what the projects are yet, essentially, we are concerned that this money is not going to be tied into the work that has already taken place in dealing with the problems of the Vietnamese population.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Klein, then, as I understand it, there are approximately 62 vocational and education training programs in 39 States. Mr. KLEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FISH. Does this money, this $10.2 million, under Public Law 94-405, would it go into the continuation of those programs?

Mr. KLEIN. No, sir. It is quite separate from that.

Mr. BREEN. That money is being given to educational systems, boards of education, school districts. There were no geographic limitations, there is very little monitoring of that money.

Mr. FISH. Is that your understanding?

Mr. KLEIN. Yes.

Mr. BREEN. It would go to adult vocational education, and that is for refugees who already speak English, to upgrade them. Those who are illiterate, most of whom are on welfare, will receive no help from that.

Mr. KLEIN. May I say one other thing, Mr. Fish? It's unfortunate, but as far as we can tell, the allocation of the $10.2 million bears no relationship to the special project funding that you just mentioned of the 62 ongoing projects. As far as I know, and I am on the outside, there was very little coordination between the Office of Education and the task force, and we do know that there was no coordination between the Office of Education and the voluntary agencies on this, so you have two separate thrusts, and one of which we have some serious question about how effective it will be in immediate terms.

Mr. FISH. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Hall?

Mr. HALL. I have no questions.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Sawyer?

Mr. SAWYER. I have no questions.

Mr. EILBERG. Going on, Mr. Breen, your position on the continuation of support for services and special projects has been made quite clear. In addition, you support a 100 percent reimbursement for fiscal year 1978, with possible block grant funding in the second and third years of a phaseout formula.

Can you comment in detail on these proposals and describe the relative importance of each of these proposals?

Mr. BREEN. Yes, sir. The 100-percent funding is vital to give the States time to prepare for the phasedown, and to develop legislation so they can pick up costs.

The block grants and the type of human service projects that have been funded, vocational training, educational training, job placement, for instance, in Minnesota, sir, we have placed 317 refugees, 265 in jobs, and I believe it's 52 in training programs.

As of September 30, as of Friday, I have been informed by our welfare department that three people have been doing that, a Vietnamese assistant, an employment developer in my office, and our secretary are through. They cannot stay after this Friday, and thus the supervision over those 317 people, the relationship with the Gover

nors and we have been affected because we have been at the highest level of a State government-ceases. I don't know what is going to happen, to be very honest.

Block grants are good in the sense that they are competitive, and programs that are effective such as Grand Rapids, Mich., such as some of the programs in Iowa, Pennsylvania and Minnesota, will continue, because those programs will continue, hopefully, to be good.

The very essence of the successful resettlement of Indochinese refugees has been those human services programs that have taken them off welfare.

Mr. EILBERG. The administration bill provides a separate treatment for those refugees already here, and those coming under the new 15,000 parole program. Do you believe that separate treatment is justified from a reimbursement standpoint from the standpoint of providing necessary services to the refugees?

Mr. BREEN. Yes. I believe, especially, there should be a differential, but I believe you can't do the whole job in 212 years. The first year, that is 1978, it will be the same. Then, I believe we must have a sharp phasedown for those that have been here for 32 years at that time, but the new refugees should then continue on a program for, say, 2 years.

The added incentive for having some differences is that we have experience now, we have knowledge, we have trained people sitting out there, and if the program ends September 30, even if it ends for 1 month and then is continued, these people are out, they are looking for new jobs, and I don't know if we can reinvent the wheel.

This way we have the new refugees coming in getting 100 percent for 2 years, or whatever it might be, as Congress decides, the refugees that have been here getting it for 1 more, the States developing legislation to phase it down while continuing those effective programs that take them off of welfare, and eventually you reach a togetherness in 3 years or so where maybe only 5 percent of the refugees or 10 percent are on welfare instead of 35 or 40 percent that will be under the administration plan.

The problem with the administration plan is they do nothing for it, do absolutely nothing for those that are here already.

