. Recent statements by some politicians suggesting that the

Vietnamese refugees are not welcome here bespeak a meanness of spirit unworthy

of the American people. It is a meanness in which the American labor movement

will not partake.

The AFL-CIO Executive Council calls ui>on our members to make these refugees of Communist, aggression welcome in their communities.

Wre call upon the Congress to appropriate without delay sufficient funds to

facilitate the resettlement of the Vietnamese refugees in the United States without placing an undue burden upon the already hard-pressed resources of our State

and local governments.

Finally, we call upon the AFL-CTO Community Services Department, the

Human Resources Development Institute, and our International Affairs Department to cooperate fully with government and voluntary programs to assist the

refugees to find jobs and housing, to obtain needed social services, and to become

Integrated Into the American way of life.
63

TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. WILSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE; FRANK G. WISNER. SPECIAL ASSISTANT

TO DIRECTOR, TASK FORCE; JULIA VADALA TAFT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEW FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, HEW

BUDGET OFFICER; JAMES F. GREENE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; SAM BERNSEN,

GENERAL COUNSEL, INS; LAWRENCE A. MARINELLI, AGENCY

FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; JAMES MICHEL. LEGAL

ADVISER'S OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; KNUTE MALMBORG.

LEGAL ADVISER'S OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; FRANK MCLAUGHLIN, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, BUDGET OFFICER; AND

COLONEL POE, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, BUDGET OFFICER

Mr. EILBERG. "What costs have been incurred today by the Department of Defense, the Department of State, INS. and HEW t What is

the total figure and will these expenses all be covered by the $98 million

from the Indochina Post-War Reconstruction Fund?

Now I suppose Mr. Wilson, we look to you for that, unless there is

some other witness that might be more helpful.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, with your concurrence, I would like to

call on individual witnesses who are here from the several departinents

to talk to'the expenditures of each of those agencies, beginning witJi the

Department of Justice.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. As of yesterday

Mr. EILBERG. Excuse me for interrupting. We are most anxious,

as you are, to expedite the movement of this hearing, so we beg your

indulgence to try to make your answers as short as possible, and we

will try to make our questions as short as possible.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. AS of yesterday. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense has obligated approximately $80 million.

Mr. EILBERG. And the Department of State?

Mr. WILSON. The Department of State, Mr. Chairman, through

the Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs, has to date expended

$1,400,000 for the voluntary agencies and the international agencies.

Mr. EILBERG. And how alxnit the INS?

Mr. GREENE. The INS has committed $1.2 million and we expect

this to run us over several weeks.

Mr. EILBERG. And HEW?

Ms. TAFT. About $3 million for health screening.

Mr. EILBERG. About how much ?

Ms. TAFT. About $3 million for health screening and health

activities.

Mr. EILBERG. And I have not attempted to total that figure. Do you

have a total of that ?

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could submit for the record

a list of the amounts which have been expended thus far as of 5 p.m.

yesterday afternoon, the 5th of May.

I should say that this does not include the expenditures made by

the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This encompasses

only those funds which are spent out of the $98 million we spoke

of in our testimony on Monday.
.-'

64

Mr. EILBERG. What figure was that, sir ?

Mr. WILSON. $98 million, sin which had been transferred from the

Foreign Assistance Act to make this possible.

Mr. EILBERG. Well, I understand the total to be $85.6 million, and

the question that I am asking now is: Are they covered by the $98 million for the Indochina Post-War Reconstruction Fund? TT_,•

Mr. WILSON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, except for HEW.

There are also, if I may say, sir, to avoid any confusion, some additional figures which have not been included in that which I would

like to indicate for the record. These include an item of $40,000 for

Customs, which is not represented here, and a $50,000 item which has

been set aside as a possible reserve for the possible establisliment of

an advisory committee on Indochinese refugees.

We will submit this for the record.

[The material referred to follows:]

Estimated expense* for evacuation maintenance and resettlement of Indochina

and Cambodian refugees as of May 5, 1975

Total amount provided for IPR funded to date under Presidential

determination (614(a) waiver) $98,000,000

Contract shipping for evacuation 18, 000,000

Airlift-DOD•$300 per person to staging area. $530 per person from

staging areas to processing centers plus air supply of materials• 34,000,000

Facilltles-POD•open staging areas and processing centers 15,000,000

Dailv maintenance-DOD•including food, utilities, medical care, etc. 12,000,0O0

Unobligated reserve for DOD operation 7, 900,000

Immigration services•processing of refugees 1,200,000

Voluntary agencies•ICEM and high commissioner, International

Bed Cross $500 per person provided to voluntary agencies to administer resettlement program overseas 1, 400,000

Customs•processing of refugees 40,000

National Advisory Committee on Indochinese Refugees 50,000

Amount available * 89, 590,000

8,610,000

1 Estimated rate of expenditure at present time Is 2.7 million per day.

Mi*. EILBERG. Going hack to the Department of Defense, how much

of the $98 million transferred from the Indochina Postwar Reconstruction Fund has been obligated by the Department of Defense to

date ?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. As I indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, our obligations as of yesterday were approximately $80 million.

Mr. PhLBERo. And when do you anticipate the funds will run out,

again speaking to the Department of Defense ?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. We think we are going to run into problems by

the end of this week, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. Can you break your figures down into the sealift, airlift* construction of facilities, and maintenance of refugees?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes, sir. Of the $80 million approximately $18

million is the sealift, $34 million for airlift, and the remaining $27

million is for facilities and maintenance.

Mr. EILBERG. Would you kindly repeat the ficures, sir?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. $18 million for sealift, $34 million for airlift,

and the remaining $27 million for facilities and maintenance costs.

Mr. EILBERG. What future costs do you anticipate ?
65

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Our total estimate based on the task and assumptions which the State Department is giving us is for $328 million.

Mr. EILBERG. And how would that hgure be allocated as between

future sealifts, airlifts, refugee maintenance, and so on?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. That $382 million breaks down into $30 million

for sealift, $132 million for airlift, $35 million for facilities, and $185

million for the maintenance•the daily maintenance of the refugees.

Mr. EILBERG. As I understand it, the airlift cost is derived from an

estimated cost of $530 per person for 130,000 refugees.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes, sir, that is the Military Airlift Command's

coststo fly from Guam to Fort Chaft'oe.

Mr. EILBERG. "Would not the cost be more accurate if based on the cost

of the actual charter nights rather than the individuals involved?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Itis based on the charter flights, sir. It is based on

the average number of passengers that the charters will carry. It is not

really on a per-seat basis. We broke it down this way so that if there

is any change in the assumptions as to the numbers coming here, the

committee staff could easily adjust as necessary.

Mr. EILBERG. "With respect to the maintenance cost in reception centers, bow is the $15-per-person-per-day figure arrived at?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. That was based on our estimate of the daily cost,

of feeding. It includes medical services and supplies, the general base

operating support cost of utilities, all of those things which -we must

do as long as the refugees are in our custody.

Mr. EILBERG. How does that figure compare with your experience at,

Camp Pendleton last week? Are you spending that per day or less or

more?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Our figures at Camp Pendleton, we have not got

the facilities cost completely isolated from them at this point, but

we have tried to estimate the cost of opening and closing our camps

as a separate item•the cots, the tents, the plywood that is goinp in

there, sir. And we are trying to sort out now to get that fix on what

the. actual break is.

Mr. ErLBERo. I wonder if you can provide the subcommittee with

that information as soon as you get it, and hopefully, in the next

few days ?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes, sir.

[The information referred to is to be supplied, and will be retained

in committee files.]

Mr. EILBERG. The same formula, T understand, is used for determining maintenance costs in staging areas and what is the basis for that

cost?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The same thing, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. I understand that approximately 60 percent of the

funds to be authorized by the proposed legislation will be expended

by the Department of Defense.

What assurances can we receive that the Department of Defense is

attempting to minimize their cost outlays such as providing the most

economical means of transporting from Guam to the continental

United States?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Well, sir, the determination of the level or the

standard of livinp. if you will, and the means of transportation is

laid on us by State, for whom we are merely an agent. The means for
66

transportation by air I would imagine would get into the rate of flow

of the refugees into the processing centers.

Mr. EILBERG. Is the Department of Defense keeping separate accounting systems in the various reception camps for those costs incurred in the operation of refugee programs there?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. And are separate accounts being maintained at El

Toro Air Base?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. NOW should not the South Vietnamese be required to

pay for their transportation from South Vietnam to Guam or from

Guam to the continental United States?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I will defer that policy question.

Mr. WILSON. If I may, Mr. Chairman. We have submitted to committee counsel the replies to two questions which were put to Ambassador Brown on Monday, one of them having to do with reimbursement of travel to the United States.

I will submit this for the record now but let me, if I may, read

that portion of it which relates to your question:

With regard to Vietnamese who are not employed by American firms, we have

concluded that it would be extremely difficult to obtain reimbursement without

jeopardizing our resettlement program. We do not wish to strip the refugees

of their essential resources or to force them to turn to public welfare as they

start their new life.

There is no way we can estimate the personal wealth of individual Vietnamese.

If we ask hanks which have conducted exchange on Guam or in the United

States for their records of transaction, a deed which is legally questionable,

we would identify principally the sums exchanged by Vietnamese who carried

their jiersoual savings with them. We would not identify those Vietnamese who

have bank accounts in the United States or third countries. There is uo possible

way in our opinion to determine this fact.

The answer to your question in brief, then, Mr. Chairman, is that

as a practical matter we see that there is no real means under which we

could approach these types of people without going through a process

of identification which is almost impractical or impossible to carry out.

[The matter referred to follows:]

REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES

We have considered the several members of the Committee's recommendation

that American and Vietnamese employees of private American firms be charged

for the coat of travel incurred during the evacuation between Saigon and the

continental United States. We acceipt the Committee's proposal and will carry

it out to the best of our ability. But we must note that as a practical matter

it can only be partially effective.

We intend to:

(a) ask the Military Airlift Command to Identify all those individuals on

whom they have maintained records and see to it that billings are sent to their

parent companies.

(b) we will in addition query American firms which had operations in

Viet-Nam as to their intentions to reimburse the United States Government

for the costs of travel of their present and past employees.

With regard to Vietnamese not employed by American firms, we conclude

it will be extremely difficult to obtain reimbursement without jeopardizing our

settlement program. We do not wish to strip the refugees of their essential

resources or force them to turn to public welfare as they start their new life.

There is no way we can estimate the personal wealth of individual Vietnamese.

If we ask banks which have conducted exchange on Guam or in the United

States for their records of transactions•a deed which is legally questionable•
67

•we would identify principally the sums exchanged by Vietnamese who carried

their personal savings with them. We would not identify those Vietnamese

who have bank accounts in the United States or third countries. There is no

possible way to determine this fact.

Mr. EILBEKG. And you feel that based upon your study that the

Federal Government should assume these costs, then, I take it.

Mr. WILSON. We are very much in sympathy with the motivations

underlying your question, Mr. Chairman, but as a practical matter

after studying this, since the questions on Monday, we have reached

the conclusion that there is just no way that we can really do it on an

equitable basis.

Mr. EILBERG. Would you explore for us a little bit more I mean why

that is so, why refugees cannot be interrogated ? In other words, tell us

a little bit more than you have, if you can, Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. Let me, if I may, turn part of this over to Ms. Taft,

who has the interviewing of refugees as part of the HEW function.

Ms. TAFT. Mr. Chairman, as people are being processed through at

the reception centers stateside, they are being asked whether or not

they have resources to get them from the reception center to wherever

the resettlement location is. We have no way, as Mr. Wilson inferred,

to be able to check. If they say that they do not have enough money to

actually incur that expense, there is no way that we feel we have the

legal authority to do the check on their assets. We are accepting their

•word whether they have or do not have those funds.

I would like to stress the point that Mr. Wilson did make earlier,

though, too. that I think our prime, objective here ought to be to get

the people resettled in situations where they can become self-sufficient.

And it is very important that we not strip or try to save a couple hundred dollars initially when they come into the country; otherwise, they

may lose their capacity or their willingness to become self-sufficient

once they resettle.

Now the front-end costs may appear to be somewhat high if you

factor in their initial transportation and room and board, et cetera, at

t he reception centers. But our position is that, better that we pick up

that tab now than wait until they resettle and then run into fiscal problems later on. And we would much prefer to not have these people end

up on the public payroll. And we feel that the small investment initially will benefit us in the long run.

Mr. WlLSON. It is also our judgment, Mr. Chairman, that the administrative costs of this are likely to be considerably more than we would

probably end up by collecting, given the limitations that Ms. Taft has

described.

Let me emphasize that what we are trying to do as much as possible

is to clear these people through the resettlement centers just as rapidly

as possible. And to do this requires, of course, the most expeditious

processing that we can devise.

Mr. EILBERO. Would you support an amendment requiring the

Attorney General to obtain a promissory note or statement from

wealthy refugees that they will reimburse the I

T

.S. Government for

transportation costs from Guam to the United States? I might say

also that such a provision could contain authority for the Attorney

General to waive repayment in hardship cases.

Mr. WILSON. The problem I think we would have with that, Mr.

Chairman, is the eniorceability of it under the circumstances. We
would look into this as a matter of priority and give you a legal judgment on it. But. the preliminary view, which has just been expressed

to me, is that we might have considerable difficulty collecting on it.

Mr. EILBERG. I would like to emphasize, and I believe

Mr. WILSON. We will be willing to accept it, Mr. Chairman. The

question again is one of practicability and legality.

Mr. EILBERG. I do not want to leave unanswered a great, many questions because obviously there is a great deal of interest in the legislation and we would like to consider it as quickly as possible.

Now for those who are employed by TJ.S. companies and U.S. contractors in South Vietnam, should not these costs be met by their

former employer, particularly if thev obtain similar employment in

the United States?

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, on this score, I think we can be more

positive. We do believe that we can accept the suggestion that was

made by the committee on Monday which is to carry out to the best

of our ability a program designed to collect from the companies as

much as possible. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, we intend to ask the

Military Airlift Command to identify all of those individuals on

whom they have maintained records.

As you know, there are quite a number, of course, in the last few

days of the evacuation on whom no records were kept at all. But for

those on whom they did keep records we intend to see that billings are

sent, to their parent companies, and we will in addition query these

American firms which have had operations in Vietnam as to their

intentions on reimbursing the U.S. Government on the cost of travel

of their present and their past employees.

Mr. EILBERG. In your opinion will an amendment be necessary, or

legislation be necessary, in order to follow up that query and effectuate it?

Mr. WILSON. No, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. YOU feel you could arrange this without legislation?

Mr. WILSON. We believe we can: yes, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. At this time I would yield the floor to Mr. Fish and I

might add that T have a great many more questions but we certainly

want to give all of the members an opportunity to participate.

Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. Will the gentleman yield for just a moment ? I would

like to place in the record a statement by the American Jewish Congress with regard to their support of the purpose of proposed

legislation.

Without objection, this statement will be made a part of the record.

[The material referred to follows:]

RESOLUTION ADOPTED nr TTIF. NATIONAL GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAN

JEWTSH CONGRESS ON SUNDAY, MAY 4, 1975

The American Jewish Congress strongly supports the humanitarian efforts of

President Ford and his administration to resettle in the United States those

refugees who are fleeing Vietnam.

We support the President's request to the Congress of the United States for

financial aid to help in this resettlement program.

We believe that a nation such as ours, built by immigrants and refugees from

all the world, has a special responsibility to offer haven to the homeless.

As Jews we are particularly sensitive to this problem. Many of ns remember

as if It were yesterday the cries of our Jewish brothers who tried in vain to

find a country to accept them in the face of Hitler's extermination policy. We
69

grieved while the world stood by so callously and indifferently. We are grateful

however that time and the lessons of history have made our nation today more

compassionate in the face of suffering and more willing to open our doors to

those who seek refuge.

We trust that the other nations of the world will open their doors as well in

the face of today's urgent need.

Finally, we call upon the new government in Vietnam to accept the principles

enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantee to

all the right of free emigration.

Mr. FISH. That was going to be our initial request to you, Mr.

Chairman.

I wonder if I could just ask any one of the witnesses to start off

with, I have in front of me two documents dated May 2, 1975. Both

are called preliminary estimates of evacuation temporary care and

resettlement costs. One totals $605 million, the other totals $507

million.

Which one should I be looking at, or do you have to read the two

together ?

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Fish, I am told that we have two versions of the

same numbers, one demonstrating the expenditure of the $98 million

which had been transferred from the Foreign Assistance Act, and

separating that from the request for new appropriations. The other

indicating the amount involved in estimating the entire cost of the

program.

[See app. 3 for additional information supplied by the Department

of State subsequent to the hearings.]

Mr. FISH. The entire cost, I take it, is $605 million.

Mr. WILSON'. That is correct, sir.

Mr. FISH. But is the President's request still limited to $507 million ? In other words, not reimbursing you for the $98 million already

expended.

Mr. WILSON. That is correct.

Mr. FISH. We just forget about the $98 million.

Mr. WILSON. That is correct. We are asking $507 million only.

Mr. FISH. Money yet to be spent and obligations yet to be incurred

or currently being incurred ?

Mr. WILSON. 1 es, thatis correct.

Mr. FISH. Well, why do vou not ask for the reimbursement of the

$98 million ?

Mr. WILSON. These are recoveries, Mr. Fish, from funds which were

made available by the Congress under the Foreign Assistance Act.

Mr. FISH. They are not needed for some other purpose?

Mr. WILSON. They are specifically made available for purposes in

Vietnam and Cambodia and have been transferred from that account to be made available for the evacuation of refugees.

Mr. FISH. Well, now, looking at these two preliminary estimates,

they are dated the 2d of May and they refer to, for example, under

airlift, it refers to $530 per person•130,000 people•from staging

areasto processing centers.

I take it that means basically Guam to Pendleton or Guam to

Florida.

Now are we not really talking about 150.000 persons and not 130.000 ?

Mr. WILSON, The estimates here. Mr. Fish, are based on a total number of 150.000 evacuees, 130,000 to the United States and 20.000, hopefully, in international channels not coming to the United States.

Mr. FISH. But is that an estimate that we should take seriously ?
70

Mr. WILSON. It is the best estimate that -we can come up with at

this point in time, Mr. Fish.

As you know, we are trying desperately to get a better reading on

the figures. I think that the figures are getting better every day. But

they do change.

Mr. FISH. It is my understanding the testimony of Ambassador

Brown here Monday morning was that he was asking us to consider

the top figure to be 150,000 because of people that were at sea presently, and in connection witli that he was seeking parole authority

for an additional 20,000 to raise the limit from 130,000 to 150,000.

Mr. WILSON. YOU are absolutely correct there, Mr. Fish. What the

Ambassador was discussing on Monday, I believe, was the requested

authority for parole, which included in it a contingency amount of

20,000.

What we are submitting our budget estimates on here is the figure

of only 130,000 coming to the United States.

Mr. Fisn. Well, I am just suggesting that I think your budget

estimate may be on the low side. We have been faced with a very fluid

situation for the last several weeks, as you know, with the numbers

increasing.

It is my understanding that we should contemplate the "United

States receiving 150,000, and that the other 20,000 to 30,000 that may

be involved will be taken by other nations.

Well, I will leave this. It is your budget. But I think it may be on

the low side.

A question that is of considerable interest to the public when they

listened to and perhaps Ms. Taft, this should be addressed to you.

when they hear such words as "sponsorship," there is a whole bank of

telephones in the White House where people are calling from all over

the country asking: how they can sponsor a family. I wonder if you

would like to address yourself to just what exactly sponsorship means,

and if it has a meaning different from the ordinary meaning in the

Immigration Act, and what is the legal responsibility of a sponsor for

a family or an individual refugee ?

Ms. TAFT. There is no legal binding authority for somebody who

offers sponsorship. Bvit if you do not mind. I would like to defer to

Mr. Greene of INS because they are handling this. It is a moral commitment and so many offers of sponsorship have come through the

toll free number or to the White House or to the voluntary agencies

themselves. And they do check to make sure that the person or the

community or the church which is offering sponsorship is prepared,

in fact, to pick up the initial cost and provide the housing and the

startup assistance that the family that they are sponsoring might need.

But again, it is a moral, not a legally binding commitment.

Mr-. FISH. YOU used the word "they." Wovdd that be one of the voluntary agencies that would check on the sponsor?

