Senator SIMPSON. If we exclude California-what is it now in California? It is big stuff, is it not? Mr. GERSTEN. It is still around 80 percent in California. Senator SIMPSON. Eighty percent in California. Maybe they will sober up there themselves because they are sucking away their resources by not being realistic. But that is up to California, I guess. So the dependency rate in California is 80 percent. So then the dependency rate among the eligible refugees for the rest of the country is much lower then, is it not? Mr. GERSTEN. That is around 31 percent for 1989. Senator SIMPSON. I think it would be good to just kind of report that clearly to the American public that the California experience is really a ghastly one for any sensible refugee program to examine. I noted in your report to the Congress that refugees from Eastern Europe other than Poland show a dependency rate of about 25 percent? Mr. GERSTEN. That is correct. Senator SIMPSON. Polish refugees have a dependency rate of only 14 percent? Mr. GERSTEN. Right. Senator SIMPSON. The Soviet refugees have a dependency rate of 40 percent. To what do you attribute that high dependency rate of Soviet refugees? Mr. GERSTEN. Mainly to the time in which they have arrived. The large numbers of Soviet refugees have arrived in the last 2 years, so there is a higher percentage of them who are on public assistance. If I could, Senator. Not to defend California, but I think it is important to note that there are four or five States that have unusually high dependency rates. California is one of them. Washington State, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin are other States with dependency rates of over 50 percent. We are committed to-Senator SIMPSON. Is Minnesota up there now? Mr. GERSTEN. Yes. Senator SIMPSON. They were one of the lowest for a long while, were they not? Mr. GERSTEN. They have had a large number of Southeast Asians who have moved into the St. Paul area and they are also a dependency rate of over 50 percent. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM Senator SIMPSON. Are most Soviet and East European refugees resettled through the matching grant program? Mr. GERSTEN. Most of the Soviets are resettled through the matching grant program. All of the Soviet Jews are resettled through the matching grant program, and that was 32,000 in 1990. Senator SIMPSON. So the Government puts up around $1,000. Mr. GERSTEN. Right, $957. Senator SIMPSON. The resettlement agencies also receive the R&P grant of $565 besides the matching grant. Mr. GERSTEN. Right. Senator SIMPSON. So the State Department pays the R&P grant and the ORR provides the matching grant. Mr. GERSTEN. Right. Senator SIMPSON. Proponents of this grant program claim the dependency rate of refugees settled through that program is lower than the dependency rate for other refugees. If we exclude California then from the computations, because it throws everything off when we put them in, are refugees settled through the matching grant program less likely to receive cash or medical assistance than those who are not? Mr. GERSTEN. Yes, we believe they are, and our numbers do not exclude California. We think the matching grant program in and outside of California is a very effective one. We know that in the first 4 months, our studies indicate that there is no access of public assistance by any of the refugees who are resettled through the matching grant program. IN-COUNTRY REFUGEE PROCESSING Senator SIMPSON. Mr. McNary, if I might just caution you against providing too many visas to in-country applicants. I think it was the purpose of the Refugee Act, to accept refugees who have left their country. It was said outside the country. It is true, and Senator Kennedy did draft this bill. It was important and it was done correctly and I backed it. But it said outside the country. It is very difficult to be a refugee, a real refugee when you are incountry. So here we are, and we did exactly what Larry Eagleburger says, we passed some presumption legislation in the face of that if you voted against it you were a fink. You cannot duck those kind here. Some do. We gave presumptions to people for refugee status. I think a grave mistake. You should do that seriously and on a caseby-case basis, and not do it out of frustration and driven by pressures of special interest. That can get you in a lot of trouble. So it passed, but nevertheless this presumption is something—it is on the books. I did not support it. I share your concern that we take these large proportions of our refugees from within their own country of nationality; a policy which I think violates the spirit of the Refugee Act, and I think the spirit of what we tried to do. I have very serious concern about presuming certain groups to be refugees and thus not requiring the same scrutiny that we require, case by case, of other refugees admitted to the United States. Now if