Mr. LOURIE. If I mav, Mr. Chairman, one of the maior differences. between this group and other groups that have been absorbed in the United States is the fact that this group, particularly this group, did not have an ethnic community to welcome and help to absorb them, backed up by finances and services. I think that the voluntary agencies in this country are remarkable in the fact that I know that they have stretched themselves way beyond the Federal dollar. I think the States will do the same, as soon as they reach the point, as other groups in the United States, that these folks are part of the system.

I think the bill you are going to be dealing with this afternoon will go a long way in making the States feel comfortable about their taking on this group as belonging to them.

Mr. EILBERG. Finally, Mr. Breen, I know you and your organization have been concerned with the internal migration of Indochinese refu

gees during the last year. Can you comment on this particular subject as it relates to the State of Minnesota and the State of California?

Mr. BREEN. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, those States that have the highest general assistance costs and statewide costs, which would include Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, and internal migration, will go to those States. This provides a real dichotomy for the refugees, because some of the States that have the better general assistance programs are also in the colder climate.

One of the interesting things that has happened in internal migration, we have had about 300 refugees in the past year go from Minnesota to California, but they are coming back to Minnesota, and they are willing to freeze in Minnesota because the employment opportunities seem to be better than they are in California.

The State of Texas has no general assistance program. After September 30 they have no program for refugees whatsoever. There are between 10,000 and 15,000 refugees in the State of Texas. We think they are going to go to California, and they are going to go to Pennsylvania and New York and Illinois and Minnesota.

Mr. EILBERG. Will this internal movement continue regardless of the action that is taken on the pending legislation?

Mr. BREEN. If the legislation provides for the human services programs we have spoken about, sir, I don't believe it will, because they are in training programs, they have jobs, they have supportive services, and there will be some internal migration because of the new refugees coming in. One interesting thing that happened that Mr. Lourie referred to is they had no ethnic culture here in this country.

The 15,000 new ones that are coming in, or will come in, I guess, I don't understand how that is happening legislatively, but they will have the beginnings of an ethnic culture here in this country now. That will make a difference. They will tend to go to those States.

For instance, 150 came into San Francisco last Tuesday. Minnesota got 31. I will never forget the day I hired my Vietnamese assistant. in September of 1975, and he said to me, it's really cold here, does it get colder, when it was about 65 degrees, and this is the coldest day we have in Vietnam. He had never been through a Minnesota winter, and literally many of the wives, many of the women, especially, did not go out of the house in the winter time. Now they are starting to have jobs, and now they are starting to move out, but they will go to those States that have the programs, and I think we will have a vast internal migration if the administration bill passes.

Mr. EILBERG. If it doesn't pass, will the problem be aggravated; what do you anticipate will happen as far as internal migration is concerned?

Mr. BREEN. That is a very difficult question to answer. I couldn't answer that. I think they will go to the warmer climates. That would

be

my guess.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Fish?

Mr. FISH. I am just trying to really clarify what I was after before, and I think we have it. I think sometime in early summer or late spring a supplemental appropriation bill for 1977 was passed, and in that, for elementary and secondary education, under title II of the

96-725-78

Indochinese Refugee Children's Assistance Act, $18.5 million was appropriated. This goes to State agencies.

Mr. BREEN. Right. I believe, sir, however, that was money that the States had already spent, and they were being reimbursed for fiscal year 1977. I don't think that is for 1978.

Mr. FISH. Is there any doubt on that?

Mr. BREEN. I am not positive. Am I correct? No, it is for 1978. But, again

Mr. FISH. I think this appropriation was passed in the middle of this year in order to anticipate the school year starting in September of this year.

Mr. BREEN. I see.

Mr. FISH. I am sure that is correct.

Mr. BREEN. I don't believe the major problem is again with the children.

Mr. FISH. No. I am not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to get it down here.

The next part of that same supplemental appropriation dealt with title III of the Indochinese Refugee Children's Assistance Act, and allocated $10,250,000 for this purpose.

Now, let's look at title III, because it's really very broad. Title III is called: Adult Education Provision, and I am now reading from Public Law 94-405: It says here, after the few words in the beginning:

Carry out a program of making grants to State and local education agencies for such years for the purpose of operating special adult education programs for Indochina refugees as defined in section 3 of the Indochina Migration Refugee Assistance Act;

which simply defined the categories of refugees.

