The American Overseas Interest Act (H.R. 1561) was brought up for debate in the U.S. House (If Representatives on May 24, 1995. This Act regulates and authorizes the budget for U.S. State Department in the issues of foreign aid.
Due to the "egregiously flawed" refugee screening process and the inhumane repatriation plan supported by U.S. tax dollars, Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey introduced an amendment, the Smith Provision. This Provision would provide funds to resettle 20,000 Indochinese refugees. Covered under the existing budget, it was amended to be the refugee resettlement fund. After the floor debate and discussions in the House, the Smith Provision was put to the vote and passed 266 to 156 votes, with 13 members abstained. The supporters stated that this Provision is for those Vietnamese soldiers. Member (If Congress, Mr. Bill McCollum also stated, that "They are overwhelmingly soldiers who fought on the American side and other South Vietnamese who were closely identified with the U.S. war effort. The small number of North Vietnamese refugees protected by H.R. 1561 are mostly refugees from severe religious persecution."
He continued to say, "I strongly support the Indochinese refugee provision of H.R. 1561. This is not about increasing immigration. It is about getting the United States out of a scandalous international program. It is also about allocating what few spaces we do have for refugees to those who need and deserve our help."
America the great, leaders in unceasing upholding democracy, the world's protectors, has once again demonstrated its leadership to the world. Its noble act of helping the weak not only will divert the fate of twenty thousand refugees, but will also rebuild the reputation of America. All the humanitarians around the world who are concerned about the Vietnamese refugees are cheering for America's chivalrous act!
Dear Colleague:
I was deeply troubled yesterday --- as you may have been --- when I read a series of charges to the effect that H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act, would "bring [an] additional 40,000 economic migrants to the U.S."
As one who has long been active in the fight against illegal immigration, and who also believes in the need for responsible limits on legal immigration, I did not see how I could possibly vote for such a provision.
So I took some time to familiarize myself with these provisions. Fortunately, these charges against H.R. 1561 are simply false.
Here are the facts:
The plan would protect from forced repatriation only a fraction --- the best estimate is about (a third --- of the 47,000 Vietnamese and Hmong asylum seekers now languishing in camps throughout Southeast Asia.
The people covered by the plan are not "economic migrants." Rather, they are overwhelmingly soldiers who fought on the American side and other South Vietnamese who were closely identified with the U.S. war effort. The small number of North Vietnamese refugees protected by H.R. 1561 are mostly refugees from severe religious persecution.
The high-risk refugee categories identified by H.R. 1561 were developed during the Reagan Administration to identify those who were most in need of international protection. They were used successfully until the implementation of the so-called Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) in 1989. These high-risk refugee categories are still part of United States law. So H.R. 1561 could not possibly result in the admission of a single person who is not already a genuine refugee under our law.
The Indochinese refugee provision of H.R. 1561 does not mandate the admission of a single person to the United States. On the contrary, its most important legal effect is a spending restriction --- it prohibits the use of U.S. tax dollars on the deeply flawed "Comprehensive Plan of Action" until our State Department, the UN, and the other countries involved agree to fix it. Only when the President can certify that the CPA is not returning genuine refugees to Communist govemrnents --- something he could never certify today --- can U.S. funding resume.
Finally, to meet honest objections to some aspects of H.R. 1561 as it now stands, Chairman Chris Smith of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights has agreed to offer a perfecting amendment. The Chris Smith amendment would do two things:
First, make absolutely clear that H.R. 1561 would not increase numerical limitations on refugees admitted to the United States. Of the genuine high-risk refugees covered by the provision, some could be resettled in third countries. Any admitted to the United States would have to come within current refugee limitations.
The bill would also restore some flexibility by eliminating any reference to a specific dollar amount for resettlement. It would therefore not affect the rest of the refugee budget.
I am anythilig but an "open borders" advocate --- but I strongly support the Indochinese refugee provision of H.R. 1561. This is not about increasing immigration. It is about getting the United States out of a scandalous international program. It is also about allocating what few spaces we do have for refugees to those who need and deserve our help.
