June 6, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1163

On the humanitarian front this policy reversal would represent a death knell to future efforts on the part of the U.S. to get the

U.N. and other countries to cooperate with

us in addressing a migration flow where

there is belief that some, but not all, the

members of that population may be refugees.

This policy reversal is based on a misapprehension that the screening procedures

in the region have been basically flawed. The

fact is that massive international effort and

resources have gone into screening the applicants in this region. Indeed, more effort has

been made in southeast Asia to determine

whether someone meets the refugee definition than in any other part of the world. The

international standard of who is a refugee is

incorporated in this review process. This

international standard was incorporated in

the Refugee Act of 1980 into U.S. law and in

turn into the Worldwide Processing Guidelines of the INS.

The implementation of this standard is

subjective. In order to protect against errors

reviews of problematic cases are possible

under current arrangements. If there is reasonable doubt regarding some of the recent

decisions a more effective way to address

these concerns would be to encourage a rereview of the few cases where there is an

issue. It is an overreaction to scuttle the

CPA when problems can be worked out within its framework and procedures.

Significant effort has been made to promote voluntary repatriation of those determined not be refugees and to provide monitoring of their situation back in Vietnam

once they return. So far as I know, UNHCR

has not reported any instances of situations

where Vietnamese who have returned have

been persecuted or been maltreated. The effects of this provision, of course, would be to

cut funds which can support the return, monitoring, and assistance to the Vietnamese

who go back either voluntarily or involuntarily.

The intention may be to reserve funds for

the resettlement of a larger number of Vietnamese or Laotians. So long, however, as the

refugee definition is the standard that is

used to adjudicate claims, the reality is

going to be that very few of the people in the

camps will meet the standard.

While I would be against it, we can, of

course, decide, bilaterally, to admit Vietnamese and Laotians under the terms of the

Lautenberg Amendment. It is, however, unreasonable to expect that the countries in

the region who are adjudicating these claims

with UNHCR oversight would be willing to

apply this standard to their own review of

these cases.

Given strong sentiments in this country to

restrict the numbers of new immigrants, my

guess is that there would be strong opposition to bringing substantial numbers of Vietnamese and Laotians to the U.S., either as

refugees or special humanitarian entrants. It

is also unlikely that normal immigration

numbers would be allocated to this group as

there has been an effort to get Vietnamese to

apply for immigration to the U.S. from within Vietnam. If these assumptions are true

then the result of this expression of sympathy for the Vietnamese in the camps that

have been screened out can be to provide

them with a false hope. At best, it could lead

to a situation where people who were becoming reconciled to returning to their country

would re-commit themselves to remaining in

the camps. Worse outcomes could be a renewed flow of boat people and even worse

riots or other disruptions and violence in the

camps.

As a former official with the Office of Refugee Resettlement during the peak of the

Indochinese refugee resettlement program, I

cannot personally be accused of lack of sympathy or concern for the plight of the Indochinese. I feel the decisions made around the

Comprehensive Plan of Action were the right

decisions, both for the countries concerned

and the migrants involved. To reverse course

now will have negative effects on efforts to

address the plight of refugees everywhere.

Thank you for seeking my comments on

this matter.

Sincerely,

DENNIS GALLAGHER,

fExecutive Director.

THE TAX FAIRNESS FOR FARMERS, RANCHERS, AND SMALL

BUSINESSES ACT

HON. TIM JOHNSON

OF SOUTH DAKOTA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, June 6, 1995

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation

that will provide for tax changes to benefit

farmers, ranchers, and small businesses. This

legislation is entitled the ‘‘Tax Fairness for

Farmers, Ranchers, and Small Businesses

Act.’’

This bill contains three major changes in

Federal tax policy which will help to support

farmers and ranchers through bad years, support the entry into business of beginning farmers, ranchers and small businesses, and place

family farmers, ranchers and small businesses

on a level playing field with their corporate

counterparts.

The first change this bill would make is to

create a form of income averaging under

which farmers and ranchers would be permitted to carry forward any standard deductions and personal exemptions that go unused

during a low-income year. This would help

farmers and ranchers even out the cycle of

ups and downs in agricultural income caused

by the weather, giving them increased ability

to recover after a devastating year.

Second, this bill would help promote beginning farmers and small businesses, by allowing a one-time capital gains exemption up to

$500,000 for farmers and ranchers over 55

who sell their farm or ranch to a qualified beginning farmer or a lineal descendent, and by

allowing a similar exemption for owners of

small businesses who sell the business to a

lineal descendent. A retiring farmer would

therefore have an incentive to sell his land to

a beginning farmer, and because of the tax

break he would be able to offer that land for

sale at a lower price than he otherwise might

demand.

Third, this legislation would establish and

make permanent a 100-percent deduction of

health insurance premiums for self-employed

persons. Corporations have the ability to deduct the full cost of their health insurance premiums, and it is only fair for farmers and small

business owners to have the same right. It is

time for this inequity to end.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and the rest of

my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation, and work with me to bring tax fairness

to our Nation’s family farmers, ranchers, and

small business owners.

TRIBUTE TO A 31ST DISTRICT

VOLUNTEER

HON. AMO HOUGHTON OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, June 6, 1995

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to

take a minute to make a few remarks in recognition of a very special lady. Dorothy

Brownell is a remarkable woman. She has a

wonderful blend of energy, wit, and commitment. She keeps everyone around her on their

toes.

A former school dental hygienist, she officially retired in 1976. I got to know her during

her second career—as a volunteer. For more

than 7 years, she has been the cornerstone of

our Jamestown district office. She could write

the book on volunteerism—that is, if she ever

slowed down long enough to put pen to paper.

Let me recap just a few of her interests.

She has dished up food at a local food bank;

is an officer with the local chapter of the

American Association of Retired Persons, Foster Grandparents Program, and the United

Senior Council; worked with the United Way;

has been an ombudsman for long-term care at

an area nursing home, and worked on the

county Veterans’ Listing Program. You’ll have

to take my word for it—this litany only scratches the surface. Other activities have been

sandwiched between trips to Ireland, Italy, and

any number of our own States.

Dorothy has been recognized for her efforts.

She received the New York State Legislative

Achievement Award; was named United Senior Council’s 1990 Senior Citizen of the year;

received a Certificate of Achievement from

Manor Oak Nursing Home and another for her

work with Catholic Charities Outreach for the

Aging. On top of that, Dorothy took a silver

medal for swimming in the 1990 Senior Olympics.

What prompts my remarks today is that

Dorothy, at the tender age of 77, is calling it

quits. She’s launching her second retirement

with a train trip across Canada and following

up with courses at Elderhostels. To record that

she’ll be missed is an understatement—but

this little lady with the great big heart deserves

the very best life has to offer.

SALUTE TO DR. RAYMOND M.

fOLSON

HON. ELTON GALLEGLY OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, June 6, 1995

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

salute a selfless community leader and educator who has spent his life helping those

around him find strength and guidance

through two principal sources—education and

religion.

Dr. Raymond M. Olson was born nearly 85

years ago on a farm near Eagle Grove, IA.

But those of us who make our homes in Ventura County are grateful for the fact that he

found his way out West and has selflessly

dedicated himself to improving the lives of the

people around him.

In his long, distinguished and varied career,

Dr. Olson has served as a teacher, a pastor