Ms. TAFT. Yes, sir.

Mr. FISH. What do we mean by sponsor? Could 3011 give us an

example?

Ms. TAFT. A Sponsor could be a parish, a church parish that savs

that, they would like to take care of two families and that they would

assist in the transportation to get the people there. They would find
71

ft place for the families to live. They would receive contributions from

the congregation for food, for clothing, they would put the children

in school. If there were health problems like a cleft palate they might

assist, in getting the medical treatment for this. And the sponsorship

arrangements are, as I mentioned before, are moral arrangements.

They really are people reaching out or communities reaching out saying that they will take under their protectoi-ship the full assistance of

however many people would be coming in under the family or whatever agreement has been reached on how many people they would take

care of.

Mr. FISH. I understand there has been quite a large public response

in volunteering to be sponsors: is that not correct ?

Ms. TAFT. That is correct, sir.

Mr. FISIT. Does anvone happen to have that toll free number in their

hand?

Ms. TAFT. I have the number right here. Just a second. It is 800-368-

1180.

Mr. FISH. Thank you very much. Ms. Taft. I would like to discuss

with you the apparatus of public support that would come into play

in the event that a sponsorship broke down or after a passage of time

the Vietnamese family simply could not hack it in the community.

"Would they be just like anybody else in terms of going to the local

support welfare agencies, or is there anything in the bill, in the authorization before us, that contemplates a special backup funding for

these?

Ms. TAFT. Right. That is correct. For the duration of the proposed

statute, which would be through October of 1977, the end of fiscal year

1977, HEW would be prepared to pick up 100 percent of the health

and social service and income maintenance costs. If these people become burdens to the public or do become public charges, we would pick

up that fund and expenditure.

Mr. FISH. This is in the itemized request ?

Ms. TAFT. Yes. sir.

Mr. FISH. One final question. You recall a few weeks ago the stay

of deportation order was issued with respect to any South Vietnamese

or Cambodians in the United States, and I suppose in most eases these

are students whose visa and admission requirements and so forth might

have expired.

Can you tell us briefly what is going to happen to these individuals

and what support they might expect? Is there any relief for them

contemplated here? Is there any time limit on their stay in this

country?

Ms. TAFT. For the students who are on student visas it is my understanding that they can go back to INS and apply to come under the

parole, and therefore become eligible for whatever benefits are pursuant to the refugee act that we are discussing today.

There are. about 2,000 students now from South Vietnam who are

receiving their educational training in our colleges and universities.

We. will be able to make these people eligible for student loans through

our HEW student loan program and we are trying to explore ways

with colleges and universities to see if they would like to contribute

scholarships or provide additional educational assistance to these

people.
72

We are working on that and we do have some funds budgeted under

our education provisions that I will be able to be more specific on at

some point in the future.

Mr. FISH. But your recommendation is that for any student, Vietnamese or Cambodian student in the United States should contact

the Immigration and Naturalization Service to find out what he might

be entitled to?

Ms. TAFT. They may wish to contact the INS to change their registration from being a student to being a refugee.

Mr. EILBERG. Would the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. FISH. Yes.

Mr. ErxJSBBO. I wonder if Mr. Greene would attempt to answer

the same question that has just been asked.

Mr. GREENE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

A slight technicality. People in the United States, the aliens in

the United States would not under any circumstances be considered

for the parole. What we have done is we have issued an order that

no action shall be taken to enforce the departure of any Cambodian

or Vietnamese. In this group I think there is something around

15,000 Vietnamese and Cambodians, and they range all the way from

Government officials to diplomats to the United Nations, students,

visitors, at cetera. We have also issued an order that if they request,

we may authorize employment and they will stay in that status.

[For an analysis of the Indochinese refugee situation in the United

States, see app. 4.]

Mr. EILBERG. What status, again, is that ?

Mr. GREENE. They are in extended and voluntary departure. It is

a condition we have given others who cannot depart, and we will

get into this a little later, I am sure, but they are also eligible to

apply for asylum if they so wish.

Mr. EILBERG. What will be done with those who were in deportable

status when the Saigon Government fell.

Mr. GREENE. Those in deportable status, where all action was terminated at that time, we felt we could not enforce the orders of deportation so we suspended them.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I just have one last question. I think it

should be directed to Mr. Wilson.

In the draft bill before me, Mr. Wilson, entitled "The Indochina

Migration Refugee Assistance Act of 1975," which is accompanied by

letter from the President dated May 6, on line 17 it refers to a terminal

date here of June 30, 1070. Is that a correct date or should that be

amended to read October to conform to the fiscal year ?

Mr. WILSON. I am advised by counsel that June is the correct date,

Mr. Fish.

Mr. FISH. Why was the date picked ?

Mr. Wn,soN. This date was picked primarily to provide a cutoff

time beyond which we would not be seeking funds for this program

other than those which would be made available through the Department, of Health, Education and Welfare for its activities, which would

be continuing through fiscal year 1977.

Mr. FISH. I see. That's why I wanted to ask the question. I wanted

to clarify that, that the services that Ms. Taft referred to would continue past, this date of June 30th.

Mr. WILSON. That is correct.
73

Mr. EIEBERG. Mr. Sarbanes?

Mr. SARBANES. MS. Taft, I would assume, putting aside for the

moment this question of transportation costs and their reimbursement, and operating on the premise that it is important to seek to place

these people as quickly as possible in the general society, that thereafter, if they were to seek public assistance because of an inability to

function without it, the screening which is usually associated with

receiving such help, with respect to assets and financial position would,

in fact, be done. Isthat a correct assumption I

Ms. TAFT. Yes, it is.

Mr. SARBANES. SO while it may be true that some are being allowed

to move into the society without paying transportation costs, although

they may in fact have means subsequent thereto, thev would not later

be able to receive assistance if they had the means. The normal screening process associated with receiving such assistance would take place.

Is that correct ?

Ms. TAFT. Yes, that's correct.

Mr. SARBANKS. Mr. Wilson, I would like to ask something about the

figures. I don't have too much difficulty with the basic premises from

which this is approached, but obviously it is all related to the number of people that we are talking about, and 1 gather the latest sheet

indicates a total of 113.340. Is that correcti

Mr. WIESOX. That is correct, yes.

Mr. SARBANES. Now what persons remain uncounted ?

Mr. WILSOX. I beg your pardon'(

Mr. SARBANES. What is anticipated that has not been counted?

Would that be people, and we don't know how many people, aboard

ships that are moving either toward Guam or Wake or the Philippines, are they included in that figure ?

Mr. WTLSOX. These figures are only those refugees who are in the

U.S. system. They include those who are still afloat in the Western

Pacific; they include those who are at the staging sites in the Pacific;

and of course, those in the settlements, and of course, those who have

been processed. We do not at this point of time know how many more

might, come into that system from outside. We have discussed lx>fore

the question of how many may be picked up by the international

agencies, and we are doing everything in our power now to get those

international agencies to move and to take them.

We may find, as these figures are further refined, that these numbers are going up. In the last 2 days, they have gone down simply

through a process of getting a more accurate count on the numbers of

people who are on ships in the Western Pacific. This is one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, why the administration lias nsked here for flexibility in terms of not having a ceiling on the appropriations because

of our difficulty at this point in time of Actually getting an accurate

estimate of what is eventually coming into the system. We simply

don't know.

Mr. SARBANES. Well, whence are they continuing to come into

the system? Are these people at sea. but not yet either picked up or

brought to the point where they are incorporated into the system

Mr. WILSON. We have estimates, for example, of up to 6.000 additional who may still be in the South China Sea between Singapore and

Saba and the Philippines. We simply don't know what that is.
74

Mr. SARBANES. Anything else beyond that ?

Mr. WILSON. We do not know, as I believe Ambassador Brown

testified on Monday, how many of the over 4.000 who have come into

Hong Kong are going to be able to be accommodated either in Hong

Kong itself or, more particularly, by the international agencies. We

have, in addition, an as yet undetermined number of diplomats, of

intellectuals, of students, of businessmen who are caught outside of

Vietnam by the fall of South Vietnam. Again we do not know how

many of those individuals might be seeking entry into the American

system.

Mr. SARBANES. XOW at what point do you perceive entry into the system to in effect take place for the purposes of the Protocol, the United

Nations Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees?

Mr. WILSON. I will ask Mr. Malmborg to answer that if I may.

Mr. MALMBORG. Mr. Chairman, that is a little difficult to answer because of the different circumstances under which people will come into

the system. Certainly when people arrive at Guam or other U.S. possessions offshore they would he within the geographic allocation of the

protocol. It may be that if they were on U.S. vessels or U.S. aircraft

under our custody, while technically the protocol might not be applicable at that time, I think for all practical purposes we would consider

them as entering the system and their disposition would be subject at

least to article 33 of the protocol.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Wilson, could you give us some idea of how matters are proceeding with respect to the corporation of other countries

in handling part of the refugee problem?

Mr. WILSOX. The situation in that regard is very much as was described on Monday. We have continued to pursue our own bilateral efforts. We have particularly been in touch further with the Canadian

Government in terms of their ability to take numbers of refugees beyond the 3,000, and they have already indicated publicly that they

would be willing to take, We have received returns indicating that certain governments would be interested in entertaining a number of these

refugees. We are negotiating with them both bilaterally and through

the international agencies to determine how many they are going to

take. As Ambassador Brown indicated, this is a much slower process

than we would like, but the. instructions have gone out very firmly both

to our Ambassadors in the countries concerned and to our representatives before the international agencies to push this just as hard as we

can possibly push it atthistime.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the task force

members for the manner in which they have teen working on this

problem. I think you have responded very well to an extremely difficult situation. I think it is very important for us as we consider this

legislation, though, to have as a factual picture of what is taking

place as we can. T know we are receiving a daily numbers sheet, but

I think it would be helpful if the task force in effect could prepare a

rather comprehensive briefing paper, a rather comprehensive briefing

paper on specific aspects of the numbers question, where they are,

how they are moving, what is being done. It would include, I think,

some of the points that Mr. Greene responded to earlier; for instance,

the fact that people already here are not being paroled in, they are
lb

handled in a different way; that would respond to all of those questions. Obviously any one of those may become extremely pertinent in

the course of considering or explaining the legislation as it moves

through the legislative process.

I know, for example, that the estimate on cost, we are continuing,

of course, to use the figures that were submitted or prepared on May 2d.

They have not been changed, although the numbers change. I understand that since yon still do not know really where the numbers are

going to end up, and I assume that what was then a reasonable estimate remains so, but I do think it would be very helpful if we could

receive a comprehensive briefing paper from the task force with

respect to these matters, with respect to the questions that have been

asked, and that gives a good comprehensive view of exactly how

tilings are moving, what things remain, with the question marks of

them are unresolved, that if we do not know, if we don't know, we

can be told that there is an undetermined number that may be in this

category, with perhaps an outside estimate of what the figure is.

I can foresee steps in the legislative process where having such

material would be. extremely helpful.

Mr. EILBERG. Can you do that, Mr. Wilson ?

Mr. Wmoir. We would be very glad to do so. We will try to get this

underway at once, and perhaps we could consult with jour counsel as

to what woidd be most helpful to the committee in terms of format.

Mv. EILBERG. I might suggest that when it is made available, and

I would hope it would be as qiuckly as possible, that a copy would be

furnished to at least all the members of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. WILSON. We would hope to make it available for general

distribution.

Mr. SARBANJES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. Ms. Holtzman ?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased that the task force has accepted the committee's concern about reimbursement with respect to transportation.

What documentation are people signing? 1 would like to ask Mr.

Greene this question. What immigration forms are these people

signing, if any, when they are processed by the Immigration Service?

Mr. GREENE. MS. Holtzman, there is no signing of documents within

our service. They are issued in a form, I-D4. when they leave Guam;

or if they are flown direct to Chaffee, their form is executed at that

time. The signing of the form is when we turn them over to the voluntary agencies. We have been using the same procedure that we have

with the refugees under the (a) 7 program, the. 203(a)7. An experience

we had with the Hungarians where we interfaced with the voluntary

agencies, they assure us that they have the wherewithal and will be

responsible for that, and give that to us in writing.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. SO the immigrant is not filling out any forms•am

I understanding you correctly•any immigration forms?

Mr. GREENE. We are filling out forms, but I understood you to

say are we signing them. We are executing them.

Xow, I would like to make one correction. We do execute a form

where we advise the applicant that their entry has not been completed,

and they are permitted to go on to a district or one of our suboffices;
and they do sign that form. This informs them in writing that the

inspection has not been completed. Now, that is a correction of what

I just said.

The form G-325, which is a form they use to get through security

checks, is not signed. That is a form we execute and we fan out to the

agencies and get back.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. Does the applicant fill out information in connection with that security form ?

Mr. GREEXE. Yes, thev are. "Where the crunch is very heavy on us,

they are filling it out with the aid of a clerk and an interpreter. It is

brought back and our office reviews it with them.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. I note, in line with some of the questions I asked on

Monday•and I would hope this concerns a small number of people•

that at the end of World War II, under the Displaced Persons Act,

we asked people coming into this country whether they engaged in

persecution of persons because of race, religion, or national origin.

That was asked at the time of entry. I was wondering whether it

would be a serious burden on the immigration officials if they asked

persons entering this country whether or not they engaged in persecution of persons on those grounds, and for political beliefs: and also

whether they engaged in any acts of misappropriation of American

funds. We would not necessarily require an investigation at that point.

but what burden would it impose upon the Immigration and

Naturalization Service to ask those questions ? •

Mr. GREEXE. Ms. Holtzman, it would not impose any burden to ask

those questions, and if it is the committee's thought, we would be able

to do it. Tt has not l>cen done up to this juncture, but it is only a matter

of amending the form that they are already signing and add those

questions to it. If they have trouble with the language, we will have

them interpreted so they understand it and so we will have it on record

in their file.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. I appreciate that answer.

I do not have anv further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBF.RO. Mr. Dodd ?

Mr. DOOD. Mr. Greene, just following up Ms. Holtzman"s line of

questioning, would you go over for me again•you mentioned form

G-325, the security check. "What other forms are there? I missed your

initial response.

Mr. (IHEEXI:. The processing, Mr. Dodd. amounts to the initial issuance of the form 1-94, which is the same document, in essence that

is issued by the airlines when one conies into the United States. Actually it, i<; a document in lieu of a manifest, but we have adopted it

because it has biographical information, and one thing that is readily

available, because when we started we needed tens of thousands of

them, as you can guess. The same form is used when people are panned

in the United States, except it is a three-copy rather than a two-copy.

So, we are using that form in order to start off the process and to

establish the identity, and bring it forward. When they get to Pendleron, where we have a larger staff, we then execute the form G-325A.

which is the one we use to seek our security checks with the other

agencies. The form I just referred to, which is in the form of a letter,

is handed to them and thev sign it indicating that they must keep in

touch with the Immigration Service, and their inspection has not
77

been completed. The file is set up, various documents eventually: as

HEW gets their computer going, there would be social security

account numbers assigned to these people that would go into the file.

This will all aid us in the tracking of that individual, if and when

he is released from our custody and goes into the economy.

Mr. DODD. Are any questions being asked of the refugees coming

in as to their financial worth ?

Mr. GREENE. Not to my knowledge by us, sir.

Mr. DODD. That is not a normal procedure, is it, with regard to

refugees or immigrants coming into this country.

Mr. GREENE. NO, sir.

Mr. DODD. Are you familiar with form 4790 that is used by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service?

Mr. GREENE. No, sir.

Mr. DODD. Well, let me enlighten you a little bit.

Form 4790 is a form which is used to be filled out by those people

who have assets in excess of $5,000. Does that click in anything with

you at all? This is a form which each person who physically transports, mails, or ships, or cause to be physically received' in the United

States, an aggregate amount of $5,000 or more on one occasion to the

United States from another country. Those people with those kinds

of assets are required to fill out that form.

Mr. GREENE. Is it with Immigration, or Customs, sir?

Mr. DODD. Itis part of the Treasury.

Mr. GREENE. That is Customs.

Mr. DODD. Could anyone among the witnesses here enlighten me

as to that ?

Mr. WILSON. Only to the extent. Mr. Dodd, of saying that there are

customs inspectors in Guam on the arrival of these refugees, and they

do pa,ss through that procedure. We will have to check siwcifically on

that form, however. I do not think anyone here is specifically familiar

with it.

Mr. DODD. Could I get a response to that? I am very curious about

that. I realize, we are talking about maybe a vcrv few people. I do not

know. I think you may find more among that mitial group that was

referred to yesterday, or Monday rather, in testimony by Ambassador

BroAvn. But I think it is an importance question, because I think this

is what would be normal procedure, and I think we would like to know

whether or not people are capable, of course, of possible reimbursement.

The next question I have is with regard to the issue that was raised

on Monday. Again, with regard to the criminal element, or potential

criminal element, people with records, say, specifically with regard to,

say, drugs, for instance, or robbery, or misappropriation of funds, or

whatever; has anything happened between Monday and today which

could help me any way in making some determinations as to what we

are going to do with these people ? I recognize the fact that you are not

going to be sending them back. But what we are going to do in this

country with these people ?

Mr. GREENE. Well, Mr. Dodd, I think we can assure the committee

and the people of the United States that we are going to view these

people with a very grave concern. We are going to first try to identify

them. If wc find that they do have records, where they are undesirable

under the parole we can impose any restrictions ve wish. We can have

52-14B•75 6
78

them reporting to us; we can even define where they may live or where

they may move or travel. Conceivably, if the person whose presence was

inimicable to our interests•we could keep him in detention. Now we

have a precedent for this. We did this during the Cuban situation, and

we held them indefinitely; and finally they got out of the United States

on their own. We certainly do not intend this accelerated procedure to

turn loose people into the community if they have records, or their

lmr-kground is of a criminal nature that would be a detriment to our

country. We are hamstrung on just exactly what we can do: so we

propose to take a very firm hand and be very restrictive in what we let

them do. We are not going to parole them in the final sense. It will be in

a very limited, controlled situation.

Mr. EILBERG. Will the gentleman yield at that point ?

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Greene, you may know, you probably do know that

last night General Chapman and senior members of the committee

concerned with this subject met with the question of granting parole.

This would bring the figure up to l.r)0,000.

Now, one of the major points of that discussion was precisely the

one that is l>eing raised now. I would like to state for the benefit of all

those present that both General Chapman and Ambassador Brown

agreed that they would develop a plan for the handling of these very

people that were undesirables, and that our agreement to authorize

parole was conditioned upon setting up some plan. So, I would like to

assure the gentleman from Connecticut that we have that commitment.

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GREENE. Mr. Chairman. General Chapman informed me that

the commitment was made last night, and I have been in touch with

the three camps this morning. I have reiterated the instructions. They

are not to permit anyone out on parole until we have the security

checks. If there is derogatory information developed, then we will have

to peVuse that and decide on a case by case basis what restrictions and

what conditions will have to be imposed. We will have a formal directive to those camp heads, the Immigration's senior officers, before the

day is out, specifying exactly what they will and will not do in these

situations.

Mr. EILBERG. Will you submit that for our record?

Mr. GREENE. I would be very happy to.

[The information referred to is in appendix 5.]

Mr. Donn. Thank vou. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Greene.

I wanted to say that I have been impressed with the amount of work

that the task force has done. I realize this is a nasty problem and one

that lias been so fluid and required such hasty actions and decisions.

I for one want to compliment the work that has l>een done. I hope that

you recognize that some of the questions that we arc asking are not

at all aimed at some sort of opposition to the whole question of immigration of these people, but merely to try and guarantee that some of

the mistakes that have been made in the past, with say the Cuban

refugee problem of 10 or 12 years ago, not be made again, and that

those people, of course, who can afford to pay their costs do so, as we

would do in any case of a person coming into this country.
79

Again, I do want to compliment all of you for the work you have

<lone. I think it has been marvelous.

Mr. GREEXE. We thank you, and we certainly appreciate your concern. Mr. Dodd.

Air. DODD. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERO. Mr. Cohen?

Mr. COHEX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the last meeting we had, there was some confusion as to what

could be done by the United States in the way of pa rolling those who

wo felt were subsequently found to be undesirable. I believe General

Chapman said we were sort of stuck with them under the United

Xations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Now, looking

at article I. suhparagraph (f), says that ''The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are

serious reasons for considering that (a) he has committed a crime

airainst peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, as defined in

the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect

to such crimes."