I hope you will join me in voting YES on the Chris Smith amendment and NO on the Bereuter amendment to H.R. 1561.
Sincerely,
BILL McCOLLUM
Member of Congress
P.S: This important provision of H.R. 1561 has just been endorsed by the American Legion. The Legion had this to say:
"These former members of the South Vietnamese armed forces who escaped ... certainly have great reason to fear being forcefully repatriated. All one needs to do is review the latest State Department report on human rights in Vietnam to realize that little has changed with respect to what happens to those citizens who haye political differences, or try to exhibit religious freedom in that country."
I stand in strong support of the Chris Smith Amendment. Smith provisions is to rescue hundreds of Vietnamese and Laotian allies of the United States, including priests and other religious clergy, former political prisoners and their families from being forced back to Communist Vietnam and Laos, two of the world's most repressive Communist countries.
Many former political prisoners were denied refugee status because they refused to offer their wives and daughters to UNHCR officials for rape and sexual abuse. In many instances the UNHCR only screens-in half of a family to blackmail the other family members to pay thousands of dollars to gain the release of their loved ones.
The State Department has admittedly been aware of the abuses in the United Nations' process, including sexual abuse of wives and children of political prisoners, demanded by UNHCR employed representatives, and violent coercion by refugee camp officials to force people to "volunteer" to return to Vietnam or Laos. This blatant violation of international law should not be funded by American tax payers. It is our moral obligation to uphold the human rights and dignity of our former allies.
On the 24th of May, a historical debate in the United States Congress was the cause of concern for the entire world. The Congressional Representatives were critical of the unjust and fraudulent policy in the screening of the boat people. they appealed to the U.S. Govetnnient to stop supporting the forced repatriation of the boat people in their courageous pursuit for freedom. "We can't betray our allies!" "This is a mallet of life and death!" These voices could be heard over and over again. The debate had elevated to the level of upholding justice, compassion, and human dignity. Because of the voices of these just people, the conscience of the world was again shaken! Today, all human rights advocates in the world would like to see the bill approved by the Senate and President Clinton and to take effect as soon as possible so that these true refugees can regain their rightful dignity!
The following are excerpts of some of the Congress person's brilliant speeches delivered during the debate. Information is supplied from U.S. House of Representatives' World Wide web Service. Congressional Record
Mr. Chairman, this amendment perfects the language of section 2104, which protects certain high-risk refugees from forced repatriation to Vietnam, Laos, and , Cambodia. This bill, as it currently stands, contains important language that will prevent United States tax dollars from being spent for the forcible repatriation to Vietnam and Laos of people who fought side by side with American forces.
Under current U.S. law, these people are refugees, afid they are also our friends. They should not be forced back to the places where they were persecuted, but, at the very least, U.S. tax dollars should not be spent to force them back. Thousands of people who served on our side in the war and were later persecuted by the Cortlmunists on account of such service are now being detained in camps throughout Southeast Asia. The camps also hold Catholic, Protestants, Buddhists punished for religious observance, and others who served time in reeducation camps or new ecobomie zones for their anti-communist views or activities. Despite the strength of their claim to refugee status, almost all of these people are scheduled for repatriation to Vietnam and Laos within the next few months under a scheme known as the comprehensive plan of action. I suppose the comprehensive plan of action (CPA) was intended as a sincere effort to deal humanely with the Vietnamese boat people. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be just the opposite. First, the responsibility for deciding who is and who is not a refugee, which used to be done by United States and U.N. refugee interviewers, was transferred to local immigration officials who had no real experience or training. Big mistake. Some of the interviewers were not only incompetent but also corrupt. There are well documented instances of local officials demanding money and sexual favors from refugees as a condition of favorable screening. And to the surprise of no one, almost nobody now is a refugee. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights visited and did in-depth analysis of the refugee process in Hong Kong. Their conclusion, after looking over several hundred cases, was the following: The entire screening process and review procedures remain seriously flawed. The process remains hostile to genuine refugees. Several international standards were ignored. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Vietnamese refugees have been wrongly rejected. Because of unfair screening and defective screening, Mr. Chairman, our tax dollars are about to pay to send back soldiers who served for years in reeducation camps. They are going to send back anti-Communists, writers and poets, members of the underground resistance movement, and even people who work for the CIA. They are going to send back Buddhist monks whose temples were shut down because they would not join the official church and Catholic nuns whose convents were violated.
