E 1162 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks June 6, 1995

His reasoning tracks the case others have

put forward for retaining the independence

of the two other agencies that Helms wants

to consolidate: the U.S. Information Agency,

which uses cultural, educational and broadcast means to explain the United States to

people overseas; and the Agency for International Development, which distributes foreign aid.

Another cause for skepticism is that the

proposed reorganization is bound up with an

attempt by Helms and his like-minded colleagues to limit greatly the president’s discretion in foreign policy.

While Congress of course should have a

say, carried too far this becomes a dangerous

proposition that baffles the country’s friends

and foes alike. Yet some members of Congress have gone haywire lately in trying to

impose a host of foreign policy directives on

the Clinton administration, all the while seriously cutting foreign affairs budgets.

These measures are especially dubious

when they originate with lawmakers who,

like Helms, yearn to dismantle the multinational, cooperative efforts that are crucial

to international stability. For the sake of

peace in the world, Congress in this instance

needs to step back.

SOUTHEAST ASIA BOAT PEOPLE:

RETURN IS THE ONLY OPTION

f

HON. DOUG BEREUTER OF NEBRASKA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, June 6, 1995

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, recently this

body voted in section 2104 of H.R. 1561 to

withdraw its support from the Comprehensive

Plan of Action, the international agreement on

the Indochinese boat people in Southeast

Asian refugee camps. This Member’s effort,

along with Mr. OBEY of Wisconsin and Mr.

LAMAR SMITH of Texas, to strike this dangerous and irresponsible provision was unsuccessful.

While this Member fully understands and

shares the desire to provide fair and humane

treatment to those in the refugee camps, the

action of this body could well have the opposite effect. By giving these asylum seekers

false hope of resettlement in the United

States, this legislation presents the following

dangers. It will likely encourage another wave

of boat departures from Vietnam, putting people at risk on the high seas and swelling the

refugee camp population at a time when the

first asylum countries are attempting to close

the camps.

The legislation also increases the chance

for violence in the refugee camps by causing

discontent among the camp residents when

their hopes of resettlement in the West are not

realized. Finally, the bill has caused the collapse of voluntary repatriation, through which

72,000 Indochinese have already returned

home without evidence of persecution, according to U.N. and American nongovernment

monitors in Vietnam. Already there have been

riots and violence in the camps of Hong Kong

and several hundred camp residents have

changed their minds and are refusing to return

to Vietnam.

For these reasons, this Member believes

that, for the 40,000 camp residents whom the

United Nations has determined to be economic migrants rather than political refugees,

voluntary return to their countries of origin is

not only the sole option available, it is also the

most humane option.

Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask to insert into the RECORD an article from the May

24, 1995 edition of the New York Times, entitled, ‘‘U.N. Links G.O.P. to Boat People’s

Riots,’’ and an excellent letter analyzing the

problems in section 2104 from the Refugee

Policy Group, a nongovernment organization

with much experience dealing with Indochinese refugees.

U.N. LINKS G.O.P. TO BOAT PEOPLE’S RIOTS

(By Philip Shenon)

BANGKOK, THAILAND, May 23.—United Nations officials asserted today that a Republican-sponsored proposal to offer asylum to

thousands of Vietnamese boat people in the

United States set off riots last weekend that

left more than 200 wounded in Hong Kong.

They also warned that the bill could lead

to a new exodus from Vietnam.

Refugee officials say the riots last Saturday began when 1,500 Vietnamese, many of

them carrying handmade metal spears, refused to be transferred from one detention

camp in Hong Kong to another in preparation for their deportation to Vietnam. It was

the most violent clash in years between the

boat people and the Hong Kong police.

The Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees, which oversees

the detention camps in Hong Kong, said the

Vietnamese were emboldened to riot by the

recent move by Republicans in the House of

Representatives to offer asylum to as many

as half of the 40,000 Vietnamese still held in

detention camps in Asia.

‘‘Absolutely,’’ said Jahanshah Assadi, head

of mission for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, when asked if there

was a connection between the legislation and

the riots. During the riots, he said, ‘‘you saw

U.S. flags all over the place, you saw portraits of President Clinton all over the

place.’’