So that. 1 think, is adequate protection for this type of problem.

I am still somewhat concerned about statistics. You indicate in the

Statement you have submitted to us that roughly $33 million was spent

in the airlift of 110.000 people from Vietnam to certain staging areas.

Yet Ambassador Brown's statement recently was that 40,000 Vietnamese and 7,000 Americans were airlifted out of Vietnam. I am wondering, how do you account for the difference in some 63.000 people?

Mr. MCLAIGHIJX. Well, the estimates that we have before you. the

Department of Defense, of $382 million, is only as good as the planning assumptions that went into these estimates. The total of 150,000

is a total to be transported from the Southeast Asia area to Guam. Of

that. 110.000 go by air, and 40,000 by ship.

Now. of that same 150.000 processing through Guam, 130,000 come

then to CONUS, and 20,000 go to

Mr. CoHEN. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.

According to the statistics that were submitted to us. $33 million was

allocated for the airlift out of Vietnam to the staffing areas. You state

in your document 110.000 from Vietnam, but Ambassador Brown said

there were 40.000 Vietnamese and 7.000 Americans. What I am wondering is how do you account for this discrepancy on the airlift from

Vietnam to Guam and to other areas of 63,000 people ?

Mr. MCLALOHLIX. The 110.000 is the estimate that will be flown

from the Philippines and Southeast Asia to Guam. The 40,000•I am

not familiar with Ambassador Brown's number. I am going to have

to check that and provide it.

Mr. COHEX. The document, that I am looking at says, airlift, $300

per person to staging areas. 110.000 people. $33 million.

Now what I am trying to do is reconcile Mr. Brown's testimony

before this committee talking about 47.000 people who were actually

airlifted to the staging areas. Some are still aboard ships, as you said,

and sampans and others. But I am trying to understand this figure of

$33 million, or $300 per person for 110,000, when Ambassador Brown

was talking about 47.000.
80

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Cohen, may T suggest that perhaps Mr. Frank

"Winner, who is a special assistant to Mr. Brown, may provide some

light on that.

Mr. WISNER. I think if I follow your question, the difference between the, two figures, the 47.000 that you are referring to. are the

numbers of people who were evacuated from Vietnam in our planned

airlift: the difference between that and the 113,000 we are talking

about are the numbers of people that were on high seas, that were.

if you will, self-evacuated. They came on boats. Vietnamese naval

vessels, commercial craft; they include those who were picked up on

the high seas by American naval craft and rescue operations. They

are the ones who are currently coming into Subic Bay and being transshipped or shipped by air onto Guam.

Mr. COHEN. That clarifies it somewhat. It is just that your statement is erroneous then. When you talk about airlift to staging areas,

that is not accurate because•I am now looking at another part•it

says airlift of $530 per person from the staging areas to the processing

centers, plus air supply of materials estimated to be at $99 million.

So I think that some of the statistics are not accurate. But perhaps

you can clarify that for us later.

Ms. Holtzman said that she was happy to see that you adopted some

of our suggestions with respect to reimbursement of travel. I would

like you to tell me exactly what suggestions of onrs you have adopted.

Mr. WILSON. Perhaps I could take that one. Mr. Chairman.

Our recollection of the discussion on Monday was that certain

meml>ers of the subcommittee had suggested the possibility of collecting from American companies whose employees were making use of

the airlift facilities to see what would be reimbursed to the United

States. This is question No. 1.

The second question is whether it would be possible to charge individual Vietnamese not connected with companies for the amount of

their passage when it appeared that they had sufficient assets, they

might have sufficient assets of their own to meet that expenditure.

I attempted earlier to answer each of those questions, but did it in

reverse order.

Mr. COHEN*. I am sorry I missed your testimony.

As I understood it, you indicated that it was not feasible to conduct

an inquiry. No. 1. It was not equitable if a person, for example, had

$1,000 in assets and we were to take $.">00 away, it would probably

only accelerate that person's occupation on the welfare rolls and thus

be self-defeating in that regard.

Mr. WILSON'. This is one of the considerations, yes.

Mr. COTIEN. I would ask. would that apply to a person with $10,000

in assets? Is there anv dividing line in your mind?

Mr. WILSON. The difficulty, as I indicated earlier, Mr. Cohen, is that

in most cases we simply do not know what a person's assets are. For

example, a little man could come in with, let us say, his life's savings

of $1,000 in gold leaf, which is perfectly legal. Another man. who has

a Swiss bank account, could come in with 45 cents in his pocket. There

is no way, in practical terms, that we could distinguish between the

two.

Now. the suggestion was made that we mi<rht ask in a number of eases

for a promissory note of some variety, and we have indicated that we

would be happy to look into that.
81

Mr. COHEN. Let me inquire. I assume you have a different answer

•with respect to companies (

Mr. WILSON. With respect to companies, like the people I said earlier,

"we are prepared now to bill those companies whose employees appear

on the map, the Military Airlift Command manifest, and we will

proceed to do so. Our ability to collect is something else again, of

course.

Mr. COHEN. You are not suggesting that ABC, NBC, and CBS are

insolvent?

Mr. WILSON. Under this arrangement ABC, NBC, and CBS would

be hilled if we could identify their employees.

Mr. COHEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FISH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Would not a further example, Mr. Wilson, be Vietnamese employees of American banks formerly doing business in Saigon'.

Mr. WILSON. Yes that would be included in that category.

Mr. FISH. But T understand that another category of individuals

might be those under contract, not working for American firms, necessarily. That was a category of people; we were informed about that

in an earlier hearing.

Is it not the case, however, that many of the contractors no longer

exist as entities for us to go after to get the money for the reimbursement ?

Mr. WILSON. That is correct, Mr. Fish. This is what I meant earlier

in terms of our ability to collect from the companies. Obviously there

is an inequity in this in the sense that certain of the larger companies

who are financially sound would be in a position to pay: other companies unfortunately may have been wiped out completely.

Mr. FISH. I just wanted that in the record.

Thank you very much.

Mr. COHEN. Just to follow this line a bit. Ms. Taft, I assume that

HEW at some point along the way is going to make some sort of inquiry into the terms of what assets the refugees have available. Is that

not true?

Ms. TAFT. We are doing this informally now at the reception centers. But as was mentioned earlier, at the point when they do resettle,

and if they do go down to apply for public assistance, it is up to the

State or local agency to make a determination at that time as they do

for other people who are potentially eligible.

Mr. COHKN. I assume that any effort or any line of inquiry made by

your department at the center level would be communicated to those

local governments where the refugees ultimately do settle.

Ms. TAFT. We are settinjr up a communications svstem.

Mr. COHEN. I believe you indicated that if you do not get any money

bv the end of this week then you are out of funds, and in essence, out

of business. I assume that there is nothing to prohibit vou from calling

upon the Department of Defense, as you have been, to continue their

funding, and then seek reimbursement. It mav not be possible for this

bill to be passed bv both Houses bv the end of this week. So. T assume

that vou would still have some abilitv to carry on until vou could get

rc'TnbiiTsement through the appropriation process. Ts that not true?

Mr. WILSON. I would like to ask Mr. Lawrence Marinelli to comment

on that, if Tmay.
82

Mr. MARINELU. Once we run out of the $08 million, and that will be

very shortly, we cannot incur new obligations beyond that point because it would be contrary to the Antideficiency Act and a variety of

other regulations and procedures. We could probably continue to dispense food and other commodities that have been propositioned, but if it

entails additional obligations to transport people and things, we could

not do that. We could not make contracts with the voluntary agencies

to move the people out of the reception centers, and so on.

Mr. COHEN. This leads into the next question. Mr. Sarbanes raised

the question last time that if the United States does appropriate the

full amount of money that is necessary to complete the evacuation

and resettlement of the refugees, what incentive will be left for other

countries, which, I assume, you are stilltrying to persuade to bear some

measure of responsibility as well as location and cost? What incentive

will there be? I do not know that anyone has answered that question.

Mr. WILSON. Ambassador Brown, as you will recall, Mr. Cohen,

focused briefly on that point and answered, I believe, in answer to a

question of the chairman on Monday. Very simply, we are faced definitely with a dilemma in this regard; but it is a choice on the one hand

of being able to look after people who are desperately in need, and on

the other of trying to provide sufficient incentives to other countries to

do the job which we think they should be doing in bearing their share

of the refugee load.

I should say that with regard to our current efforts in the international field, we are in the process, now, Mr. Chairman, of preparing

a report on this, and will have it up to you just as fast as possible, trying to set out in some detail exactly what it is that we are doing. We

are doing this in spite of. however, the fact that we recognize that our

own efforts may to some degree discourage some of the participation

from other countries which we might otherwise have.

Mr. COHEN. YOU have communicated that it might call for a reevaluation of our own immigration policies in subsequent years, or

perhaps foreign policy. Is some consideration being given to that in

terms of dealing with other nations ?

Mr. WILSON. Yes: we have. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. EIUW.RO. Will the gentleman yield for a moment ?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Mr. ETLBERG. Going back to an earlier ouestion of Mr. Cohen and of

possible expenditures by the Defense Department, considering the

legislative process and how long it takes to move a bill, and recognizing

that this is May 7 and the House goes into recess fairly soon, it is a

matter of getting the authorization bill through both bodies, and then

an appropriation bill through both bodies. What is the position of the

Defense Department if we are able to ^pt the legislative process underway. Suppose the authorization bill passes one body, or perhaps both

bodies, and we just do not complete the entire action, would the Defense Department then be able to resume airlifts or provide further

services ? Can we get an answer to that question ?

Did vou understand the question ?

Mr. MARINELLT. Yes, sir.

We would need an appropriation, sir.

Mr. ETLRERG. Any other questions ?

Mr. COHTEN. I have none, Mr. Chairman.
83

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Russo is next.

Mr. Rtrsso. Thank you.

I understand that $20 million is being designated for a movement of

refugees to third countries. How much of that is being allocated to the

Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration ?

Mr. WILSON. At this point in time, Mr. Russo, we do not have a

breakout of the $20 million figure. A large part of that under normal

circumstances would go to ICEM simply because a large part of that is

devoted to transportation costs, and traditionally ICEM is the agency

which has taken care of transporting refugees internationally.

Mr. Russo. On Monday, Ambassador Brown indicated that he would

be meeting with the United Nations High Committee for Refugees.

I would l)e interested, as I am sure the Committee is, in learning the

results of that meeting.

Mr. WILSON. 1 will ask Mr. Wisner to comment on that.

Mr. WISXER. That, is correct. After the last session before this committee, Ambassador Brown me with Mr. Dyal. The session was a long

one. We made our concerns clear to Dyal. We expressed our concern

with the slow reaction of the UNHCR. Yesterday morning the

UNHCR released a press release stating formally and for the record

its concern about the refugee situation in Indochina and its willingness

and intention to engage in finding resettlement opportunities.

Mr. Russo. They were not any more specific? There were no more

commitments made by them other than the general statement that they

are concerned? Everyone is concerned. We are concerned, too.

Mr. AVISNER. I would be happy to provide, Mr. Russo, to you. a

copy of the press release which spells out their commitments as they

stand at this moment.

Mr. Rrsso. I would appreciate that.

[See U.N. press release in app. 2.]

Mr. Russo. Will the proposed legislation cover any transportation

costs for refugees who may desire to return to South Vietnam ?

Mr. WILSON. Under normal circumstances the answer would be no,

Mr. Russo, but we could, under the authorities which we are asking for

in cases of the specially needy, funnel some money into the international agencies to take care of that transportation.

Mr. Russo. So you would make money available ?

Mr. WILSON. We could under special circumstances.

Mr. Russo. The. proposed legislation contains a provision authorizing necessary sums plus amounts otherwise available for such purposes.

I was wondering if you would explain to me what sums you are referring to and what is the purpose of that provision?

Mr. WILSON. I am sorry, Mr. Russo, would you mind repeating the

first part of your question.

Mr. Russo. Sure.

The proposed legislation contains authorization for necessary funds

plus, in addition to that, amounts otherwise available for such purposes. I wonder if you could explain to me what sum we are talking

about in the purpose of that particular provision.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Malinborg, would vou undertake the answer of

that?

Mr. MALMBORG. Yes. Mr. Russo, it is a fairly standard clause we use

when there may be more than one funding sources which is available-
84

As you know, the initial part of the program has been financed out of

transfers from the foreign assistance program. In addition, funds

have been made available under the regular refugee and migration

program, and we would expect that as part of their normal operations

in the fiscal year coming up. or as soon as the appropriations are available under the regular refugee program that some of that money

conceivably could be also utilized for some of these purposes, particularly the third country problem.

Mr. Russo. There is obviously a great deal of flexibility built into

this legislation, as well as in the specific amounts that were presented

to the subcommittee on Monday. Is it not possible that there is too

much flexibility built into this legislation ?

Mr. WILSON. We certainly do not think so, Mr. Russo. The reason

for our request for this flexibility stems in large part, from our difficulty with determining exactly the numbers that we are dealing with

and the circumstances under which we are going to have to deal with

some of them further down the stream than where we are now.

Mr. Russo. Is there any way we can cut the cost of the program,

especially in the area of transportation? As much as the Department

of Defense is involved in the transportation end of it, is there any way

we can keep that cost figure down? Can we lower it? I believe the

figures to be somewhere in the area of $830 from South Vietnam to

Guam to the United States.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Ru&so, this is the Military Airlift Command

actual cost under the airlift industrial fund to transport these people.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Russo, may I clarify one point? Perhaps my

response, my earlier response to your question was addressed primarily

to the funding side. I should point out that in terms of the authorities,

•we are asking for the authorities under the Refugee and Migration

Act of 196-2, so it is by no means wide open in that regard.

Mr. Russo. This is for Mr. Greene.

I have some questions on the basic question involving immigration.

Mr. EILBERG. Would the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. Russo. Certainly.

Mr. EILBERG. Perhaps we could get Mr. Malmborg to explain a

couple of provisions of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act to

us. I refer to section 2(b)(5), which "for transportation to and

resettlement in other areas of the United States," would this provision

provide authority for the funding of the evacuation?

Mr. MALMBORG. Mr. Chairman. I believe the answer is that it would

provide authority, but there are no funds availableMr. ElLBEtta Well, what aboutthe authority ?

Mr. MALMBORG. And it also would require a redefinition of the term

refugee in 2(b) (3).

Mr. EILBKRG. Now, referring to 2(b)(5) and 2(b)(6), having regard for their income and resources, is this a condition which should

preclude financial assistance for those refugees who have sufficient

funds already available, to them?

Mr. MALMBORG. I am sorry. I did not catch the question.

Mr. ETLBFRG. I hist referred to 2(b) (5). which you were just looking at, and in considering that and 2(b) (6) there is a clause, "having

regard for the income and resources." Is this a condition which should
85

preclude financial assistance for those refugees who have sufficient

funds already available to them ?

Can you answer that ?

Mr. MALMBORO. I believe that the answer to that is in the difficulty

of making that determination under the circumstances that we have

here. If it were clearly the case that an individual had sufficient

resources to finance his resettlement operation, I am sure that no

assistance would be provided.

Mr. EILBERG. Except that the subcommittee is left in a somewhat

ambiguous position as a result of your comment and Mr. Wilson's

comment, in which it appears that no effort is being made to determine the assets of wealth or net worth of any of these people coming

through. You say if it is clear. Well, now, unless an inquiry is made,

then how can it be clear ?

Mr. MALMBORO. I believe. Mr. Wilson and I were talking primarily

about the operation in Guam. 2(b) (5) is in reference to transportation to other areas of the United States. In other words, persons who

have arrived in the United States, that is. say. at Camp Chaffee. and

as Ms. Taft has pointed out, they are asking at the recept ion centers

about their means.

Ms. TAFT. If I may add something to clarify this, the 2(b) (5) would

actually be part of HEW's residual responsibilities here, and does

provide a concept of income testing for actually receiving resettlement assistance; so that transportation and resettlement stateside,

here, which would ultimately be 100 percent reimbursable by HEWT

we would invoke the needs assessment that is provided for in the

language.

Mr. EILRERG. So thatthere is a means test ?

Ms. TAFT. Stateside.

Mr. EILBF.RO. Would you describe the steps or procedures that are

taken in that connection?

Ms. TAFT. The voluntary agencies will be working with the refugees

to place them in wherever their final destination would be. At that

time, if at any point during the duration of the statute, these people

must rely on public assistance, they go down and they would register

with their local social service agency, their local health agency, or

the welfare office, and at that time the interview would take place with

the social workers and the staff there to ascertain what, the assets are

of the head of household and the members of his or her family: and

if they meet•this is very important•if they meet the income eligibility for other people in need in that State or locality, then they would be

eligible for the public assistance.

Now, there are variations from State to State on levels of income

which are acceptable before someone can be eligible for public assistance. We would follow the already prescribed State standards there.

But if they meet the income, or if they do not have enough income

and they meet the eligibility criteria, they would l>e eligible then as

documented by the local public agencies, and we would reimburse the

cost for them only if they meet the income eligibility criteria.

Mr. EILBERO. Mr. Russo.

Mr. Russo. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

I believe we can probably help the situation if we use the form that

Mr. Dodd was talking about. I assume that 70 to 80 percent of the
86

people who would sign the form would be honest about it, and if they

had over $5,000 in assets, then you could take the necessary steps from

there.

I was going to ask Mr. Greene just some basic questions about what

is asylum, who can claim it, can it be claimed here in the United States,

can it be claimed outside the United States, on the high seas, in foreign

countries?

Mr. GKEENE. Mr. Russo, we have provided the staff of the committee

a paper, and so I will try to thumbnail this thing because it is extremely

complex. As I understand, as it developed last Monday, it got a little

confused. With regard to the parole, that, is provided for in the Immigration and Nationality Act, as you are well aware, and it is very,

very broad in that the Attorney General can parole into the United

States aliens that he deems in an emergency situation or in the national

interest, and under such conditions as he may prescribe. So we have

brood latitude in what we can do and who we can admit.

Mr. Russo. Assuming he is not paroled, in some cases, for example,

involving students and diplomats who do not receive paroles, therefore they have to seek something else, either extended voluntary

departure, or asylum, correct ?

Mr. GREENE. Right.

Mr. Russo. Well, would you clarify the process of asylum?

Mr. GREENE. Okay, sir.

Asylum is a term that, is not provided for in any law. Actually it

was developed after the Kudirka incident, the Lithuanian who w

r

as

transferred to a Russian ship on the high seas, and the State Department issued regulations where they talked about asylum. Asylum is

really a refugee status; and it is under a protocol under which the

United States is a signatory to, to the United Nations convention on

handling refugees. The pertinent sections are sections 31, 32, and 33.

I am going to ask Mr. Bornsen this. This is why we brought him

here. He is our lawyer, and he is very well versed in this. He worked

in this area for many years as the head of our examinations. And I

will ask Mr. Bernsen to take over from there if I may.

Mr. BERNSEN. AS Mr. Greene pointed out, the term, asylum, does

not appear anywhere in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It is

nn administrative concept that evolved out of a very unfortunate

incident, and as a result of that incident, the State Department, published a notice in the Federal Register in 1972, formally declaring

the policy under which the United States would consider requests for

asvlum from aliens, both inside the United States and outside the

United States.

Now in the case of an alien who is outside the United States, or is at

a port of entry requesting asylum, and we find he is eligible because

his claim to persecution is satisfactorily established, we now have

to use some legal method for allowing him to come into the United

States. And the legal device we use for letting him come in is parole.

In other words, if we find that a person is entitled to asylum, we

parole him into the United States.

Mr. Russo. I see. And asylum would be the first step to parole, and

the persecution

Mr. BERNSEN. Yes, sir.
87

Mr. Eusso. What happens if asylum is denied. For example, we

deny hini asylum and, therefore, we do not give his parole. Are they

then excluded and deported ?

Mr. BERNSEN. Well, if a person is denied asylum when he is knocking at the door asking for admission to the United States, he would

be subject to exclusion proceedings. He has a right to a hearing on his

admissibility to the United States before an immigration judge. If he

is found to be inadmissible to the United States, an exclusion order

would be entered.

Now we are then faced with a problem of executing the order of exclusion. You have to have a place to which to deport that alien, pursuant to the order of exclusion. You must have a country that will

accept him. The statute says that an excluded alien shall be deported

to the country from whence he came.