A core provision of the CPA, the comprehensive plan of action, that has been deep-sixed, was that repatriation to Vietnam and Laos was to be strictly voluntary. The idea was that the United Nations would work with governments of these countries to make sure that it was safe, and then would work to convince the people in the camps that it was safe for them to return. Unfortunately, some of the people who returned were persecuted, and in Laos, some were even killed. The U.N. monitoring program consists of only eight monitors for all of Vietnam and two for the country of Laos, along with support staff that has been hired through the Communist governments of these countries. So they have been unable to check up on most of the people who were returned. Wonders of wonders, with government people interacting as translators and being there as part of this process, they never seemed to have discovered a single instance of persecution. I would ask my friends if you were in the situation of having been sent back against your will, and a so-called observer comes in, or repatriation monitor, to talk to you, and that person happens to be a translator hired by the government, are you going to talk about harassment, knowing when they walk out the door you are going to be probably mistreated?
The only thing to say to the State Department is take a hard look at these people in highrisk categories. If they are refugees under U.S. law, we should not hide behind an inadequate third country screening to pay for them to be forced back to persecution; second, no more money for the repatriation program until you can certify that it has been fixed and everyone has been given a fair screening and everyone that should be resettled has been resettled.
Mr. Chairman, forcibly repatriating people who have fled from their own homeland is an atrocious act. We ought not to countenance it. We ought to help people who have risked the seas and pirates and risked their lives to flee to what they thought was a safe haven, and then finding that we are participating in forcibly repatriating them. These people deserve better. It is a matter of honor. They worked with us, they fought with us, they moved where we are, the land of liberty and freedom. We are not asking that they be repatriated to America. We are asking only that they not be forcibly returned to the places from which they fled. A person born in a faraway country loves their homeland. If they could return, they would. But these people face all sort of dangers. They lived in reeducation camps. They have finaIly escaped. Now we are going to forcibly repatriate them? I hope my country never does that. If people want to leave tyranny and leave abuse and move towards the light of freedom, we should facilitate that, not inhibit it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong Support of the Smith amendment. We should not support the shameful forced repatriation of our allies who fought by our side during the Vietnam war . The gentleman's amendment would permit our Nation to end that period with honor and dignity. The American Overseas Interest Act does not require one extra penny to be spent nor would it increase the number of refugees admitted to the United States. It merely disassociates the United States with sending people back to Vietnam and Laos who have genuine refugee claims because they fought with us during the war . It is not accurate to speculate that it is safe for our allies to return to Vietnam and Laos. The U.N. repatriation monitoring process in place in Vietnam and Laos are run by Vietnamese and Laotian citizens hired in coordination with those Governments. In Laos 14 of the 18 UNHCR repatriation monitoring personnel are citizens of Laos hired by UNHCR with the coordination of the Laotian Government. In Vietnam 30 of the 38 UNHCR repatriation monitoring personnel are Vietnamese citizens hired by UNHCR with the coordination of the Vietnamese Government. It is no smaIl wonder that it is claimed that there have been no cases of retribution. The Governments of those two repressive governments are investigating themselves. This is clearly a case of aIlowing the fox to guard the hen house.
It is for this reason that the American Legion and other veteran organizations support Mr. Smith's amendment and fuIIy support the provision in the biIl. Our military men and women who fought in Vietnam and in Laos are unanimously opposed to any effort to abandon our aIlies. Permit me to read from a letter dated May 23 sent to me by John Summer, the executive director of the American Legion. "The American Legion supports the initiative. . . which would provide for a reexamination of the refugee status of thousands of Vietnamese who fled their homeland out of fear of political reprisal, up to and including death."