At least 180 Hong Kong firemen, police and

corrections officers were hurt in the clashes

on Saturday in the Whitehead detention center, the largest of the Hong Kong camps used

to detain the Vietnamese. Dozens of Vietnamese were also hurt in battles in which

the camp was blanketed by thick clouds of

tear gas.

Representative Chris H. Smith, a New Jersey Republican who is a key sponsor of the

legislation, said in a statement today in

Washington that there was no evidence of a

connection between the legislation and the

violence in Hong Kong. It is ‘‘grossly unfair

to blame resistance to forced repatriation on

the very people who are trying to come up

with a peaceful and gentle solution to the

problem of these refugees,’’ he declared.

Mr. Smith has said that many of the Vietnamese residents of the camps, including

Buddhist monks and former soldiers of the

American-backed South Vietnamese Government, are legitimate political refugees who

could be persecuted by Vietnam’s Communist Government if sent home.

While the Republican-drafted legislation is

opposed by the Clinton Administration and

faces an uncertain fate in Congress, word of

the Republican plan is already circulating in

the camps in Hong Kong, where nearly 21,000

Vietnamese are now detained. Mr. Assadi

said in a telephone interview that the Vietnamese who joined in the riots ‘‘have the

false hope of going to the United States.’’

Even if the bill is defeated in Congress or

vetoed by President Clinton, he said, ‘‘the

damage has been done,’’ since many Vietnamese now believe that they can resist deportation because ‘‘they have strong support

from influential members of Congress.’’

Mr. Assadi said the American asylum proposal could also lead to a new exodus of Vietnamese, taking to rickety boats and pushing

off into the dangerous waters of the South

China Sea in the hope of becoming one of the

lucky 20,000 who might be offered resettlement in the United States.

‘‘That risk is definitely there now,’’ he

said. The $30 million asylum plan is part of

a foreign affairs appropriations bill now before the full House of Representatives. The

bill, opposed by the Clinton Administration,

has already been approved by the House

International Relations Committee.

While some of the Vietnamese rioters

waved photographs of President Clinton last

weekend, the Clinton Administration is in

fact a strong advocate of a United Nationsbacked plan to send virtually all of them

home to Vietnam.

While the United States granted asylum to

most of the more than one million Vietnamese who fled their homeland after the Vietnam War, sympathy for the boat people has

mostly run out. The State Department says

that virtually all of the Vietnamese who remain in Asian detention camps are economic

migrants who have no legitimate fear of persecution in Vietnam and are not entitled to

asylum.

The deportation program, known as the

Comprehensive Plan of Action, was supposed

to empty most of the detention camps

around Asia—there are also large camps in

Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and

Thailand—by the end of the year.

The Hong Kong Government is clearly outraged that the moves in Congress may have

contributed to the violence in the camps.

[From The New York Times]

REBUKE BY WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON, May 23.—Administration officials said today that they had predicted that

the proposed Republican measure would encourage thousands of boat people who were

not qualified for refugee status to refuse to

be returned to Vietnam.

‘‘We are opposed to the proposed legislation which, at the 11th hour, seeks to abrogate an international undertaking,’’ said one

State Department official. ‘‘The proposed

legislation would reopen large-scale screening of those already found to be ineligible for

refugee status.’’

Administration officials predicted the bill

would encourage further riots like the one

that occurred on Saturday in Hong Kong.

‘‘The proposed legislation will end voluntary return to Vietnam and create new

levels of false hope and result in further disturbances,’’ a State Department official said.

Administration officials assert that the $30

million the bill sets aside to handle the Vietnamese migrants would mean less money

would be available to handle those found to

be legitimate refugees from Vietnam, Cuba,

Bosnia and Russia.

REFUGEE POLICY GROUP,

May 26, 1995.

Hon. DOUG BEREUTER,

Chair, Asia Subcommittee, International Relations Committee, Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BEREUTER: Your office

contacted me, asking for my views on Section 2104(4) of HR 1561 entitled, ‘‘Resettlement of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians.’’ This provision essentially turns

the clock back undermining the agreements

that were reached with great effort and have

been reflected in the comprehensive plan of

action.

I can only speculate on the basis for this

proposal which would be tantamount to a

significant and far reaching policy reversal.

Politically it’s a step back toward an ideological divide that has possible implications

for how movements of people from places

such as Cuba and China would be addressed.
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