If we have an alien who came from Vietnam, it may be impossible

to execute the order of exclusion.

Mr. Russo. That is why I have a problem with this criminal situation that we are talking about. For example, you may put some restrictions on him when you find that he really is an undesirable

character after about a month. And because you have no place to put

him. what will we do then? Put him in one of our jails?

Mr. GREENE. Well I would hope we would not have to put him in jail,

but we may have to face a situation where we do set up camps. If we

had enough that really warrant the total detention, and it is deemed

that it is in the national interest to keep this man locked up, we will

have to find some place to do that.

Mr. Russo. It was estimated on Monday that HEW's cost in this

program would be $125 million. I was wondering what percentage of

this figure is going to be allocated for reimbursing the States and

local governments for the assistance that thev provide.

Ms. TAFT. $80 million.

Mr. Russo. And what amount will be allocated for the primary

health care that is provided ?

Ms. TAFT. WC arc allocating•or we are budgeting $15 million for

the kinds of health services and immunological services that are being

provided at the reception centers. But all the rest of the funds would

be reimbursable through the State health agencies for medicaid.

Mr. Russo. Would you describe the medical care and health checks

that are currently taking place in Guam, at Camp Pendleton, and Camp

Chaffee?

Ms. TAFT. I just got an update this morning; I am glad you asked

the question.

There are chest X-ravs on each individual over 15 years of age, and

the films are being read by the Center of Communicable Disease staff.

There are TB skin tests on each individual aged 15 or less. There are

blood tests for syphilis on all adults, routine immigration physical

examination.

On Guam, where•as I indicated on Monday•wc are involved in

an immunization program for all children ages 1 through 5, and we

have already covered 90 percent•90 percent of the children who have

arrived from Guam have already received their inoculations. There

arc inoculations for measles, German measles, polio, diphtheria, and

tetanus.
88

We are doing a check for malaria on any individuals who have

fevers. We are providing for surveillance, both sanitary surveillance

and surveillance on the various sites, for factors which can transmit

diseases•mosquitoes, et cetera. Thus far our health status is very good.

We feel that the people that are being released are in excellent condition, and that all appropriate health precautions are taking place.

Mr. Eusso. Thank you.

I have no further questions.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Greene, you mentioned a while ago that the undesirables would be detained, and we certainly agree that those who

would be excludables should be. Certainly everyone•the security

checks should be completed before anyone is released into the stream

of our community. I would hope, however, that when you use the word

"camp," that there certainly was no connotation of any penal kind of

institution or anything of that sort. And I would hope that it would

be the kind of thing that would be more like a detention facility; perhaps one of your detention facilities like one that we have visited together at El Paso, Tex., which seems to be a very relatively pleasant•

well, if you have to be confined, these are under the most pleasant

circumstances.

Mr. GREENE. That, is exactly what I had in mind, sir, setting off perhaps a section of that, if we got to that point where we really felt

that someone had to be taken out of circulation, we would probably

use one of our camps.

Mi-. EILBERG. I woidd like to announce to the subcommittee what the

chairman's desire is. We still have a number of questions to go, and

I suggest that we go until the quorum call, and then recess, depending

upon when the quorum call comes, for approximately an hour for

lunch, and then come back and complete our questions, if any, that

remain. And then, as promptly as possible, go into consideration of the

bill itself.

So I would hope that all the members of the committee would make

themselves available.

Do you have a question, Mr. Cohen?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

I notice in the bill that will be introduced today that the final section•section 3•talks about carrying out the functions utilizing the

funds made available under the act. And subsection (c) makes a reference, "in urgent, need of assistance for the essentials of life."

Now T have seen from the testimony that that does not refer to

financial assistance; that you are not construing it as financial assistance. Because if you were, then automatically you would have to make

that kind of inquiry which you have already indicated you do not

intend to make.

Mr. WILSON. T would like to ask Mr. Michel to respond to that.

Mr. MICHEL. This section 3 of the draft bill merely repeats the criteria that are contained in the Immigration and Refugee Assistance

Act of 1962, subsection 2(b)(3), and makes those criteria applicable to

refugees from Cambodia or Vietnam, whereas 2(b) (3) presently applies only to refugees from areas of countries in the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. COHEN. I understand that. What does that phrase mean, "in

urgent need of assistance" ?
89

I assume that means you exclude inquiries into finances.

Mr. MICHEL. Not necessarily. I do not believe that does exclude that.

But again, this is talking about the refugees being assisted within the

United States, where I believe the testimony has been that inquiries

are being, and will be, made.

Mr. COHEN. SO section 3 only pertains to once the refugees arrive

in this country?

Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. SARBANES. First of all, I want to ask this question of all of the

panel, and that is: I assume that regular procedures applicable with

respect, to Customs, Immigration, HEW processes and so forth, are

being followed•this is to follow-up Mr. Dodd's question. I understand the time pressures and the need to move quickly, but it was the

impression I was receiving, certainly from the Immigration people•

and I do not know that we have had any direct testimony from Customs•but that the normal processes winch govern entry are continuing to be applied in this instance.

Is that correct?

Mr. GREENE. Certainly. I can speak for Immigration. We are calling it a progressive processing, for lack of a better word, in that the

processing starts in Guam and it continues on. But before the person

is released, he is going to go through the total Immigration process.

Mr. SARBANES. Well, Mr. Wilson, would you want to sort of respond

to that as the coordinator of the entire task force?

Mr. WILSON. It is my understanding, Mr. Sarbanes, that this is,

in fact, the case. We hare done everything possible, of course, to

speed up this process because of the enormous number of people who

bare been coming through.

Mr. SARBANES. Well I support that, but I do not think this speeding up should omit or drop processes. It should simply move people

through them at a faster pace•the fastest pace possible.

Mr. WILSON. That is correct. There are no essential parts of this

that are being dropped to my knowledge.

Mr. Donn. Mr. Wilson•and I will direct this also to Ms. Taft•

an earlier statement was made. I believe you, Ms. Taft. said there was

no way of knowing assets. And yet, yesterday Ambassador Brown

made it quite clear, at least to me, in a question that there is an exchange program going on of currency, and that gold bars are being

brought in. or other forms of currency•legitimate forms of currency.

Who is conducting the exchange?

Mr. WILSON. I think there may be a bit of confusion here. Mr. Dodd.

The exchange program that Ambassador Brown was talking about

is an ordinary commercial transaction. That is to say, it affects only

that amount of currency, or gold, that an individual may happen to

have with him or mishit choose to put to the commercial venture in

Guam, which is handling it in this case•Deak & Co. It would not be

a full measure of all of what his assets are or what he is worth.

Mr. Donn. But he did know the statistical data and information. He

said just in gold alone, &2 million.

Mr. WlUOir. That is correct.

This is the figure that was reported by Deak & Co., a total figure,

but it does not go to the amounts for individuals.
90

Mr. DODD. But it would indicate then there was information being

gathered as to the assets of people coming through the program.

Mr. WILSON. No, not in that sense. No, sir. This is simply the information which has been provided to us voluntarily by a commercial

concern.

Mr. DODD. But to the extent that Customs ordinarily would ask people coming into the United States about money or gold or valuables

they were carrying with them, I would assume that is either being

done here, or if not, certainly could be done. That is a normal procedure, and I would assume could apply here as well.

Mr. WILSON. We said earlier that we would check specificallv on the

utilization of the form in question. There is some question, I think, as

to what is meant here in this discussion now regarding the assets of a

family.

How would you, for example, define the assets for these purposes. Is

it only those things which he has in his immediate possession? Is it

things which he might have, for example, in bank accounts somewhere

else ? Itis a very difficult question.

Mr. SARBANES. I would assume that the Customs on Guam would ask

the same questions the Customs would ask any person arriving in the

United States. That may leave open the matter of accounts elsewhere

because they may not be part of the question. But if, for the ordinary

arrival, questions were asked as to how much gold or valuables they

were carrying with them, I would assume that is being done in this

instance as well.

Mr. MALMBOKG. Mr. Sarbanes, it is our understanding that the normal Customs processing is taking place.

Mr. SARBANES. On the parole authority. Mr. Green, as I understand

it, the operation of the parole authority leaves with the Immigration

and Naturalization Service the power, if it is judged necessary, to

restrict the movement into•in a totally unhindered way•into American society of persons receiving parole. So if, in fact, someone has

arrived who has a horrendous criminal record and can be adjudged,

as a consequence, to be a danger, you are in a position to place some

restrictions upon that person under the parole•in the exercise of the

discretion under the parole authority.

Is that not correct?

Mr. GREENE. YOU are quite correct, sir. The Attorney General has

broad poweis to exercise any restraints ho wishes.

Mr. SARBANES. I think it is important that we follow the 1062 act.

I did not understand. Ms. Taft, when you responded. As I understand,

section 2(b)(5) when you are following the restrictions, you could

not pay transportation costs out of the resettlement areas to other areas

of the United States unless you could satisfy having regard for their

income and other resources criteria. And I understand that that is, in

effect, the view you take.

Is that correct?

Ms. TAFT. I was referring to HEW's role. HEW is not paying for

the outward transportation from the reception centers; that is part of

the voluntary agencies that would be receiving the money from the

State Department.

Mr. EILBERG. The subcommittee will now recess until 1:30 p.m.. and

we will keep going until we have satisfied the questions of the mem-
91

bers, and then go into consideration of the bill. And we would like to

have all the witnesses back for their assistance with the answers, and

possibly during our consideration of the bill as well.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. EIIJBERO. The subcommittee will come to order.

I would like to enter for the record a statement from the Americans

for Democratic Action, dated today, in which they endorse the principle of the bill before us.

And without objection, the statement will be included in the record.

[The material referred to follows:]

AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION,

WASHINGTON, D.C.,

May 7, J975.

Hon. JOSHUA EII.HERG,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Laic,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) urges the

House Judiciary Committee to respond quickly and generously to President

Ford's request for funds to aid the Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees.

ADA believes that the American tradition of welcome and aid to those who flee

to our shores for refuge should be the guiding principle.

Especially regrettable are the negative responses from public officials and figures. We especially deplore the racism evident in the statement of some who

oppose aid to the refugees.

Further, the fears that these few refugees would, increase our economic difficulties are unfounded. America is big enough, strong enough and rich enough to

easily absorb the relatively small number of refugees who will in time seek

employment. This nation of immigrant dependents has demonstrated that, in the

long run, the refugees help our economic system.

ADA has long opposed the Indochina war as wrong and morally reprehensible.

Nonetheless, we have a commitment to help those we enmeshed in now discredited American policies for two decades.

Sincerely yours,

LEON SHULL,

National Director.

Mr. EILBERO. I have some questions now I think primarily for the

State Department. Perhaps Ms. Taft can help us with some of this.

Resettlement costs are estimated on a $(500 per person grant to

voluntary agencies for 130,000 people. In your opinion, will 130,000

persons require the assistance of voluntary agencies, particularly when

the number of identified refugees at this point is somewhat less than

130.000, and many have already been sponsored by relatives? It is my

understanding that some voluntary agencies were of the opinion that

even $500 per person grant was a high figure and that a more reasonable figure would be in the neighborhood^of $300 per person.

Consequently, why is the $600 per person figure being used in arriving at resettlement costs ?

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, we have as you have indicated discussed

this at some length with the voluntary agencies. The figure which we

agreed finally after discussion to use in the case of the Cambodian

refugees is $500 per capita, plus the cost of inland transportation from

the resettlement centers to the place of resettlement.

It seemed to us in formulating these estimates that given the fact

that we may have a greater length of time involved in the resettlement

of some of the Vietnamese refugees because of their numbers, that we
92

would be well advised to increase the amount for purposes of this

budget presentation to $600 per person. This is $100 per person greater

than in the ease of the Caml>odians, but I think there is general agreement now between our people and the voluntary agencies that this

would be an equitable figure.

Mr. ETUSERG. I would like to enter atthis point in the record a release

by the Department of State indicating the fact that, identifying the

voluntary agencies and describes the fact that the intcragency Indochina task force, has been receiving hundreds of telephone calls a day

from Americans, who wish to sponsor a specific Vietnamese family or

offer sponsorship.

So I wish to offer such sponsorship and then it refers to people who

desire help or want to make contributions to the various agencies, and

this release gives the names of the agencies and their addresses.

And without objection, this will be included in the record.

[Thematerial referred to follows:]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

May 5, 1975.

ASSISTANCE TO INDOCHINA REFUGEES•TOLL-FREE NUMBER ESTABLISHED

FOB THE PUBLIC

The interagency Indochina task force has been receiving hundreds of telephone calls ii day from Americans who wish to sponsor a specific Vietnamese

family or are willing to offer such sponsorship or other assistance to families

selected by resettlement agencies. All such calls should now be directed to the

following toll-free number: 800-368-1180 (or simply 682-4600 if the caller is in

the District of Columbia area). A bank of telephones will be manned by operators who will ask for the particulars which the voluntary resettlement agencies

require in order to match sponsors with appropriate families after they arrive

at one of the three reception centers in the United States: Camp Pendleton,

Calif.: Fort Chaffee. Ark.; or Rglin Air Force Rase. Fla.

Members of the pnblic who have previously filed or mailed affidavits of support, or who have notified their local Immigration and Naturalization Service

of their willingness to sponsor a specific family, are advised to repeat this

information to an operator at the toll-free 800-368-1180 office.

Individuals wishing to make cash contributions may send their checks to the

local chapter of the American Red Cross marked for "assistance to refugees

from Indochina," or to any of the following voluntary agencies:

U.S. Catholic Conference, Migration and Refugee Services, 1312 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D.C.

American Fund for Czechoslovak Refugees, 1709 Broadway, Room 1316, New

York. N.Y. 10019.

Church World Service, Immigration & Refugee Program, 475 Riverside Drive,

New York, N.Y. 10027.

Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service, 315 Park Avenue South, New York,

N.Y. 10010.

United Hias Service. Inc., 200 Park Avenue South. New York, N.Y. 10003.

Tolstoy Foundation. Inc.. 250 West 57th Street. New York, N.Y. 10019.

International Rescue Committee, 386 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y.

10016.

American Council for Nationalities Service, 20 West 40th Street, New York,

N.Y.

Traveler's Aid-International Social Services, 345 East 46th Street, New York,

N.Y.

The lnteragency Indochina task force has also been receiving hundreds of

calls from Americans seeking information on the whereabouts of relatives and

friends who may have been evacuated from Vietnam and who have not yet

arrived in this country. Because of the numbers of evacuees involved, their

widely scattered locations, even on the single island of Guam, and the pace of

their onward movement to the continental United States, it has not been possible

to devise an acceptable locator system and callers have been advised to await

word that is certain to come to them from the incoming families. The public is
93

urged not to attempt to telephone Guam or any of the three reception centers

in an effort to find Vietnamese families. Such calls tie up the switchboards and

delay a self-locating process on the part of the refugees who are trying to reach

their American friends. Self-locating is in fact well under way, as the families

and friends of the 10,000 Vietnamese who have already left the three reception

centers for their new communities can attest.

Mr. EILBERG. Will the Department of State handle the disposition

of all funds authorized by the legislation ?

Mr. WILSON. A final determination has not been reached on thatj

Mr. Chairman. This will presumably also be conditioned to some extent on the results of the appropriation process. Thus far, with respect to the funds already expended, they have passed through the

hands of the Department of State. These have been, as indicated

earlier, transfers from the Foreign Assistance Act to the Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs in the Department of State, which in

turn is reimbursing the other agencies of Government who are incurringexpenses in this program.

Mr. EILBERG. Will the Department of State make individual caseby-case determinations on any request for asylum, or will they make

a class determination that all South Vietnamese will qualify as refugees under the convention and protocol relating to the status of

refugees ?

Mr. GREENE. It will be done on a case by case basis, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. And how are these determinations made? That is, a

person who will be subject to prosecution based on race, religion, nationality, and membership of a particular social group ?

Mr. GREENE. The Office of Refugee and Migration has already told

us that the countries of Indonesia and Cambodia are communist and

therefore we can consider that anyone returning to those countries

would be subject to persecution. So that the determination has been

made we would not have to submit those on a case by case to get that

phase of the determination. We would just have to determine that

they did flee and they are here.

Mr. EILBERG. It is my undemanding that the Canadian Government

has offered to accept approximately 3,000 Vietnamese refugees.

Can you briefly explain the extent of their commitment ?

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we are

now in the process of discussing with the Canadian Government the

exact number that they would be willing and able to take. The figure

3,000 is the number which has been thus far announced publicly by

the Canadian Government itself. As we indicated earlier, -we do have

Canadian immigration and consular people working now at Camp

Pendleton and also contacts have been made with their consular officials on Guam.

Mr. FISH. Will the gentleman yield ?

Mr. EILBERG. Yes.

Mr. FISH. Is it not also true that the Canadian Government has indicated a willingness to pay for the transportation costs from Pendleton to Canada for the number of refugees they plan to take?

Mr. WILSON. Thatis correct, yes, Mr. Fish.

Mr. FISH. Thank you.

Mr. EILBERG. NOW on the question of asylum further, can asylum

be claimed both within the United States and outside the United

States?

52-149•75 7
94

Mr. MVLMBORG. Mr. Chairman, it can be claimed anywhere. The

determination, obviously, would depend upon the facts available. And

in those relatively few instances where asylum has been requested

outside the United States, we go through a fact collection process and

review it with the Immigration and Naturalization Service for their

determination. In many cases, where there appears to be immediate

need to remove somebodv from the place where he has claimed asylum,

we try to arrange that he go to a third country where his processing

can take place.

Mr. EILBERG. The subcommittee has received calls from well intentioned American citizens and companies offering jobs or financial

assistance to the refugees. Where and who can we tell these citizens to

contact so thatthese offers can be pursued I

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, at the present time we are referring

offers of resettlement opportunities and immediate jobs to the voluntary agencies.

In individual cases these should go to the voluntary agencies because they are the ones actually engaged in coordinating the entire

resettlement effort. In other cases where there is a longer term proposition such as offers of mass assistance, we have an officer in the

task force itself who is discussing these offers with the companies

to see what we can work out on a larger scale in terms of long term

benefits.

Mr. EILBERG. So that you are referring people to the voluntary

agencies ?

Mr. WILSON. Where it involves an immediate matter of resettlement,

yes, sir. If it is something of a longer range effort, we are talking

directly to and from the task force to see what we can arrange.

There are several types of offers which have been coming in. They

range from business opportunities to such things as office assistance

from higher educational institutions, offers from foundations to set

up special programs for rehabilitation for specialized types of education and all of this sort of thing.

These are going to take more time to work out and for this reason

we are trying to work veiy carefully with them to see what can be

done.

Mr. EILBKRG. Is there any organized effort to encourage voluntary

participation of the corporate community in this resettlement effort?

You say they are coming to you or are you going to them ?

Mr. WILSON. We have in a couple of instances, yes, sir, made overtures to individual companies. A case in point is that which Ambassador Brown referred to on Monday where we are trying to work out

with IBM means of building up a more effective data base so that

we know more about the skills, the antecedents, the location, and the

family circumstances of individual refugees as they come through

the system.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Wilson, what would you think of advertising for

participation by the corporate community or otherwise ?

Mr. WILSON. It is something we can certainly consider veiy favorably, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. I wish that you would do that.

Mr. W

T

ILSON. Very good, sir. We will.

Mr. EILBERG. And has there been any effort with the educational

institutions as far as housing or educating the refugees are concerned?
95

Mr. WILSON. May I re fer that to Ms. Taft, please,sir ?

Ms. TAFT. We have received several expressions of interest from

junior colleges and universities to provide dormitory space for

refugees who are coming forward, and Congressman Fish yesterday

indicated that there was some interest in one community junior college

to provide some English and second language programs.

We are getting in touch with each of these people to see if we can

work out any kind of effective arrangements with them.

Mr. EILBERG. Are you doing this on any systematic basis ?

Ms. TAFT. We have an HEW task force comprised of four components of the education agencies and planners within HEW that

are looking at five different areas of education programing of which

one is at the college level and scholarships and university programs.

So we will be developing some long-range plans here.