Soviet refugees were subject to the same review process that we require of other refugees around the world, what percentage of them would likely qualify for our refugee program? I mean, if they had to establish a "well-founded fear of persecution based upon race, religion, national origin, or membership in a social or political organization" what percentage of those now admitted would pass that test? Mr. McNARY. Senator, I do not have a figure. That is one of those, how many birds in a flock question. But it would be less, no question about that. But I have sat in on some of those interviews and I think that even with the worldwide standard a good many of those people would qualify. Senator SIMPSON. It would be interesting-how many refugees have we admitted from the Soviet Union through the use of the public interest parole authority, those who were turned down for refugee status and then picked up under parole authority? Mr. McNARY. I think that has been 2,000 a month. That is 16,000. Senator SIMPSON. Over what period of time? Mr. McNARY. Seven thousand came in, 16,000 offers. Senator SIMPSON. Excuse me? Mr. McNARY. Seven thousand people came in this year, this fiscal year through humanitarian parole. Sixteen thousand people were offered the parole but affidavit of support, the various other requirements were not included. Senator SIMPSON. So, of course, when a parolee comes in they do not come in with the refugee benefits. Mr. McNARY. That is correct. Senator SIMPSON. What is that number again? Mr. McNARY. Sixteen thousand offers, seven thousand actual admissions. CLOSING COMMENTS Senator SIMPSON. I have some other questions, Mr. Hall. I have other obligations, too. I thank the chairman for setting this and for his participation and the staff. I regret that I must conclude and I know you do not. But I will submit some of those questions in writing. Serious stuff, and I think we have to do it correctly. Deal with these issues of foreign policy, and real refugees, and foreign policy refugees, and refugees so we will not make anybody mad. Repatriation has got to come and it has got to come with Vietnam. That is my view. And, of course, our opening diplomatic relations. I have always favored that. If it is good enough for John McCain it is sure good enough for me. He was in a cage over there for about 6 or so years, and if he is willing to open diplomatic relations with that country why should any of us drag our feet. The sooner we do that we will get honest with ODP's and Amerasian children who are no longer children, and how many people are coming out sneaking through those numbers and all the rest of it, all driven by Saigon cowboys of years past. So it is interesting work. I enjoy it. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, and on behalf of our chairman we do appreciate what you do for our country in a very serious arena. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Senator Grassley follows:] STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. GRASSLEY COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ANNUAL REFUGEE CONSULTATION HEARING OCTOBER 3, 1990 MR. CHAIRMAN, I RECALL VIVIDLY LAST YEAR'S REFUGEE CONSULTATION HEARING. THAT WAS THE YEAR THE UNITED STATES IMPLEMENTED DRAMATIC CHANGES IN REFUGEE POLICIES. I WAS AN OUTSPOKEN CRITIC OF THOSE POLICIES, WHICH INCLUDED: 1. PLACING A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF SOVIET REFUGEES PERMITTED TO COME TO THE U.S. AND ELIMINATING THE PRESUMPTIVE REFUGEE STATUS; AND 2. MOVING REFUGEE ADJUDICATION TO MOSCOW. I ALSO CHALLENGED THE PREMISES ON WHICH THOSE NEW POLICIES WERE BASED: FIRST PREMISE: BECAUSE OF GLASNOST, SOVIET SOCIETY WAS A SECOND PREMISE: DIRECT FLIGHTS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND TEL AVIV WOULD ENABLE MORE SOVIET JEWS TO EMIGRATE TO ISRAEL. AGO. THESE PREMISES ARE AS FAULTY TODAY AS THEY WERE ONE YEAR Λ SECRETARY EAGLEBURGER TESTIMONY REPORTS THAT DESPITE GLASNOST, STATISTICS INDICATE THAT ANTI-SEMITISM IS GROWING. AMBASSADOR LAFONTANT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THIS IN HER TESTIMONY. WE ALL KNOW THAT OVER THE LAST YEAR, ANTI-SEMITISM AND VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT RELIGIOUS MINORITIES HAS FLOURISHED IN SOVIET SOCIETY. ONE YEAR LATER, THE SOVIET UNION IS NOT A SAFER PLACE FOR RELIGIOUS MINORITIES. FURTHER, THE UNITED STATES RECHANNELLED SOVIET REFUGEES SO THAT SOVIETS CAN ONLY SEEK REFUGEE STATUS THROUGH A REFUGEE INTERVIEW AT THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN MOSCOW. THIS CHANGE WAS INSTITUTED IN PART TO CONTROL THE FLOW OF REFUGEES AND IN LARGE PART DUE TO A SOVIET CONTRACT TO ESTABLISH DIRECT FLIGHTS FOR REFUGEES FROM MOSCOW TO TEL AVIV. WE SOON LEARNED THAT THE SOVIETS WOULD NOT HONOR ITS CONTRACT WITH ISRAEL TO OPERATE ADVERSELY AFFECTED EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND OTHER REFUGEES WHO DO NOT RESETTLE IN ISRAEL. |