The American Legion considers it a debt of honor to strongly support your efforts to authorize the proper screening of those individuals who continue to be held in refugee camps in Asia, and to aIlow for the resettlement of those refugees who fought side-by-side with the American forces during the Vietnam war , as weIl as their families. The United Nations wiIl not aIlow our Hmong allies living in camps in Thailand and eligible under United States law to immigrate here, to leave the camps. Instead the Thai Government and the U.N. are using our funds to forcefuIIy send our Hmong allies back to a dangerous fate in Laos. The screening process of refugees administered by the comprehensive plan of action must be broadly reviewed in order to remedy unfair and otherwise defective status determination. The use of U.S. funds must be conditioned on a thorough review of this process. The American Overseas Interests Act would allow for such a review.
Accordingly, I strongly support the Smith amendment, and Oppose the Bereuter amendment. Let us end this sad period of history in Vietnam and Laos with honor and dignity.
Mr . Chairman, we ought to protect refugees, whether they are refugees from communistic dictatorships or from any other dictatorships. They have the same human rights, and we ought to protect them. Clearly in this instance the Smith amendment ought to be adopted.
...Mere economic refugees do not commit suicide when faced with repatriation. We need to stand by our former allies.
The standard that Ronald Reagan promoted and adopted and we operated under for 6 years is the standard that we simply want. Those of us Supporting the Smith and the underlying bill position want to have it adopted for at least for I year, to look at the group that we are talking about forcibly repatriating in many cases. Let's screen them under that standard. Let me tell you what the preferences are to that standard, the presumption almost that they still have to prove credible fear: Former officials of the government in the south existing prior to the takeover in 1975, and we are talking about Vietnam, national and local officials. Former members of the military of the government in the south existing prior to the takeover in 1975. Catholics and Buddhist monks. Now, there might be some of them, a very tiny few of them, from the north. I think they are going to be the only ones you hear today who could be even under this list. Persons fonnerly or presently employed by the United States or Western institutions, or persons educated in the West. Persons required after the takeover in 1975 to undergo reeducation in reeducation or labor camps, or who were imprisoned or sent involuntarily to new economic zones because they were considered politically or socially undesirable.
Ethnic Chinese. Montagnards. Chams.
At least a year, maybe two if it takes it, that we take a look at the boat people from Hong Kong, the Hmong who are over in Thailand, the others in the camps in Malaysia, and judge them and have them judged by the standards that were on that list in 1983 to 1989, so that we can be satisfied in our consciences as American people that we have indeed allowed those to come out who really should and not be sending those back that would be sent back in harm's way.
We are not going to be a party to what we think is wrong unless these standards are adopted and used in the screening process. That is all it does.
Mr . Chairman, why I rise in such strong Support for the Smith amendment. The fact is that we are dealing with either an intentional or an unintentional misinformation game, and people's lives are at stake as this game goes on.
Dear Congressman Gunderson,
Congratulation on the great success of the passing of the "Smith Provision" in the House of Representatives on May 24, 1995. Due to your kindness and love, the "Smith Provision" not only rekindles the hope in the hearts of the helpless and homeless Vietnamese refugees, but also sets a shining example of righteousness for the whole world.
The United States of America has always been the first democratic Country to fight for freedom and humanity throughout the world. This noble undertaking reveals America's humanity and righteous spirit, and wins the respect and recognition of the whole planet. On behalf of the Vietnamese refugees, please accept our deepest, most sincere gratitude and also our best wishes for the coming vote in the Senate.
Being moved by your virtuous action, it would be a great honor for us to have you and the many other dedicated congress persons, who support this provision, come to our headquarters in Formosa, R.0.C., at which time we would take the opportunity to express our utmost gratitude toward all of you more formally with awards, commending your loving kindness and courageous spirit before the world. If you should accept our invitation, please be so kind as to let us know and we will gladly take care of all the necessary arrangements including air tickets, lodging etc...