To the extent possible I think it is appropriate for us to capitalize

on the generous offers that have come in, and we will be following

up with each of these.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Fish.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I received a telephone call from

President ,1. W. Nystrom of Bennett College in Millbrook, X.Y.,

and relayed this information to Ms. Taft, as she just indicated. The

thrust ofthe thing was that in many cases colleges have empty dormitory space just because of circumstances. And of course, additionally',

they have educational resources and other types of programs obviously

that could be brought to bear.

Ms. Taft, I understand that one of the problems here is that the

college might not necessarily be near the area that is targeted for

the resettlement of a particular group.

Does that ivally present a problem if wo are talking in terms of just

a few months stay in the academic community ?

Ms. TAFT. Let me go back to some of the earlier comments that were

made about the way people get resettled out of the reception centers.

If one of those colleges is near a reception center, I think there

is no problem whatsoever to be able to capitalize on their educational resources and work out an arrangement. The problem is that

we are trying very hard to make sure that the people who do come

out of the reception centers, lirst of all. go where they wish to go and

second, go throughout the country without any particular concentration in one geographical area. If we had a community college in

Texas or something that you would send 500 people to, and you might

have dormitory space, I see a problem because you would have not

just the college age people but you would have families and you would

have families being concentrated in one specific dormitory or clusters

of dormitories without really getting these people into the mainstream

of society to get their jobs or to have their children placed in

elementary or secondary schools.

For the college students I think that this is something very worthwhile exploring and particularly if any of those colleges are near the

reception centers. But again, we would like to emphasize that the intent is to get these people into their final destination of resettlement,

which will be throughoutthe country.

So we really do not anticipate a high cluster in any one area, and

it. might not be one of those areas where the community colleges have

expressed their willingness to accommodate these.
96

Mr. FISH. Thank you very much.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Wilson, I hold in my hand a form, a mimeographed form entitled "Sponsorship Information Format," and apparently it is available for individuals or families who wish to sponsor Vietnamese refugees.

I wonder if you could describe how this form is being used? First,

are you familiar with the form ?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. The form is indeed put out by the task force.

This is handled in two ways. First, by the telephone operators who are

at the other end of that toll-free number which we were speaking of

earlier this morning. People who call in and wish to volunteer as sponsors arc asked to leave their names and circumstances, and either this

form is sent to them or the information is inscribed and passed on

directly to the voluntary agencies concerned.

The other way is direct solicitation to various agencies of government. For example, there have been hundreds of applications within

the Pentagon, within the Department of State, within other departments, of people, right here in the Washington area who have asked

for this sort of thing. They are encouraged to fill out this form and to

send it in to a voluntary agency of their choice.

Mr. En.iiEitG. Without objection, I will enter this form on the record.

[The material referred to follows:]

SPONSORSHIP INFORMATION FORMAT

Last name: First: Initial:

Street:

City: State: Zip:

Office phone: Home phone:

Sponsoring on behalf of (circle one) :

1. Yourself individually

2. Business firm

3. Church or organization

If sponsoring as an individual, your occupation :

If applicable, name of sponsoring firm or organization:

If applicable, name of specific family (head of household) you wish to sponsor :

Family name: Given names:

If non-specific offer, size of family you wish to sponsor:

Sponsorship offer is (circle one) : Temporary Long-term

Category of sponsorship (circle one) :

1. Offer of general responsibility

2. Offer of financial assistance

3. Offer of shelter

4. Offer of food and shelter

5. Offer of employment (skills required)

Comments:

Date of contact:

Person taking call:

Mr. EILBERO. Mr. Wilson, it is my understanding to date that all

their funds will be covered by the Indochina Reconstruction Fund.

Can I then assume that none of the new funds authorized by the

legislation will be used to pay for the cost of evacuating U.S. citizens

and Vietnamese from South Vietnam?

Mr. WILSOW. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. EILBEKG. And will this legislation authorize funds for transporting to the United States those Vietnamese who happened to be

in third countries when Saigon fell? AVill this legislation obligate
97

the U.S. Government to transport at our expense these individuals

to the United States, including diplomats who may be in third countries I Should these people not assume their own costs if they did not

actually flee from South Vietnam?

Mr. WILSON. The answer to that is affirmative, Mr. Chairman. There

is nothing specific in here which would so state, but we would consider

the authority broad enough to do so, if that is required. It could be

done either directly by us, or through the international agencies, if

that seemed to be the best way to handle it.

Mr. EILBERG. And what about the question of these people assuming

their own costs, since they did not flee from South Vietnam ?

Mr. WILSON. Under ordinaiy circumstances, if they seemed to be

capable of paying that themselves, they would be asked to pay for it.

Mr. EILBERG. NOW, in connection with this question of the ability

to pay and so forth, I would like to go back to Mr. Greene and ask

him a couple of questions which members of the subcommittee are

concerned with. First, Mr. Greene, the subcommittee•I think I am

speaking for the entire subcommittee when I say this•is concerned

with the Vietnamese, or Vietnam individual, or family that can afford

very well to pay his own travel expenses and resettlement expenses.

Can we get your reaction to providing a regulation so that there

would be a condition of parole that any Vietnamese capable of paying

would be required to pay; that there would be authorization, perhaps,

for a waiver of that, if you so determined that there was not ability

to pay? But we would like some expression from you, or commitment

if possible, that you would provide such a condition for parole.

Mr. GREENE. Mr. Chairman, my first reaction to that would be,

I do not. think we should do that. One of the things I have to consider

is, what happens if the man refuses, and then the only alternative

is to lock him up; and it would almost be a debtor's prison-type concept. It would seem perhaps that if it could be determined the man

had funds, and they were spent by some agency, perhaps there could

be a recovery legally from the person that there is a debt owed to the

U.S. Government, rather than tied in with the parole.

Mr. EILBERG. I think we will break at this point, and come back

right after the quorum call.

[A brief recess was taken.]

>fr. EILBERG. The subcommittee will come to order, and I might tell

the members of the subcommittee that another vote is coming up very

shortly. So our guests will have to be very patient with us.

Mr. Greene, as we left, I was expressing the idea that if the Vietnamese refugee was found to have resources, perhaps substantial

resources, he be required to repay at any time after he enters, and

perhaps up to the time of adjustment of status from that of parolee

to permanent resident alien. As I understand it, you are. reluctant to•

or the Immigration and Naturalization Service would be reluctantto•

do that, because there is no precedent for this kind of thing, and there

have been other situations of refugee movements or groups where no

such requirements has been present. So therefore, you would be reluctant to recommend or agree, to such a proposal. Is that a correct

statement?

Mr. GREENE. That is essentially correct, yes, sir.
98

Mr. EILBERO. Well, now, I would like to ask you another question

related to it, because I visualize very easily how some Vietnamese will

lie smuggling, or have possession of, substantial assets; or will have

possession of substantial assets, which they will have obtained in Vietnam and somehow gotten into this country. And the Congress and the

U.S. Government all together will be blamed for admitting such

people at our expense, and they get a free ride all the way, which

strikes me as very morally wrong. I es. Mr. Wilson ?

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, may I interject at this point that we

have with us now Mr. Charles Hackett of the U.S. Customs Bureau,

who will be prepared to talk to the members of the committee about

the customs formalities that each of these refugees must go through,

with particular regard to Form 4790. which was raised by Congressman Dodd earlier. At your pleasure, he will be prepared to talk

about these procedures.

Mr. EILBERU. Well, perhaps we ought to wait for Mr. Dodd to appear, and perhaps someone from the staff can call Mr. Dodd and indicate that the man from the Customs Bureau is here.

In the meanwhile, I would like to make the following suggestion,

which I have not had the opportunity to share with my colleagues.

But. recognizing the problem we have, would you be willing to•

would the Immigration Service be willing to commit itself to obtain

from each refugee a financial statement, and at some place on that

statement have a notice that the failure to make a true and correct

statement might be a basis for denying adjustment of status, or might

make such individuals subject to perjury, and any other immigration

laws; perhaps say that that individual might be on notice that if he

lies, he may suffer the penalty of failing to proceed with permanent

residence in this country.

Mr. GREENE. Mr. Chairman, I think on our basic right to ask or

obtain information from applicants for entry into the United States,

we could ask such a question. We could ask it in writing, and have

the applicant submit his net worth, if that is the term we. want to use.

and insert on the form those warnings that he may be subject to

prosecution for perjury, as much as he is making a statement hefore

on officer, and it would be used at the time he came up for any adjustment of status or changing of status in the United States. I do not

see that we would have any problem with that.

Mr. EILBEHO. Or subject to criminal prosecution for perjury, or

any other possible violations that might exist in the Immigration

Code,

Mr. GREKNE. We would consider doing this as a separate document

from the one we. spoke of earlier, so that we would have two signatures,

in a sense; one on the financial statement, and one on the statement

with regard to admissibilitv, which is not tied into the financial statement, and I think we could do that if this committee would prefer

that.

Mr. EILBERO. Now, subject to the recommendation of the committee

after we have had a chance to discuss this, we may come back to you

and ask you to do that.

Mr. GREENE. I understand,

Mr. EILBERO. NOW, I do not know whether you are quite ready on

this next point, that is of much concern to Ms. Holtzman as well as

myself. Yes, Mr. Fish ?
99

Mr. FISH. If the chairman would yield•before we leave- this question of repayment of travel expenses, it would make a better record if

I could explore this a little further.

Mr. KiLBERQ. Yes, certainly.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Greene, I wonder if you could be specific in the examples of the precedents of refugees coming into the United States

where we did not ask for any reimbursement of travel expenses.

Mr. GREENE. I believe my colleagues from State would be in a

better position to answer that, sir.

Mr. WILSON. To my knowledge. Mr. Fish•and this should be

subject to confirmation•there have been no instances in past in which

we have asked for reimbursement of passage from refugees. There

have been instances in which we have asked for reimbursement from,

for example, other agencies of Government or from businesses.

Mr. FISH. There is also a provision, is there not, in the foreign service regulations for foreign service officers advancing money to an

American citizen to assist in repatriation ?

Mr. WILSON. That is correct. These are repatriation loans, which

are generally arranged through the consular services at an overseas

post.

Mr. FISH. I remember doing this out of my pocket once at an overseas post, and being very surprised a few months later to be repaid.

In addition, if we are talking about travel expenses, as I understand

it, a great many of these refugees have been picked up by foreign flag

vessels. It will be complicated (o know what nations tramp steamer

we would actually be repaying if we started this route of getting the

travel costs paid back.

Mr. WILSON. Well, there are all sorts of inequities involved, of

course, which arc involved in this. You may have people who were

picked up by tramp steamers. You may have people who have come part

of the way commercially anyway, and would have to repay the earlier

part, which was done at the U.S. Government expense. Another point,

which I think has a direct relevance to all of this, is really the size

of the family that is accompanying any one individual. If, for example,

we were to charge $1,000 a head to a man who had 10 members, say, of

his extended family with him, this becomes a very sizable bill. Means,

in other words, are only one test of the ability to pay in this case, because the extent of his obligation may vary, depending upon the

circumstances in which he. finds himself.

Mr. FISH. NOW, finally, we are talking of course about the committee's concern for affluent refugees contributing to their resettlement. If we agree that it is not feasible to ask for reimbursement of

travel, referring to the preliminary estimates of evacuation, temporary care, ana resettlement costs: would, No. 1, sealift; No. 2. airlift; and No. 3, facilities at the staging areas; No. 4, daily maintenance at the staging areas•am I not correct that thereafter, resettlement costs through the voluntary agencies•that is No. 5. No. 6, subsequent welfare and medical•that is through HEW. That five and six

would not apply to a refugee of means?

Mr. WILSON. This is correct, Mr. Fish, what we have been talking

about.

Mr. FISH. In other words, he does not really get any help in the

resettlement, just from the time he leaves Camp Pendleton or

whatever ?
100

Mr. WILSON. We are talking only about the expenses from the

point of evacuation to the resettlement center. Beyond the resettlement center, this is then a matter, as you very clearly point out, for the

voluntary agencies in the first instance, and they are not going to pay

somebody's costs if a person is obviously a person of means. But the

sponsor can do it.

Mr. SARBANES. Would the gentleman yield atthat point ?

Mr. FISH. Yes.

Mr. SARBANES. TO the extent the voluntary agencies are operating

on the basis of a contract with the United States Government ana

receiving moneys to be authorized by the legislation that we are considering, I would think that it is not just a question that these agencies

would not pay the expenses of a person of means. They in fact could

not do so, because the 1962 act, with respect to sections 2(b) (5) and

(6) relates the use of funds to regard for their income and other

sources. And therefore, in that instance, or in those instances, they

would not, in fact, even if they wished to do so, to the extent public

moneys were involved, be able to use such moneys for the purpose of

covering the expenses of people who are in a position to cover their

own expenses.

Mr. WILSON. YOU are quite correct.

Mr. EILBERG. The subcommittee will take a recess, and resume immediately after the record vote.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Mr. EILBERO. The subcommittee will come to order.

Mr. Greene, we have been concerned with the quality and character

of some of the Vietnamese refugees, and we have agreed to the parole

of approximately 150,000. Nevertheless, we know that some (59,000

were picked up at sea in Southeast Asian waters, and we know verylittle about tho.se people. And some of us are very much concerned that

those who have committed criminal acts, or are undesirables in terms

of our laws, should not be permitted to enter the mainstream of our

body politic and our various communities throughout the country.

And so we are concerned about providing minimum rights to those

people who arc clearly identified, or identifiable, and I think that it

might, be useful•and this is just one member's expression•to make it

a condition of parole that anyone who has committed a crime, either

by our standards or by international standards, would be unable to

change his status to that of a permanent resident alien, and in fact,

would be temporarily, perhaps indefinitely, confined awaiting international developments and opportunities for removal or deportation of

that individual.

I wonder if you would give us an expression on the view that I have

just expressed.

Mr. GREENE. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Chapman and myself

agree with your concern, and the concern of the American people, that

wo do not, because of this problem facing us, flood the country, or turn

loose people that we feel•whose presence in the country would be

inimical to our best interests.

We have a plan which originally started in Saigon in the nature of

screening. And when Saigon went by the board, we continued it in

Guam. When a person is in our technical custody, until he gets into

Pendleton, under the agreementthat was reached with you last night•

and Mr. Kodino and the minority senior officers•we are going to get
101

security checks with the agencies that we think might have some information ; namely, the CIA, Department of Defense, the State Department. And hopefully, determine whether this person has been

involved in any criminal activity, or has been involved in any activity

at all, that would warrant his being detained in retention or his parole

restricted greatly.

For example, weekly reporting, restricting to a geographical area;

these things can be done under the parole authority and we intend to

exercise that. And each case will be reviewed, and will be reviewed

often. Even at the maximum, it will be reviewed once a year; if it is

a good clean family who has come in and gone to their destination

and are now being interjected into the mainstream. But we do not

intend thatthese people be turned loose, in a sense.

Parole is not an admission to the United States. At some juncture

he can convert if he is eligible, but he has to be eligible under all of the

exclusionable charges in the immigration chart•some 31 of them•

and he will have to meet that test before he can become a permanent

resident. And meantime, he is under our direct control.

Mr. ErLBERG. Now my question was somewhat broader than that,

and that, I think, has to do with the fact that, while an individual

may have been guilty of war crimes, there technically may not have

been a violation of U.S. law, and yet, some conduct that might have

been absolutely reprehensible and might be violative of international

law.

Would vou be willing to provide a regulation that would clearly

establish that such a person, or persons, would be prohibited?

Mr. GREENE. I think•and if I am wrong, my General Counsel

will correct me on this point•but the adjustment of status is a discretion and we certainly intend to exercise this discretion. And certainly if it is determined that if a man was engaged in any war crimes,

or any reprehensible conduct, that we would not permit him to go

through the adjustment procedure. We might get whipped in court,

but we would certainly make a valiant effort to prevent that.

Mr. EILBERG. Well is it necessary, or would it not be necessary

to provide a rule or regulation to that effect so that we clearly understand one another?

Mr. GREENE. I doubt if a regulation would be necessary. Let me

ask Mr. Bernsen, if I may, for a moment.

Mr. BERNSEN. I believe that in the exercise of discretion we would

not grant adjustment of status to a person who had such a background. We do not, in my opinion, require a regulation to do this.

Mr. EILBERG. You what ?

Mr. BERNSEN. In my opinion, I do not believe we require a regulation in order to deny an application for adjustment of status by

such a person.

Mr. EILBERG. In any event you would, Mr. Bernsen, recognize the

legislative intent that might be expressed, not only in these hearings,

but in the committee report, and whatever•colloquies there may be

on the floor of the House•as this being our desire, and this being

the legislative intent. No doubt, you wouldfollow that.

Mr. BERNSEN. Not only would we recognize it, we would broadcast

it servicewide.

Mr. EILBERG. Thank you, sir.

32-149•75 8
102

I wonder if Ms. Holtzman would have any further comment on

this subject.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for yielding to

me.

In other words, you are prepared now, in the exercise of your

authority under the parole statute, to require all persons entering

from Vietnam as a result of this evacuation to sign some kind of statement with respect to activities they engaged in. And to sign a statement stating, in fact, that they had not engaged in any persecution or

torture of anybody on account of political opinion or race, religion,

national origin or the like. And that if somebody falsely filled out

such a document, the penalties would be perjury.

Would you be able to do that under existing regulations ?

Mr. GREENE. I think we would.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. And if the person falsely filled out such a document, and subsequently became a permanent resident•or perhaps a

citizen•and it was subsequently discovered that the document was

falsely filled out, could that person then be subject to denaturalization

and deportation under the laws of this country?

Mr. GREENE. If it had adjusted status we would have revocation

available to us. If he became naturalized, we would have denaturalization and we would certainly proceed in that direction.

Mr. FISH. Would the gentlelady yield atthat point ?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I would be glad to.

Mr. FISH. I do not think you got a responsive answer. Did you not

say deportation I

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Denaturalization or deportation.

Mr. FISH. And the response was denaturalization. Deportation

would not be a remedy would it?

Mr. GREENE. It would not be an effective remedy. If we found him

deportable, then we would have the problem of deporting him. In the

parole, we have to again say, he comes into an exclusion, and the exclusion is from the country from which he came. And if he is a refugee,

deportation is not a remedy.

If he becomes adjusted, we would go into deportation on a revocation if it got that far along because we have taken him out of parole

and given him status in the country. And when we divest him of that

statusthen we are into a person illegally in the country. So we would go

into deportation, though we would still have the problem of getting

a country to which he could be deported.

However, in deportation we have a number of countries and options

we can use, whereas in exclusion, we could not.

Mr. FrsH. But you would not be bound by the refugee protocols at

that point?

Mr. GREENE. Well, then we would determine whether or not he was

within the protocol group. There is a group in there that have engaged

in conduct that prevents them from getting a refugee status.

Mr. FISH. I thank the gentlelady.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. What I meant, of course, when I said deportation was deportation, according to the laws that we presently have.
103

And somebody would be subject in such a circumstance to deportation

or denaturalization.

Mr. GREENE. Thatis the way I interpret it.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Now what happens if somebody refuses to fill out

this form on the basis that he has committed persecution or torture

of somebody on account of political belief, race, religion, national

origin and the like? What then would be the position of the Immigration Service with respect to such a person ?

Mr. GREENE. Well if he refuses, and indicates that he refuses because

he engaged in such conduct, he would be in the same posture as the

one who we determined on our own. And until we could find something to do with that individual, we would have to consider detention,

or a very restrictive, limited use of the parole. And then we would

just have to run it out and adjudicate it as to what we cotdd and

should do with the man.

Each case would then be considered in the light of what we are assessing here. What conduct, lie has engaged in which would allow him

to go into the streets of the United States.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. What do you mean, adjudicate ?

Mr. GREENE. Well I mean it would be taken before someone besides

the initial officer. 1 do not mean adjudication in the sense that we would

take a forum; I mean decisions would be made which would have to

he weighed as to whether they were done legally, and whether they

would stand up to scrutiny in court.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well, the question I am asking first is, what

will the policy of the Immigration Sen-ice be with respect to revocation of parole, or with respect to the granting of parole, or the release

into this country of anybody who has ahead}-been granted parole,

who admits that, or refuses to fill out a form on the ground that, he

has, in fact, engaged in torture or political persecution or the like ^ Will parole still be applicable to such a person ?

Mr. GREENE. If the person is not in detention, it has to be parole.