Such grants may be used for: (1) Programs of instruction for adult refugees in basic reading, mathematics, development, enhancement of necessary skills, and promotion of literacy among refugee adults.

and it goes on. It seems to me that is exactly what we are talking about here, and if we are right and this provision operates like the other provisions, title II, to be effective for the period starting now, which is what I said earlier, the money is just about to be funded.

Then, Mr. Chairman, it would seem that things are not going to come to a screeching halt on September 30 because of the operation of another act separate and apart from the one we are continuing extension of.

Mr. BREEN. Mr. Fish and Mr. Chairman

Mr. FISH. I am hoping that is the case, so we have a little time. Mr. BREEN. First of all, those funds have not been allocated yet. The States have not been informed who is getting the money and who is not. As I mentioned before, there is no geographical balance in that, there is no monitoring by State or local government through the Office of Education, and to be very honest, the way they have allocated those grants, we understand, leaves much to be desired. They didn't read half of them. They were rushed and nobody knows who is getting that money yet.

In addition to that, the funds are for adult basic education. Because of the special language problems of the Indochinese, the most that can be expected of the new grants is service to the refugees whose

language skills and educational background are sufficient to benefit from the adult basic education program.

They will not provide funds, in other words, they will provide some funds for those who are already working, but need upgrading. That is very important. However, it will not help the illiterate, the new arrivals or the refugees who have not gained any experience in the American job market, that is, the welfare recipients, who need the most help.

Mr. Fish. Mr. Breen, if that is the case, certainly you cannot read that into title III.

Mr. EILBERG. I think we will have to have staff check that out further. [See app. 4 at p. 176.]

Mr. BREEN. Fine.

Mr. FISH. It's not being interpreted by HEW correctly.

Mr. BREEN. Mr. Klein had one other statement on that, Mr. Fish. Mr. EILBERG. We will get to Mr. Klein in a moment. I will give a very brief opportunity, recognizing the time constraints we have for each of your associates, if they would like to make a very brief statement. You have heard all that has gone before.

Is there anything special you want to say?

Mr. LOURIE. I would just like to emphasize the fact that the States do need the time of notification to prepare their own fiscal lives. Pennsylvania doesn't have the same kind of a problem as some of the other States, so I feel fairly free about discussing it. We have a statewide, state-funded, state-administered, general assistance program, and in the spirit of the Quaker State and the tradition that Benjamin Franklin left us, if all of the Federal programs run out, I assure you that the Vietnamese and other refugees would be cared for under our general assistance program.

Mr. EILBERG. Nevertheless, Governor Shapp has written to us. [See app. 5 at p. 210.]

Mr. LOURIE. That's right. Nevertheless, we still like the idea of having the Federal Government take what is its responsibility and we would like to put our legislature on notice that within a period of time we will be supporting this population 100 percent. I think it's fairer for the other States that do not have such a program.

Mr. EILBERG. May I have the name of the young lady again?
Mrs. LESI. I am Huong Lesi. I have a written statement.

[The prepared statement of Huong Lesi follows:]

STATEMENT BY HUONG LESI, MEMBER, STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE COALITION FOR THE EFFECTIVE RESETTLEMENT OF INDOCHINESE REFUGEES

It has been noted that while the unemployment rate is low for refugees, the percentage of refugees on welfare is high.

The low unemployment rate reflects the refugees' intense desire to work. There are also countless examples of lawyers working as dishwashers, PHDs working in fast food establishments, and so on, which further demonstrates that the refngees are desperate to work, and will accept just about any job.

The percentage of refugees on welfare reflects the fact that these jobs simply do not pay enough to support large Indochinese families. These jobs, however, are the only ones refugees can get, given our lack of English, our lack of skills marketable in the United States, and our lack of knowledge of the American job market. There is a tremendous need for programs which will provide language training, vocational education, and orientation in the American world of work, if the refugees are ever to break out of the circle of low-paying jobs and welfare.