Now it can be parole without restriction, it can be parole with restrictions, et cetera. But I think I can assure the committee, and yourself, that we would certainly view with a great deal of concern, if

someone was identified as a war criminal, or had engaged in such criminal acts as we are talking about•the tiger-cage-type thing•then we

are going to have to face what do we do with the body ?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. But if this person were walking around the streets

of the United States on parole, would you in any way attach limits

to that parole, or revoke the parole ?

Mr. GREENE. Yes ma'am. Absolutely. We certainly would. And we

would even consider the ultimate of locking him up.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. If somebody refused to fill out a form on the

grounds that he, in fact, engaged in these acts, then, in essence, that

person has admitted to the commission of a crime and falls within the

categories of excludability under the present law•somebody who is

convicted of a crime, or admits to committing a crime. At that point,

what do you plan to do with such a person, or with people who have

admitted to committing murder•not in the political context•or who

have a record of conviction of murder? What would you do with them ?
104

Mr. GREENE. Well, if a person commits murder, the elements of the

crime•or the elements of the crime of murder•he would be admissible, to the United States as a criminal. Whether that person would

be retained in custody would have to be taken up on a case-by-case

basis. I do not think I would be in a position to say that the mere fact

that a person has admitted murder, he is going to be locked up.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I was not asking that. I was asking what the alternatives would be.

Let us say a person had a record of commission of murder. This person, has been paroled into this country. What will you do with such a

person once you discover that fact?

Mr. GREENE. Well the first order of business would be to get him in

and determine what lie has been doing in this country, and explore all the avenues available to us. If it. was determined that

he should lie restricted to one narrow geographical area, he should be

reporting to us weekly. Wo would have to impose that type of restrictions on him.

The fact that maybe someone has engaged in a crime before he

came to the United States•he has not done anything, he is supporting a family•would certainly l>e taken into consideration.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. But, under the present law, if someone were to

come from, say, France, Italy, or Greece, and sought admission to

this country and had a record of commission of a crime, that, person

would not be eligible to come and immigrate to this country.

Is that not correct ?

Mr. GREENE. That is correct. He would be inadmissible, if he were

convicted.

Ms. HOETZMAN. Or admitted the commission of a crime.

Mr. GREENE. That is right. But unfortunately, we have a different

situation. The person is here: he is on U.S. soil, and we have the

problem of what do we1 do with him during that interim period.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. But you would not exclude the possibility of seeking his deportation to third countries?

Mr. GREENE. Well if someone could remove him, or persuade him

to go somewhere else, we would certainly exercise every effort possible

to get him out of here.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Sarbanes ?

Mr. SARBANES. I take it. Mr. Greene, that essentially what happens

is that the use of the parole authority allows people to come in ahead

of the screening that is ordinarily done, and without regard to the

applicable quotas that usually apply to determine whether thev can

come in.

Is that not correct ?

Mr. GREENE. That is essentially correct, yes, sir.

Mr. SARBANES. I would assume, at a minimum, in response to Ms

Holtzman's question, that if they were here on parole and these things

turned up in their record, you certainly would not let. them change

then- status to get off parole and onto some other status.

Is that not correct ?
105

Mr. GREENE. That is absolutely correctMr. SARBANES. NOW secondly, if they are on parole, I understand

that your discretion in how you handle the matter is quite broad in

response to what is revealed with respect to their record.

Mr. CUBOJU. Thatis correct, sir.

Mr. SARBANES. Including restrictions and limitations on how they

can operate and function in this country, and even including•in the

most serious of situations with the determination that they really

ought notto be free•matters of detention.

Mr. GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SARBANES. Furthermore, I would assume that if it is revealed

that while they have come in under parole, they were involved in

things that should have excluded them, or made them inadmissible,

that while you have the problem of their being here•and we have to

take that as a fact with which we are confronted•that the effort to

deport them, or to have them move on to some other country would

and could be made.

Now whether you succeed in that effort is another question, obviously. There may be no takers. But. I would assume that the service in

such situations with respect to those individuals would make such

an effort.

Mr. GREENE. I can commit the. Immigration Service to doing that.

We will make every effort to remove those people from the United

States as they are determined to be inadmissible.

Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield ?

Mr. SARBANES. Yes.

Mr. COHEN. On this line of questioning about the possibility of subsequent determination of crimes•war crimes•what is the status for

Mr. Ky? On what basis has he been admitted into this country?

Mr. GREENE. He has been parolled.

Mr. COHEN. With or without conditions ?

Suppose, for example, that in subsequent times it is determined that

war crimes were committed. What would be Mr. Kv's status?

Mr. GREENE. We would have to have•Mr. Ky has been paroled

without conditions, to my knowledge. I have not the specifics, but we

would have to change the conditions.

Mr. ConEN. Was there any investigation into the types of questions

that the members of the committee have been raising during the course

of this hearing today, or any such questions asked of Mr. Ky. for

example.

I assume when we are talking about war criminals and war crimes

that this is the sort of questioning you would want to be concerned

with.

Mr. GREENE. I do not l>e.licve he was asked those questions. I do not

have firsthand knowledge, but I do not believe he was. But he is still

in a parole status and he still could be asked these questions. And all

the people who have been parolled previously will be required to sign

the document we have been talking about.

Mr. COHEN. And I would assume a further relevant, question is,

what is the role of the United States•having supported Mr. Ky and
106

others during the course of our involvement in the Vietnam war•

what is our responsibility in that regard when it comes to a decision as

to whether we would expel those who have committed crimes?

Well, let's move away from that. We have to go and vote.

The earliest testimony indicated that if you do not get action by

this Congress by this weekend that you are out of money and everything stops. I assume, then, that people would stay on ships, people

would stay in camps, and cannot be moved.

Is that correct?

Mr. WILSON. Let me turn that question over to Mr. Marinelli if I can,

Mr. Cohen.

Mr. MARINEIXI. The answer, sir. this morning also was that if the

fimds that have presently been obligated have been fully expended,

yes. sir. Action would stop.

Mr. COHEN. The Antideficicncy Act would preclude you from using

any moneys?

Mr. MARINELLI. We could not obligate for new activities.

Mr. COHEN. I recall a similar request being made for military aid to

Vietnam, and there was suddenly an accounting error that was discovered to the tune of about $21 million. And I am just wondering if

similar inquiries about the accounting procedures have been investigated by the members of the Defense Department.

Mr. MARINELLI. Well let me point out that both the Defense Department, AID and other agencies are looking into each one of their

obligations and their project activities to be sure that there are not

additional funds there. However, this requires contacting banks, investigating each and every letter of commitment, letter of credit,

contract and so on. There could be some small amounts of additional

funds available.

Mr. COHEN. But that was accomplished under the previous situation

with a request for military aid. So if Congress, for some reason, is not

able to act finally by this weekend, some other means might be explored to continue the operation of the evacuation and resettlement.

Mr. MARINEIXI. I am sure every possibility would be explored, but

I cannot speak to how long the existing funds would last for precise

expenditures.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Woidd the gentleman yield ?

Mr. COHEN. I will yield.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Along those lines, in terms of the $98 million that

you have obligated, or will have obligated by the end of this weekend,

are these Indochina postwar reconstruction funds? And have you

included in these funds the cost of the evacuation of Americans by

ship or by air? And if so. why have you done so. and how much money

would be freed if you took out from the $08 million the amounts

a ttributable to the evacuation and transfer of Americans?

Mr. MARINELLI. In the case of official U.S. Government employees,

each agency does have funds, or it will have to get additional funds to

pay for those costs. This entails the official Americans plus their

families.
107

Ms. HOLTZMAX. And other American citizens? The President was

operating under his powers as Commander in Chief with respect to

their evacuation, and he was using funds progi'amed for the Indochina

postwar reconstruction funds.

Mr. MARIXEIXI. The funds were used for that purpose, and since

then the other American citizens were moved as part of the airlift.

Mr. COHEX. Mr. Chairman, could I make just one further observation ?

It is that the gentlemen are requesting an expedited process, an accelerated process, on the part of the committee•which I intend to

fully support•and also an expedited appropriation process in a very

short order of time, with the facts and statistics in a substantial state of

flux. And I just note this because there is about $125 million requested

for HEAV. for example, and I assume that this would not be for their

so-called front-end money, but for the subsequent period of bilingual

education which would be in a school year.

I assume, also, that perhaps during the summer there may be some

areas where this amount of money could be held. At least, we do not

need this amount of money atthistime in order to accomplish the goals

for which we are now conducting the hearings.

Mr. EILBERG. We will recess for a record vote, and we will be back

as quickly as we can.

[A brief recess was taken.")

Mr. EII,BERG. The subcommittee will come to order.

Ms. Taft, did we. get you in the middle of a sentence that you wanted

to express when we broke up ?

Ms. TAFT. I do not know if it was a sentence, but it was a willingness to replv to the last comment that was made about breaking out

tlTe $125 million. I appreciate, the opportunity just to clarify why

we in the Department feel that a consolidated bill is much more

effective.

It goes back to Ambassador Brown's concept that he was explaining

on Monday that we are really talking about a continum of efforts and

activities, starting in Saigon, going through Guam, going to the reception sites, and then processing out in the actual resettlement. It is a

string in a flow of activities.

From HEWs standpoint, we feel very strongly that we must try

to provide some provisions to hold the States and the localities harmless

from any costs that they might, potentially, incur if people do want

to go on public assistance.

And, for this reason, we are proposing the 100-percent reimbursement. Even though these people may not come, or may not end up

on public assistance, we feel for the public acceptance and the welcome

that we are hoping that the refugees will receive in their communities,

we have to make sure, that the State and local officials are not concerned about undue fiscal hardships on them.

And I think, just in terms of expeditious processing and for other

reasons, that it makes sense to include our part of the operation in

the total package, and we would appreciate retaining it that way.

Mr. EILBERG. Thank you.
108

I would just like to express again, as I did at the outset of the

hearings today, we all know that there is a national urgency about

this legislation. And, as we move on in these hearings, I would just

hope again that the questions would be short and the answers would

be short, so that we can speed this matter up, if we possibly can.

I am not thinking of you, Mr. Dodd, when I say that. Mr. Dodd, you

are next.

Mr. DODD. Possibly, if Mr. Hackett could approach the microphones,

and I would ask you to introduce yourself, Mr. Hackett, and your

agency.

Mr* HACKETT. Yes, Mr. Dodd. I am Charles Hackett. I am a branch

chief, Chief of the Programing and Development Branch of the U.S.

Customs Service.

Mr. DODD. I have, as vou know, Mr. Hackett, made requests in

regard to form 4790 which is entitled, for purposes of the record

"Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary

Instruments."

My first question to you, Mr. Hackett, is whether or not this form

is being utilized by the Customs Service with regard to the refugees

who are currently in the process in Guam or on the island of Wake ?

Mr. HACKETT. Yes, Mr. Dodd. We have a team of customs advisers

who are assisting a group of military customs officers, a group that

has been trained by the U.S. Customs Service in the inspection of

travelers. They are in Guam at present.

They are inspecting each of the refugees as they are processed into

Guam, and for customs purposes each of these persons is regarded

as having been precleared, much the same as would be the case in a

traveler departing from one of our preclearance flights in Canada.

Bermuda, or Nassau. •

Mr. DODD. HOW does this form actually work? Do you have a copy

of that form with you ?

Mr. HACKETT. Yes; I have.

Mr. DODD. Would you explain to the committee exactly what is the

procedure? In other words, you are interviewing an immigrant. How

does it work ? What happens ?

Mr. HACKETT. Very briefly, any traveler transporting monetary

instruments•which has been interpreted to be "coin of the realm,

travelers checks, an endorsed check, or anvthing of the sort"

Mr. DODD. Gold?

Mr. HACKETT. Gold coin, if itis gold of the realm.

Mr. DODD. Gold bars ?

Mr. HACKETT. NO ; not gold bars.

Mr. DODD. Why would that not be considered "currency"?

Mr. HACKETT. It is not considered "currency" within the Department of the Treasury, as best I know.
109

Mr. DODD. So in other words, anyone who had gold on them, that

would not be required to fill that out %

Mr. HACKETT. They would not be required to report it for the purposes of this form. They have to obtain a license to import gold bars,

or gold bullion. That license is controlled by the Office of Domestic

Oold and Silver, which is within the Treasury Department.

So, in the event of a traveler having gold in bulk form, and not

possessing a license, the gold woidd be taken under detention by the

U.S. Customs Service.

Mr. DODD. Do you have any information as to whether or not that

lias occurred ?

Mr. HACKETT. I have no information at present. I think that after

our adviser returns from Guam we will have some first-hand information as to what has occurred with respect to any detentions or detection of bulk gold, or anything of this sort.

We do have a system respecting this form whereby, once weekly,

all the forms that are executed by travelers are sent to a central location in Xew York where they are made a matter of record. And this

record is retained and could be made available upon request. It is

tabulated by name, by permanent address, by the amount of monetary

instrument being transported by the individual, and the date, when

it was transported into the country.

And, of course, it applies also to currency being transported outside the country. This could be made available, if the subcommittee

so desires.

Mr. DODD. Well, for the record, I am making that request that that

information be made available to this committee, as soon as possible.

I recognize there are some problems, in terms of the computers, I

guess, in pulling this specific information out from the island of

Guam, or those people going through Guam, but I would like the

committee•and, if that, is in order, I would ask•Mr. Chairman, I

would make a request that that information be made available as

soon as possible.

Mr. EII.BERG. Yes: and may I also request that the form be made a

part of the record and be inserted into the record at this point, that

YOU have been testifying to•do vou have an extra copy there, Mr.

Hackett?
110

[The Customs Service form referred to follows:]

4790

Irian* »«•-.• I

Report of International Transportation of

Currency or Monetary Instruments

inuse rrpc OR PRINT)

Thii form rs to be

filed witti the

Bumeu of Custom*

For Individual Departing from or Entering the United States

1 Name (last <x family, first, and middle) 2 keattTfiafi iwraaer i%;t wistr* , 3 Date of birth (month, day. and year)

4 Permanent address m United Slates or abroad 3 Of what country are you a cttuwi

or subject?

4 Addnu while in the United States 7 Passport number and country

• U.S. vis* date 9 Place United States visa was issued 10 Ifnmigration alien number, if any

COMPUTE CITHER 11(a) or 11(b) WHICHEVER IS APPLICABLE

11(a) I am departing from the United States at (City) __. •,.,

and my destination is: (City) .(Country)

(•) I arnved in the United States at: (City)..

from|this: (Foreign City) ._.• • Jt (Country)

For Person Shipping. Mailing or Receiving Currency or Monetary Instruments

12 Name (last or family, first, and middit) or business name 13 Mrntit)iO£ nasisti ,»•« iiutrs) 14 Datecfbmn (month,day.andyeen

IS Permanent address in United States or abroad IS Of what country ere you a crturart

orsubtect?

17 Address while in the United States 18 Passport number and country

19 U S. visa date 1 20 Place United States visa was issued 21 imm.gration alien number, if any

22 The date of shipment or receipt of currency or instrument ••.•

23 The :-. t-Kf or monetary initrum>nl mn shipped to or teceivetl £J from k> .

(Mat MI)

24 If the currency or monetary instrument was mailed, shipped, or transported, please complete the

(a) Method of shipment (Auto. U.S. Mail, Public Carrier, etc.) fc» ..•• ,

(t>) Name of transporter or carrier f>

••e/nmita^l Currency and Monetary Instrument Information (See Instructions) (To be completed by everyone)

Type and amount of currency and/or monetary instrument Value m U.S. Dollars

•

(e) H Bearer instrument (specify type) fc> .

(d) Totat amount (add lines (a), (b) and (c)) S

24 if other than United States currency is involved, please complete the following: (See instructions)

(a) Currency name b» (b) Country •>

General•To be Completed by All Travelers, Shippeis and Recipients

27 Were |M acting as an agent, attorney, oi in other capacity for anyone in this currency jf monetary instrument activity'.

If "Yes," please complete the following:

(a) Name of person in whose behalf you are acting •> •_

(b) Complete address of that person ft> ._... . ,.

Yes , No

(c) Business activity, occupation or r-ofession of that person k>

Under penalties of perjury. I dad*'* that 1 have iiinwwt |f»s report, and to tne (Mil of w , • -.-:*. r »«••- anO Bel '< i\ true, correct ana complete.

aign nert p>-- ^^-....

(T.ti,. If .pptic.bi.i

Mr. HACKETT. I might point out, Mr. Dodd, that for a traveler who

fails to declare currency by executing the form, and upon inspection

should monetary instruments be discovered in his possession, those

instruments are subject to seizure.

The individual is subjected•or, is subject to a penalty of up to

$500,000, and the monetary instruments are subject to forfeiture.
Ill

Mr. DODD. I believe this is on the reverse side of the form, that the

penalty includes S years in jail. However, this only becames applicable

if the Customs Service detects currency that an immigrant has on his

or her possession, upon entering the country.

Actually, once the person has proceeded through that process, there

is no way•you do not ask any questions about how much money you

may have in a bank in this country ? Or, in a Swiss bank ?

Mr. HACKETT. No; Customs has no access to that information. It

might be accessible through some other part of the Government, but

certainly not in the Customs record. We have no information whatsoever on monetary instruments, or financial resources that an individual might have in other locations outside the country.

Mr. DODD. And, if a person•for whatever reasons•was capable of

passing through Customs without being detected as having currency

on his or her person, and once they are within the confines of the United

States, as a practical matter, it is impossible to exercise these penalties,

because of the proving, in effect, that they had the currency on them

when they proceeded through Customs? Is this a fact?

Mr. HACKETT. I think it would be very difficult to prove, although not

impossible. I sort of liken it to the situation of a person who might

have possibly transported narcotics into the country. There have been

a number ofsuccessful cases in this regard.

Mr. DODD. Of course narcotics are always identifiable. If someone

has different types of currency, they could transfer it into bills and

transfer the actual•the identification of what might have been secretly

brought across the border.

Mr. HACKETT. Mr. Dodd, except for the fact thatthis procedure also

appliesto currency of the country or of the foreign country, and should

a person have foreign monetary instruments in his possession, I think

it is reasonable to presume that he has brought these instruments into

the United States, and it would be a simple matter to backtrack to determine whether or not•or whether he has declared it when he entered

the country.

The procedure is also applicable to transfers of currency to the individual once he is in this country, should the currency, or should the

monetary instruments, be shipped to him commercially or via the

mails.

Mr. DODD. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more question?

Mr. EnjBERG. Yes.

Mr. DODD. Are there any other forms, or any other questions which

the Customs Service asks, either in this particular case with the refugees from South Vietnam, Cambodia, or with regard to any other

immigrant coming into the country, as to their financial worth, that

you know of?

Mr. HACKETT. Not as a routine matter: no. There are no other questions. Tt is possible that in the process of inspecting a traveler, that an

inspecting officer might suspect that he needs to ask additional questions. A Customs inspector uses very many ways to determine whether

or not a traveler is suspect of one thing or another.

And it is not inconceivable that an inspecting officer might ask a

question relating to some financial transaction. He might find, maybe,

an invoice, or something of that sort, among a travelers possessions,

which might cause him to delve a little bit further.
112

Mr. Donn. But there are no other forms, as such, such as 47!M) ?

Mr. IIACKETT. NO, sir.

Mr. Donn. I asked you if you would give the committee the information and data with regard to disclosure as to this form. I would also

make the same request with regard to gold hullion, or hars, and licenses that have been sought by refugees. Can you secure that informat ion, as well ?

Mr. IIACKETT. Applications for license are usually sent directly to

the Office of Domestic Gold and Silver in the Treasury Department,

and•I am sorry. What was your other question ?

Mr. Donn. Well I would like to get that information, the applications, if that could bo made available to this committee, as-well

Mr. H.K'KETT. I do not know whether we would have that information immediately available. I woidd think that probably the Office of

Domestic Gold and Silver would have it.

Mr. DODD. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EIJ.UEKO. I think that the subcommittee had better go over and

vote and come back shortly.

f A. brief recess was taken.]

Mr. ETI.BERG. May I call the attention of the members of the committee that as I announced at the very beginning of the day. it was

my hope and expectation that we could consider moving the bill at

the end of today, and we are fast running out of time. So I wonder if

we could just limit our questions, the remaining few questions that we

have. I know Mr. Russo has a couple of questions. T think Ms. Holtzman has a couple of questions, and I would really like very much to

conclude the hearings as rapidly as possible. So, Mr. Russo?

Mr. Rrsso. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

I have several questions for Ms. Taft. Arc the plans that you have

sufficiently flexible to respond quickly to any particular health problems, regarding contagious diseases that may arise as a result of refugees arriving in Guam?

Ms. TAFT. Yes. "We have that all sorted out. As a matter of fact.

there were, two ill people on Guam the other day that they did not have

the medical facilities for. They were air evacuated to our Public

Health Service hospital in San Francisco. Wo feel that on the health

side, everything is well under control.

Mr. Rcsso. Do you feel that you have enough public health servants,

and enough doctors and hospitals on Guam ?

Ms. TAFT. Yes: and the primary medical care is licing delivered by

the military medical corpsmen. and we do have communicable disease

surveillance and physicians out there, along with the public health

service people, as consultants. The primary health care is l)eing provided by the military, and we worked that out, and it seems to be going

very well.

Mr. Rrwo. Fine. As I understand it, you have now projected•

rather. HEW has projected that 50 percent of all refugees will require public assistance at some point. Is that correct ?

Ms. TAFT. We base our budget estimates on that as maximum exposure that we could possibly anticipate, and that would be for a

14-month period.

Mr. Rrsso. I say this because T am trying to reconcile that with

Ambassador Brown's statement of Monday, in which he said a great
113

majority of these people would fit in rather easily, and that they wouhl

be productive citizens in a year or so, and contributing to our tax base.

Ms. TAFT. That is correct.

Mr. Russo. Does your 50-percent estimate assume that those who are

in Vietnamese flotillas or U.S. Navy ships require some sort of public

assistance ?

Ms. TAFT. I think those much more than the ones we have currently

seen will be much more in that category.

Mr. Russo. There is a provision in this bill, as pi*oposcd to the administration, which has a final cutoff date of 1077. I>o you have any

problem with that ?

Ms. TAFT. No; I do not. "We recommended that.

Mr. Russo. Do you feel that you have, sufficient data about the refugees to date which indicate the type of services that would be required

by this refugee group; for example, retraining, language skills?

Ms. TAFT. The only data base we have at this time, sir, is from

Guam, based on 44,000 people. We are developing, with the assistance

of IBM, a much more comprehensive skills bank and age breakdown,

and I believe we will be getting that, a much firmer indication of (hat,

shortly. The people who have been interviewed and surveyed at Guam,

by and large, are skilled people. Again, the question is, 70,000 or so

that may be coming on from the Pacific to Guam that we do not have

the data characteristics on.

Mr. Russo. Okay.

Based on the Cuban assistance program, using that as a model,

could you characterize the type of supportive services needed by the

South Vietnamese refugees?

Ms. TAFT. The type of services we are. anticipating will be very similar to the kinds that were provided for the Cubans. "We would be talking about foster care assistance for unaccompanied children. We would

be talking about day care, if the heads of households needed it. did not,

have anyone to take care of these children while they were working.

They would provide the same kinds of health services as are provided

through Medicaid. income assistance, homemaker home .services, a

whole range of skills training in terms of social services•and skills

training would be provided for under the authority.

Mr. Russo. What followup procedures will be established to track

or identify those Vietnamese refugees who end up requiring public

assistance, so that we are able to reimburse the local government and

the State governments for such assistance * Ms. TAFT. "We are setting up a reporting system now at the various

reception site?, to be able to notify the State whenever people are being

retaised from the reception center, to give them some information

about who may lie coming into their State or locality. If at any point

in time the family or the people decide they need public assistance,

they go down and they enroll, and seek assistance from the local assistance, the welfare office. The welfare office and the State then bill

HEW certifying what kinds of services were provided for what time

period, and then HEW reimburses them.

Mr. Russo. Would you briefly explain the repatriation program, and

indicate the problems that you have had in obtaining authorization

and funding for that program ?
114

Ms. TAFT. Yes, sir, I will. Section 1113 of the Social Security Act

was the authorizing legislation for a temporary asistance program for

destitute, repatriated Americans. This authority expired in June 1973,

and we have been carrying forward our program on appropriations

bills rather than authorizing legislation. This expired in December,

when we ended

Mr. Russo. Has it created anv problems ?

Ms. TAFT. It is creating problems. Now, we have submitted legislation, I believe, that the Ways and Means Subcommittee, Mr. Fulton's

subcommittee, did repoit out a bill a couple of days ago. It will be

going to the full Committee on Ways and Means, and we are hopeful

thatthere will be action on that very soon.

Mr. Russo. What has been done for the individuals who require this

repatriation assistance ?

Ms. TAFT. Those people who have come into the reception centers are

American citizens and dependents who do not have the funds to proceed. Our social and rehabilitation service people are taking down a

full record of what their problems are, where they are going to go,

what their needs are, and then tries to assist them, since we have no

funds to actually pick up the transportation to get them home. We call

sponsors, we call relatives.

Mr. Russo. Who is arranging for their travel from Camp Pendleton

to their final destination ?

Ms. TAFT. This is being done either by relatives of the repatriates,

who will send a ticket. It is done by the Red Cross. They have been

offering voluntary assistance here, and United Air Lines has been

assisting to transport some of those people, and maybe billing us later

for it, if we get authority.

Mr. Russo. Do you have any figures as to how many there are?

Ms. TAFT. We are anticipating that approximately 800 to 1.000

Americans will be returning who are destitute, and we are multiplying that by about a factor of 9 or 10, assuming that their family or

their dependents will average probably 10 people. So we are talking

about 10,000 people.

Mr. Russo. Does the legislation we have today cover that ?

Ms. TAFT. No, sir.

Mr. Russo. This will not cover the repatriates?

Ms. TAFT. It will not.

Mr. Russo. The Cuban program has now been in operation for about

13 years, and I understand that HEW has attempted to phase it out on

several occasions. Would you support the termination of that program

at this time?

Ms. TAFT. We are on the record of requesting, for the last couple of

years, the termination of that program. We feel that it has gone on for

14 years, and it is no longer a requirement. Many of the people that

have been registered through it and assisted now are quite self-sustaining American citizens, and yet this program has lingered on for quite

some time.

Mr. Russo. Thank you.

Let me just make a final comment, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank

the witnesses for coming here, and also the task force for doing the

great job that they are. Sometimes our questions seem a little pointed.

They are not meant to mean, as far as I am concerned, that we are
115

against anything that is being done, except that we are trying to elicit

as many facts as we can before we act on this legislation. I want to

thank you fellows and lady.

Mr. EILBERG. Thank you very much.

Before 1 recognize Ms. Holtzman, let me just say that we received a

release from the Catholic Bishops Conference, and they support the

concept of this legislation; and without objection, I will make it part

of the record. And I would just like to ask one or two questions myself

at this point.

[The material referred to follows:]

CATHOLIC BISHOPS' PRESIDENT MAKES PLEA FOR ACCEPTANCE OF REFUGEES

WASHINGTON.•The president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops

and the U.S. Catholic Conference has issued a strongly worded plea for Americans

to accept the refugees from Southeast Asia.

"It is natural that we should wish to put the war behind us. But it is inconceivable that we should turn our backs on the suffering which continues." declared Archbishop Joseph L. Bernardin of Cincinnati.

"Thousands of people have fled their homes in Southeast Asia. Many have

already come to our country, and many more will soon come. They call out to our

Christian compassion and our commitment to American ideals. We must respond."

Archbishop Bernardin expressed dismay at the "negative reactions voiced by

some Americans" with respect to the refugees. He described as "exaggerated and

unfounded" fears that they will have a damaging impact on the economy.

Noting that U.S. Catholic agencies had assisted in the resettlement in this conntry of a million persons since World War II, he said : "We stand ready and willing

to perform the same service now."

Commenting on Archbishop Bernardin's statement. Bishop James S. Rausch,

general secretary of NCCB and USCC, said: "In light of this clear and forceful

statement of the policy of the conferences, I wish to express my hope that American Catholics will act. promptly to make known to Members of Congress and other*

public officials their readiness to assist in the refugee resettlement program."

Following is the text of the statement by Archbishop Bernardin:

"The war in Vietnam is over. The human suffering of the war goes on. It is

natural that we should wish to put the war behind us. But it is inconceivable that

we should turn our backs on the suffering which continues.

"Thousands of people have fled their homes in Southeast Asia. Many have

come to our country, and many more will soon come. They call out to our Christian

compassion and our commitment to American ideals. We must respond.

"Negative reactions voiced by some Americans to this new group of suffering

human beings are dismaying but in some ways understandable. Our economy is

under strain. Unemployment is high. The refugees are a living reminder of a

tragic episode•the Vietnam war•which many would prefer to forget. The

racism which has stained our national life before colors and distorts the manner

in which some perceive these refugees.

"Such reactions can be understood but they cannot be accepted. They must

not be allowed to impede the generosity which the present emergency demands

of us.

"There is reason to believe that the anxieties expressed so far represented

exaggerated and unfounded fears concerning the impact which the coming of

the refugees is likely to have on our national life and economy. Their number

is very small in relation to our total population. Every effort will be made to

disperse them throughout the country instead of concentrating them in a few

areas. Furthermore, preliminary government surveys indicate that these are

predominantly family units, and the proportion of women and children is high.

It is most unlikely that there will be an extremely large number of Southeast

Asian men in this group to add significantly to competition for jobs.

"Some sacrifices will be required of us of course. The coming of the refugees

underlines the need for programs and policies to reduce the impact of economic

difficulties upon the most vulnerable among us, be they Americans or newly

arrived Southeast Asians. With concerted effort on the part of both the public

and the private sectors in America, however, what needs to be done can and

will be done.
116

"In line with our longstanding national commitment to voluntarism, voluntary agencies, especially religious ones, will play a central role in the refuse*

resettlement program which is now beginning. Since World War II the Catholic

Church has been responsible for the resettlement of 1 million persons in the

United States in the past 8 years alone, Migration and Refugee Services of the

United States Catholic Conference has assisted half a million. In similar crises

in the past•Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Cuba•Catholic agencies at the national

and diocesan levels have resettled well over half the total number of refugees.

We stand ready and willing to i>erforni the same service now.

"The urgent, imuiediate need is for homes and jobs for the refugees. It is

intolerable to think that these people, many of whom have already suffered

greatly, should have to live a day longer than necessary in the primitive conditions of hastily improvised camps and tent cities. Their movement into American communities must begin as quickly as possible. As it occurs, they must be

greeted warmly and given the help they need to begin their new lives among

us. They need material assistance, but tiiey also need our acceptance and our

love.

"American Catholics have special motives for generosity. In many eases our

own parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents came to this country from

other lands, often in circumstances of suffering and deprivation not unlike

those experienced by the refugees from Southeast Asia. Here they found opportunity for a new start. We are the beneficiaries of the generosity they enjoyed.

We can be no less generous in our turn.

"We know, too, that, many of the refugees have fled their land out of fear of oppression became of their faith. So did the forebears of many of us. It is now

for us to enable them to enjoy the blessing of religious liberty which we are

fortunate enough to take for granted for ourselves.

"Finally, we believe firmly that our response to the refugees is a mirror of our

love of God. Jesus tells us that what we do for the needy, we do for Him. 'I was

a stranger and you welcomed me. ... As often as you did it for one of my

least brothers, you did it for me.' (Mt. 25, 35-40).

"As Catholics, as Americans, and as human beings we recognize in the refugees

a duty and a privilege, and above all an opportunity for loving service."

Mr. EII,BERO. Do I understand correctly that it would be the intention of the Government to meet the entire cost of the educational services, including the usual per pupil expenditure of the State educational

programs involved, and the additional costs which the local education

agencies would incur because of these refugees who are to be educated ?

I suppose, Ms. Taft, that that would bo your department.

Ms. TAFT. Yes, sir. I was just talking to Mr. Don White from California on this subject. Our $30 million that we are asking for would

not allow across-the-board, per pupil expenditures for every student

in every school system, every Vietnamese youngster that enters the

school system. This is unlike what happened with the Cuban refugee

program, where wo have been paying impact aid to Dade County for

the schooling of the Cuban children. We will have to reassess this as

soon as we see where the resettlement takes place. If there arc only a

couple or 10 children in one school system, we do not feel that that

would require a special per pupil impact aid provision. However, if

there are high concentrations in localities in this country, we should

bo working out, and hopefully will have the flexibility to be working

out, with those State and local educational agencies for some kinds of

provisions for a reimbursement.

Mr. EILBERO. For reimbursement ?

Air. TAFT. I cannot say at this time. We are only talking about $30

million, and the average per pupil cost may be as high as $1,100. What

we are doing, though, is planning bilingual training packages which

will be distributed, and we will work with school systems on English
117

as a second language. We will be working on skills programs, and

also providing educational opportunities for the youngsters and adults

at the reception centers. Wo will have to take the issue that you are

raising into consideration, and I am working with our education

specialist, and we will work with the respective State education people

on this issue.

Mr. EILBERO. Thank you. Ms. Holtzman, do you have anything else

you would like to ask?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to clarify the

record with respect to the amount of money that has been obligated

and used. It is my understanding that, as of this time, about $80 million has been obligated of the funds available under the Indochina

postwar reconstruction appropriation.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. That $80 million number was, as of yesterday•-

yes, ma'am.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Now, it is further my understanding that you are

charging to that fund the cost of evacuation of American citizens by

the President, under his authority as Commander in Chief.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The $80 million includes the airlift of the evacuees. It includes the total airlift. When our planes flew out, there

were Americans on board, there were South Vietnamese on board. We

did not run special planes in and keep them segregated. So that would

include any and all people that we flew out.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. IS it your position that the President, in the absence

of the Indochina reconstruction funds, would not have had money

available for the evacuation of American citizens?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I believe that was responded to earlier.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I did not think that was a response. That is why I

am asking the question again.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. May I consult with counsel for a second ?

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Yes, please.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. If the question is, are there any costs in here for

sending in our troops, our marines, to get the people out, there are

none in this request.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. That was not the question. What I am driving at

is•the question that Mr. Cohen raised earlier about the accounting

error that may turn up additional funds•whether the attribution or

funds for the evacuation of Americans to this program is an accounting decision, and a correct one. And if one were to make those charges

against other Defense Department moneys, to which, more appropriately, they should be charged, then in fact we would have a larger

balance available under the Indochina reconstruction funds for use

in the resettlement. Is that correct ?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Well, I am a little bit confused on your point

that other DOD funds should pay for the evacuation, let us say, of

Bell Telephone people, or those types of individuals. I am not quite

sure I agree with that.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well, let mo just then clarify some other points.

You said, or you advised mo earlier, that at the Eglin base, the money

that has already been obligated will last appproximately 11 days,

based on the number of people now there.

82-149-
118

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I would answer your question based on a telephone call from my office down to Eglin. They estimated that with

the food stocks that they have on hand right now, which have already

been paid for as part of that $80 million, given no more refugee input,

that they could sustain these people for approximately 11 clays.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. And at Fort Chaffee they can sustain people for

6 to 9 days without any additional funds?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. With the foods that have already been purchased and is located on base, it woidd require no more money yet.

Chaffee is now saying 13 days.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, mav I make an additional comment

there?

Mr. EILBERC Yes.

Mr. WILSON. I think it is not only a question of being able to sustain people theoretically in the reception centers here in the United

States, but it is also a question of having to turn off the transportation system which brings them here, and that means that unless we

have succeeded in unloading the ships which are currently in the western Pacific, thev are going to be•all sorts of people who are simply

floating around on the ocean under extremely difficult, and uncomfortable circumstances because, the pipeline will have been stopped.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. But there is still $18 million available, unexpended

and unobligated?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Based on what, has been testified to here, if you

subtract our $80 from the $98 million State has available. I would

arrive at $18 million also.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I believe it might lie helpful, going

back to Ms. Holtzman's previous question, to point out that the total

number of U.S. citizens which were evacuated in this process is less

than 6.000, according to the figures which we have. Some of those are

of course purely private individuals. Some of those are from whom

we would hope, to collect from the companies concerned. A number

of them are Government personnel whose parent agencies would in

due course be expected to reimburse the Department of Defense.

but given all of this number. Mr. Marinelli has just made a quick

calculation and discovered that if we were able to collect tomorrow

from all of these people, it will still give us only $1 million.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. I appreciate that clarification. I want to ask Mr.

Greene whether the security check that these immigrants are undergoing will include any check as to whether or not thev engaged in

some of the activities we discussed earlier- namely, the torture of

prisoners or persecution or assassination. Will that be part of the

security check?

Mr. GREENE. Yes, ma'am. The check we are making is a name check,

and we would hope to obtain all derogatory information.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. And the agencies who are participating have been

advised of this?

"*fr. GREENE. Yes. ma'am.

"Mc. HOLTZMAN. Thank you.

I have one final question! On Monday we ascertained that there were

some persons who came outside parole provisions. You said there were

maybe 2,000 people who did not meet the parole standards? Perhaps I
119

am -wrong. Has parole now been extended to everybody who has

arrived on American territory on Guam?

Mr. GREENE. NO.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. How many of those that have been processed up to

now do not fall within the parole categories, and what do you plan

to do with them?

Mr. GREENE. We have a figure of about 2,234 that are still on Guam

that have not been found eligible at this juncture. Now, they may be if

something else develops, but we are in a fixed position on that one because we are not going to let them come forward.

Now, some of them were because thev did not meet the criteria and

the additional numbers that have now been agreed upon, at least with

regard to the House, we may be able to move those out because they will

meet the criteria.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Because they will meet the criteria now ?

Mr. GREENE. The criteria will be expanded, and some of these that

have been held maybe because they did not meet the criteria, and now

they would, and we may be able to move them forward. Maybe that is

the only hold.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. What is your plan with respect to disposition of

those people, assuming they do not meet the criteria of parole?

Mr. GREENE. Well, this is where we expect the United Nations Commission on Refugees will possibly move in and find someplace else for

them to go.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Have they been approached with respect to this?

Mr. WILSON. The answer is affirmative.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. Just one or two questions here: you said that some

thousands were paroled in Guam? It was my understanding that the

parole would not occur until arrival in this country, and there had

been a security check and parole papers would be provided subsequently. I am a bit confused on the subject now.

Mr. GREENE. Mr. Chairman, there are a few people who have opted

to stay in Guam, and the processing has been completed now. I think

it was made clear, for example, there were a number of employees of

one of the major corporations.

Mr. EILBERG. Well, aside from those people that would be remaining on Guam, those that are coming to the mainland, they have not

been paroled ?

Mr. GREENE. No, the parole was not perfected until they are ready

to leave Chaffee.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. SARBANES. I would like to ask counsel a couple of questions on

the bill itself sent up by the administration because I hope. Mr.

Chairman, we are getting to the point where we may go on to markup.

I just want to be certain of a couple of things about the bill.

I take it that an effort has been made obviously to come in with a

separate bill that is not incorporated as an amendment to the 1962

Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, but does in fact track that

act through reference to its functions and requirements. Is that correct as a general approach to thislegislation?

Mr. MVLMBORG. Yes, sir, that is correct.
120

Mr. SARBANES. NOW, in section 2 of the proposed bill, "such sums as

may be neeesssary for the performance of functions set forth in the

Migration and Kefugee Assistance Act of 1962"•I would read that as

I think it must be read, i.e., to mean, the functions as set out with

the restrictions and limitations that pertain thereto in the 1962 act:

and I say that on the basis of responses earlier in the afternoon, which

indicated that phrases such as "having regard for their income and

other resources" with respect to making moneys available for 2(b)

(5) and (6) in the 1962 act, are carried forward in this legislation. Is

that correct?

Mr. MALMBORG. Yes. The functions, the limitations, and the authorities of•well, all the authorities of the 1962 act, and the restrictions

on those authorities.

Mr. SARBANES. NOW, there M-as an explanation given this morning

as to why we carry on to September 30, 1977, in the last sentence on

the first page, with respect to the provisions of paragraphs (3). (4),

(5), and (6) of section 2(b). If someone could just elaborate on that

brieffy, I would appreciate it.

Ms. TAFT. Those sections would provide HEW with the authority

to continue their reimbursement procedures through September 30,

1977. That does not include any expenditures for DOD and the State

Department during that last year.

Mr. SARBANES. SO "September 30, 1977" applies only to the programs that would be administered by HEW and is an effort to in

effect wind the matter up and give vou some extra time?

Ms. TAFT. Right.

Mr. SARBANES. On what money are the voluntary agencies, if any.

now functioning? At the end of that pipeline when they are supposed

to be moving out to the voluntary agencies, is there authorization and

apppropriation available to you to invoke their services at this time?

Mr. WILSON. The answer to that is that we have a major problem

on this score at the present time. The voluntary agencies are operating

on the basis of contracts which have been executed with respect to the

Cambodian refugees by virtue of funds which were transferred earlier

on that program.

There are no funds at the present time available for the voluntary

agencies within the $98 million that we have transferred, in view of

the fact that the Foreign Assistance Act authorities from which they

derive their authorities do not include activities within the T

T

nited

States. This means that until we have new money authorized and

appropriated by the Congress that the volunteer agencies are acting,

so far as the Vietnamese refugees are concerned, on their own resources.

Mr. SARBANES. Well, of course, that only makes the further point

that we have here not only a problem regarding the transportation

system, to which you alluded earlier, in terms of the people moving

in, but I take it we also have a problem in moving them out at the

other end. So you have a possibility of a real compression in this

situation ?

Mr. WTLSON. This is very true.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Would the gentleman yield ?
121

Mr. SARBAXES. Surely.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. Just to clarify a question in my mind with respect

to section 5 of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 to

which the administration bill makes reference•would section 5

require that the transportation costs from Guam or Wake to the

United States be provided only to persons who, in light of their

income and other resources, need such assistance?

Air. MALMBORG. That was paragraph (b) (5) ?

Ms. HOLTZMAX. Yes, (b) (5).

Mr. MALMBORG. We would not regard that as being applicable to the

transportation from Guam to the relocation centers. We feel that

(b)(5) pertains to the transportation to other areas of the United

States and the movement is taking place as a part of a process in which

Guam is the staging area.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. Is Guam in the United States ?

Mr. MALMBORG. Guam is a territory of the United States.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. And the immigration laws of this country apply

when persons arrive in Guam ?

Mr. GREEXE. The answer is yes.

Ms. HOLTZMAX. And yet your interpretation of section 5 is that the

•words "for transportation to other areas of the United States," do not

encompass transportation from Guam to the continental United

States ? I wish you would explain that.

Mr. MALMBORG. That is based upon an interpretation of the process.

Tn other words, these are people who are coming essentially from Indochina to the United States, and they are being processed for our convenience in Guam, but we regard the movement process as still being

underway and until they are actually received in the relocation centers

for the next stage of their processing that the other authorities of the

Migration and Refugee Assistance Act would be the ones that we

would rely upon, and this would be a separate part from the HEW

program under (b) (3).

Mr. Donn. I am very confused. I was about to raise the very same

question. Now. why is Guam not considered•there was some confusion among the witnesses there as to whether or not Guam was to

be considered a part of the United States in terms of immigration

purposes. Is there some confusion, or is it clear that Guam is a part

of the United States?

Mr. GREEXE. There is no confusion on the part of the Immigration

Service. It is a part of the United States.

Mr. SARBAXES. Well, the question really is whether Guam is considered to 'be in the United States as that phrase is used in section

•2(b) (3) of the act and 2(b) (5). Since 2(b) (5) and (6) refer back

to individuals who meet the requirements of subparagraph (3), I take

it you are taking the view that for the purposes of 2(b) (3) they are

not in the United States when they are on Guam; is that correct?

Mr. MALMBORG. Well, essentially the thought is that this is a transit

operation which is passing through Guam and that the persons there

are not in the United States in the manner intended by (b) (3).
122

Mr. DODD. "Well, what would occur if someone decided they loved

Guam and decided to settle there? Would they then not qualify under

the provisions of this act ?

Mr. MALMBORO. I really do not know the answer to that one, I am

afraid. I would think that the program which relies upon all the

authorities of the act, not just those in (b) (3), would permit certainly

the initial stage of transportation, just as it would permit relocation,

transportation, and resettlement in third countries.

Mr. DODD. Well, then possibly we should reword some of the provisions of the bill we are considering so that in the likelihood that

someone decided they wanted to locate in Guam, they would qualify

for the assistance programs as spelled out in the act ?

Mr. MALMBORG. Well, what I was saying. I think, is that they could

be assisted under the act that has been proposed, although not necessarily, under what we have been calling the HEW part of the program.

Mr. DODD. Well, if they could under the act, then I think the language, as has been brought out by Ms. Holtzman. it. would have to

apply that that criteria of whether or not need would be applicable,

because if there is no question that they would qualify for assistance

under the act if they are located in Guam, being a part of the United

States, then I do not see how we can avoid this language in subsection (5).

Mr. M\LJIBORG. Well, the answer in our view is that there are a

number of authorities in the act, which will be used under the proposed legislation to assist refugees. They will include people who

arc now in the United States as students or trainees or whatever.

They will include people who are in Guam now and may be resettled

in third countries such as Canada. Some parts of the program will be

financed under paragraph (b) (3) and its related subparagraphs. and

some parts will be authorized and financed under other authorities in

the act.

Mr. DODD. I see. but if you look with me at just the first sentence

of (b) (3)•"for assistance to or in behalf of refugees in the United

States."

Mr. MICHEL. I wonder if I might clarify this point. I may only

confuse it.

We are bringing individuals not from Guam, but from Vietnam to

the X'nited States. Now. your suggestion of interpretation for 2(b) (5)

would be that as soon as they touch the U.S. territory for a refuelinjl

stop or to get a meal or to stop overnight, that then their continued

movement becomes different, that it is under a different authority.

Mr. DODD. But let us go back to the realm of reality. What you are

doing is not stopping for fuel and going on.

Mr. MICHEL. OK, you stop for a day or 2 days or 3 days. The point

is that, they are in movement to a relocation center, and we regard

2(b) (.""0 as an authority to provide those refugees who have been

brought to the relocation center and to provide assistance for their

onward transportation and resettlement in other areas of the United

States.

Mr. DODD. Would that same interpretation apply if vou were using

Hawaii?

Mr. MICHEL. Sure.
123

Mr. DODD. San Francisco ?

Mr. MICHEL. Sure. This is a function that is delegated in fact to

the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by the executive

order that implements this act, and it is not contemplated or has not

been contemplated by us that this would apply to the refugees who are

in transit from an overseas location to a reception center within the

United States, although they may stop en route for a couple of days

or a couple of hours at Guam or Hawaii or San Francisco or whatever.

Mr. DODD. Well, then that actually can be played out to its ultimate

conclusion so that this paragraph would have no application whatsoever, so in effect you can flv someone from Guam to San Francisco

to Arkansas to Hartford, Conn., and they would not even have to

raise the question of whether someone was in need for those transportation costs because they were being in a constant state of movement.

Mr. MTCIIEL. NOW, we are conceptually administering this tiling by

having identified several relocation centers within the United States,

and we regard paragraph (a) as applicable to the transportation for

resettlement of those refugees who leave those centers.

But their transportation from outside the United States to those

centers we do not divide in half and say well, from Vietnam to Guam

it is not 2(b) (5), but from Guam onward, it is. The first place where

the wheels touch down in the United States, from there onward it is

under 2(b) (5).

Mr. DODD. But then we are quibbling again whether Guam is part

of the United States, and I understand from the Immigration Service

it is.

Mr. MICHEL. Of course it is, but what I am saying is that we are regarding their travel from Vietnam to the relocation center as a single

travel.

Mr. DODD. But the act does not say that. It says to the United States.

Mr. MICHEL. NO, it does not say to the United States.

Mr. DODD. Well, when you are talking about paragraph (3), "in the

United States."

Mr. MICHEL. These are people that are here. We are in the process of

bringing them into the country and in bringing them into the country,

they stop en route.

Mr. SARI'.AXES. I think the act-•if I may reclaim my time for a second•I think the act is subject to the interpretation that you

are giving to it, although you could argue for a different interpretation. I take it your position is that if you were to read "San Francisco" instead of "Guam*' and you brought them in there and then

moved them onto the three resettlement centers, you have established

that 2(b) (5) comes into application with respect to moving them from

the resettlement centers into, hopefully, a permanent location in the

United States?

Mr. WILSON. Indeed, Mr. Sarbanes, several thousand have come

through Travis outside of San Francisco and stopped off there as

much as 24 hours.

Mr. ErLBERo. Mr. Fish.

Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman: just a couple of things.

We were told in the last few days that the figure was only 48 in Guam

that had sought to go back to some part of Indochina. Does that figure

hold at 45 as the total ?
124

Mr. WILSOX. Mr. Fish, I would have to check that for you specifically. We have received no more recent data than that we gave you on

Monday. But the extent to which the system has found any more, I

simply do not know atthistime.

Mr. FISH. And I understand thoso 45 are simply•were simply

rushed onto planes by Thai soldiers who were eager to load the planes

•and get them out, and that was the reason they ended up on Guam.

Second, the date in line 17 of the bill, section 2(b), of June 30,1976,

of course, is the end of the fiscal year. Is there any other reason for

using that date ?

Mr. "WILSON. NO, sir. It seems to be a convenient time, in terms particularly of the funding operations. It may be possible to stop it actually before thattime.

Mr. FISH. The bill before us largely tracks the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962. That act contains a reporting requirement in section 2(d), and Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time I

propose to offer an amendment that would read:

The President shall keep the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of

Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate currently

informed of the use of funds and the exercise of functions authorized in this act,

•which tracks the language of the 1962 act

Do you gentlemen have any problem with this amendment?

Mr. WHSON. None whatsoever.

Mr. FISH. Finally, just let me say that I have been very proud these

hist few weeks to lie associated with your task force in the many meetings we have had. I realize thatthe seven or eight of you here today are

just the tip of the iceberg and that this task force is a much larger

group of people who have dedicated themselves to this problem. And

I would wish that we had the problem that I could ask you just tell

us the story of the task force; instead, I will ask you. though. Mr.

Chairman, if the story of the task force could be accepted for inclusion

in the record of these hearings.

Mr. EILBERG. Yes; we will be glad to have an outline of your

activities.

Mr. FISH. Could you do that? Send us the full story sometime?

Mr. WrLflON. We would be very glad to do so. Mr. Chairman.

[The information referred to will be received by the committee and

retained in the files.]
APPENDIX

APPENDIX. 1

SUMMARY OF EVACUATION INSTRUCTIONS

Following is the answer to Mrs. Holtzman's question related to the Planning

for priorities of evacuees to be removed from Viet-Nam. As promised by Ambassador Brown, instructions are summarized herewith.

"Commencing in late March, the Department requested Embassy Saigon to

provide weekly status reports regarding the total numbers and welfare of

Americans and others for whom the United States had emergency evacuation

responsibility. Subsequent instructions were aimed at obtaining from Embassy

Saigon information related to the categories and priorities of those Vietnamese

to whom the United States had a moral obligation to evacuate and who would

be most endangered under a communist regime, for example, close relatives of

American citizens, Vietnamese employees of the United States Government and

their families, ranking government of South Viet-Nam officials and their families, and others the Embassy felt should be included.

"By early April the Embassy had been instructed by the Department to begin

to reduce the number of Americans in Viet-Nam, arranging for the departure

first of all dependents of official Americans, all official Americans who had already been evacuated from Military Regions 1 and 2 and who no longer had any

function to perform in the country, and all dependents of contractor personnel.

The Embassy was instructed further to suggest to non-official Americans that

they consider sending out their dependents, and to urge less essential non-official

American personnel to also depart. A twice weekly report requirement from the

Embassy was levied, to provide a breakdown of total Americans remaining in

specific categories such as United States Government personnel, U.S. contractors,

non-U.S. Government Americans. At the same time a priority listing of categories and totals of evacuees, from highest to lowest responsibility, was requested.

"By April 14 the Department had conveyed to the Embassy the limited parole

authority which had been obtained in behalf of alien relatives physically present

in Viet-Nam of American citizens also present in Viet-Nam. This parole authority

was obtained in recognition of the relationship of moving American citizens out

of Viet-Nam who had non-American citizen relatives whom they did not wish

to leave l>ehind.

"By the third week of April the Department had instructed the Embassy to

attempt to broaden the categories of Vietnamese citizens who could be exempted

from the Vietnamese travel ban. In this regard, the Department had in mind

particularly the safety of Vietnamese closely associated with the United States,

including U.S. employees and relatives of American citizens and resident aliens.

"Early in the fourth week of April the Department authorized the Embassy to

plan for the evacuation of certain categories of Vietnamese, such as: threatened

relatives of American citizens; important government, armed forces and police

officials who cooperation would be needed In the evacuation; individuals with

special knowledge of U.S. intelligence procedures; important former Viet Minh

and ralliers from the communist side who would be especially threatened: significant political and intellectual figures whose association with U.S. policies

made them particularly vulnerable; trusted local employees, including those of

voluntary agencies and private American companies.

"In the final week before the end of the evacuation, the Department instructed

the Embassy to accord priority in the evacuation to the families and dependents

of American citizens."

(125)
APPENDIX 2

UNITED NATIONS, PRESS SECTION OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION

UNITED NATIONS, N.Y.

UNHCR ASSESSES SITUATION OF VIETNAMESE OUTSIDE THEIR COUNTRY

(The following is reproduced as received from the UNHCR, Geneva.)

A number of Governments have drawn the attention of the Tinted Nations High

Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to the recent arrival in various countries*

of large numbers of Vietnamese, as well as groups of Cambodians, who left their

country during the recent events and who now need assistance.

The High Commissioner has expressed concern about the substantial number

of people who clearly require urgent solutions to their situation. The Office will

place emphasis, according to the need, on resettlement in countries willing to

accept them, or durable asylum in countries where they have arrived. The High

Commissioner is contacting a number of Governments of countries of potential

resettlement. In addition. UNHCR will assist in facilitating voluntary repatriation whenever possible, if this is the preferred choice of some of the up-rooted,

and the reunion of split families, thereby alleviating the tragic consequences of

separation.

According to information available, at this stage, these groups have arrived in

significant numbers in Guam, Hong Kong. Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and

Thailand, though smaller numbers find themselves in a number of other countries including some outside the area.

The High Commissioner's representatives are assessing the situation in these

countries in order to provide the data required for appropriate action. As part

of this comprehensive assessment, two UNHCR officials arrived in Guam today.

The High Commissioner, Sadmddin Aga Khan, states, "My Office 1ms always

helped promote speedy solutions to problems of refugees and displaced persons,

wherever they might be. UNHCR will, as in the past, seek ways to encourage, as

needed, voluntary repatriation, integration in countries of first asylum, the

resettlement of individuals of concern to us, in a strictly humanitarian and

non-political manner."

(126)
APPENDIX 3

Preliminary estimates of transport, temporary care, and resettlement costs,

May 2, 1975 (150,000 evacuees in staging areas, of which 130,000 to Be resettled

in United States and 20,000 i?i third countries)

1- Daily maintenance $1S5, 000, 000

$15 per person per day for 30 days (150,000 people) at staging areas. $15 per person per day for 60 days (130,000

people) at processing centers. Includes food, utilities,

medical care, etc.

2. Airlift 99, 000, 000

$530 per person (130,000 people) from staging areas to processing centers, plus air supply of materials estimated

at $30 million.

3. Resettlement costs 

Estimated at $600 per person to be provided to voluntary

agencies which will transport and administer resettlement. 130,000 people in United States

4. Subsequent welfare and medical (HEW) 125,000,000

Welfare and social services 50.000,000

Medicaid 30,000,000

Bilingual and vocational training 30,000, 000

Public health 15, 000, 000

5. Movement of added 20,000, refugees to third countries for resettlement (State/ORM) 20, 000, 000

Estimated at $1,000 each to cover transport and program

administration.

New appropriation needed 1 507,000,000

Preliminary estimates of evacuation costs (150,000 evacuees from

South Vietnam to staging areas)

1. Sealift 

Contract shipping for evacuation.

2. Airlift 

$300 per person to staging areas (110,000 people).

3. Facilities 

$20 million for establishment of staging areas, $15 million

to open processing centers.

Total requirement

Less amount provided from I PR funds under Presidential determination (614[a] waiver)

Appropriation needed 0

(127)
APPENDIX 4

Analysis of the Indochincsc refugee situation

Xumber

of rcfugett

Under American protection 113, 340

On May 7, 1975, there were just under 112,553 Vietnamese under

American protection. Of this total, over 70,000 were located at the

American designed staging areas on Guam (37,210) and Wake

(3,073) or at transshipment points in the Philippines preparing

to embark on ships or aircraft for staging centers. 9,446 Vietnamese were on the high seas. 19,346 Vietnamese were being processed

through reception centers at Travis and Eglin Air Force Bases or

at Camp 1'endletou and Fort Chaffee. All the refugees in the 112.-

553 left Vietnam during our planned evacuation (about 40,000)

or were rescued at sea or escorted from Vietnamese coastal waters. The refugees include the dependents of American citizens

and permanent residents as well as individuals who may qualify

for parole under the high risk category.

In addition to American immigration authorities in our staging and

reception centers, Australian and Canadian authorities are or

shortly will be present. The United Nations High Commission for

Refugees (UNHCR) and the Intergovernmental Committee on

European Migration (ICEM) are represented on Guam. We anticipate that as many as 20,000 of all those Vietnamese refugees under

or outside American protection wil be resettled in 3d countries as

a result of their activities, the normal reuniting of families or our

bilateral diplomatic initiatives.

There were on May 7 some 787 Cambodians in Thailand whom we

intend to parole for entry into the United States.

Refugees in 3d countries (estimate) 15,600

To date, about 15,600 Vietnamese have fled to 3d countries. Small

and large craft, in decreasing numbers, continue to arrive In countries near the states of Indochina. We estimate that there are

about 4,000 Vietnamese currently in Hong Kong, 7,100 in Singapore

and between 400 and 500 along the Malaysian coast. We do not

know how many more may arrive but we have made our position

clear. The U.S. expects that refugees will receive the protection

normally extended under the United States Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees. If a recipient country will not receive them, it is our position that UNHCR and ICEM should be

called into action. However, we know already that Hong Kong

and Singapore are not prepared to hold Vietnamese refugees and

we already anticipate they might, in their large majority, have to

enter the American stream.

Stranded Indochinese in the United States

According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service's latest

statistics, there are almost 14,000 Vietnamese students, diplomats,

businessmen, trainees, and others stranded in the United States.

They will be allowed to stay and resettle. In addition, there are

1,200 Cambodians in the same category.

Indochinese stranded in 3 countries (')

We understand there are approximately 1,400 Vietnamese diplomats and their families and estimate anywhere from 6,000 to

12,000 Vietnamese students, travelers, and businessmen stranded

in 3 countries. The latter category is only a preliminary estimate;

it is too early to determine how many will seek entry or have to

resettle in the United States. We are, in this regard, again calling

on international agencies and individual nations for cooperation.

Total (plus estimate) 144,140

1 Unknown.

(128)
APPENDIX 5

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE DIRECTIVE TO OFFICERS-IN-CIIARGE

AT REFUGEE CENTERS

Camp Pendleton, Fort Chaffee, Elgin AFB.

Attention: Immigration Officer.

OIC AGA.

Attention: O'Connor.

PRIORITY

BEKEB, May 8, 1975.•Upon receipt of derogatory information as result of

security checks or otherwise which affects the admissibility of the applicant

under any of the 31 excluding grounds except (14), (15), (20), (21), and (26)

or affecting his admissibility because of his participation in the persecution of

other individuals a sworn statement shall be taken and the refugee shall be

given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The examining officer shall

assure that a full development of all the facts and circumstances shall be obtained. In every such instance the file shall be forwarded to central office attention CODBP where a determination will be made whether the applicant shall

be allowed to proceed to his destination or whether he should be further detained

or whether he should be released with restrictions.

J. F. GREENE.

Mr. EILBERG. Are there any other questions or comments by any

other members of the subcommittee ?

If not, gentlemen and Ms. Taft, we are indeed grateful to you for

being ever ready to answer our questions and making our job so much

easier, and we have all learned a great deal in the last couple of days.

And it might be helpful to the committee, as we would•just sit back,

if you have the time, and I trust that you do•while we go in to begin

our markup session or what may be a markup session. Would you just

kindly excuse yourself from the table, if you do not mind?

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the subcommittee proceeded to consideration of these matters in a markup session.]

(129)