We are aware that the Administration's bill does not allow for the funding of special projects for the Indochinese, on the grounds that it is time that the refugees take advantage of already-existing programs. We would like to point out that these programs are almost all designed for people who speak English, and therefore they cannot help us. We therefore urge Congress to provide for special projects for the Indochinese-projects which will help us solve our particular language and employment problems.

Mrs. LESI. I am a volunteer coordinator for the refugee Indochinese program, and I just want to present the experience in society of the Indochinese refugees.

Mr. EILBERG. Whom do you represent?

Mrs. LESI. The Indochinese refugee population.

Mr. EILBERG. Do you represent the entire United States?

Mrs. LESI. Most of the States around the West Virginia area.
Mr. EILBERG. Please proceed.

Mrs. LESI. We just want to point out that we are in desperate need of special projects for vocational and training for the refugees, because we have a lot of lawyers working as dishwashers in fast food establishments, and so we are really in need for the special training to upgrade these professional people.

Mr. EILBERG. Thank you very much.

Would you like to say something? What is your name?

Mrs. NICALO. I am Nancy Nicalo from the Church World Service. I would just say that Mr. Breen has accurately summarized just what the coalition has been working on, and from the point of view of the voluntary agencies, I would say that the mix and match that we have worked with State and other agencies has been tremendous, and we now have an opportunity, based on experience, to key in on some of the major problems still remaining before this group.

I might say that as a woman, one of the groups that my agency is looking at are the problems of refugee women and their adjustment in the United States. Now, that is surfacing. For 2 years we were in an emergency, rush, pressure. Now we can do a good job.

Mr. BREEN. Mr. Chairman, may I make one short statement?
Mr. EILBERG. Yes, go ahead.

Mr. BREEN. This is the first time the church, voluntary, private, and State agencies have ever worked together on an immigration, refugee situation, and to my knowledge, from the people who have been in the field for many years, they have never been together like this. What we really need is an ongoing refugee policy that will take care of these problems so that we are not going in emergency situations every year with a new country or new situation, and I know Congress is working on that, and I know you are.

I, personally, as chairman of the coalition, commend that approach, but the emergency is September 30, and I do understand that special project funds could be under the continuing resolution, but without the continuing resolution I think we will have a major catastrophe amongst the Indochinese population in this country.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Breen, we want to thank you very much for your very major contribution, you and your coalition.

We appreciate your help, and we hope that our association will be a continuing one and that you will support us with whatever good legislation we bring to the floor.

Thank you very much.
Mr. BREEN. Thank

you,

sir.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Wells Klein, vice chairman, Committee on Migration and Refugee Affairs, American Council of Voluntary Agencies for Foreign Service.

We welcome you, and please identify your associates.

TESTIMONY OF WELLS KLEIN, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION AND REFUGEE AFFAIRS, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES FOR FOREIGN SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY NANCY NICALO, CHURCH WORLD SERVICE; DONALD HOHL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, MIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICES, U.S. CATHOLIC CONFERENCE; JEANNE MacDANIELS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE

Mr. KLEIN. If you have seen some of the faces before, it's because the voluntary agencies and the coalition, as Mr. Breen said, have been working very closely.

To my right as Donald Hohl, who is associate director of the Migration and Refugee Services of the U.S. Catholic Conference; to his right is Jeanne MacDaniels, regional director, the International Rescue Committee. To my left is Nancy Nicalo of Church World Service.

Mr. Chairman, we have a prepared statement which I believe you have. If you would like me to summarize it I will be glad to do that. Mr. EILBERG. It would be just as well if you would do that, if you wish, and without objection the statement will be made a part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Klein follows:]

STATEMENT OF WELLS KLEIN, VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON MIGRA TION AND REFUGEE AFFAIRS OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES FOR FOREIGN SERVICE

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Wells Klein, I serve as the Vice Chairman of the Committee on Migration and Refugee Affairs of the American Council of Voluntary Agencies for Foreign Service. I am also the Executive Director of the American Council for Nationalities Service, one of the participants in the Indochinese resettlement program. The resettlement voluntary agencies joining me in this testimony are:

American Council for Nationalities Service.
American Fund for Czechoslovak Refugees.
Church World Service.

HIAS.

International Rescue Committee.

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

Migration and Refugee Services, U.S. Catholic Conference.
Tolstoy Foundation.

In the past 25 years nearly 2 million refugees have come to the United States, most of them with the assistance and sponsorship of the voluntary agencies which have a wide network of constituents throughout the country. The agencies' resettlement programs are linked to local churches, synagogues, social service

agencies and other organizations, reflecting the person-to-person concern of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and nonsectarian agencies, a major segment of our citizenry.

With the takeover by the communists of established governments in Southeast Asia in 1975, approximately 145,000 Indochinese Refugees have been brought to the United States to enable them to establish a new life in a free society. Even as that movement continues albeit on a reduced scale, these deliberations are undertaken to provide the means to enable these refugees and those who follow to become fully self-supporting, contributing members of that society.

Due to the unexpected sudden collapse of the government of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975, it was not possible to plan or control the exodus of those whofled that country during those final days. Masses of people including American citizens were evacuated to temporary shelters throughout the Pacific including Guam and Wake Island. With the approach of the typhoon season it was necessary to have (in effect) a second evacuation, this time to hastily constructed or reactivated shelters, including tents at military facilities throughout the United States.

Unfortunately, that same atmosphere of urgency and emergency which affected many of the decisions in the movement to, and establishment of, the refugees in campsites on the mainland also prevailed within the Congress and the Administration when the enabling legislation was being considered. As a result, a basic error was made when the authorizing legislation provided for the termination of the program on September 30, 1977. The assumption was of course that these refugees could be fully integrated into our economy and society within that period of time. In the haste to provide funding to meet the immediate needs, little time was devoted to analyzing the long-term needs of this particular refugee population.

Had there been time prior to the fall to establish entry criteria and to admit the Indochinese of those bases, the period required for their resettlement undoubtedly would have been shortened. As we all know, however, there was little control over those who left and information as to the make-up of the refugee population was not available at the time decisions on their future were being made.

In addition, the Indochinese are of a culture entirely different from that of the United States-the family structure, mores, religion, language and even their food. Many refugees were unskilled and some were illiterate. A high number were women with dependent children separated in the evacuation from the head of the household.

In previous large-scale refugee resettlement programs where Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Cubans, etc. were brought to this country, it was possible to place them within their own ethnic communities where the resettlement process was naturally accelerated. The Indochinese had no such ethnic community in this country to which to turn, a factor which incidentally contributed to the movement of many of these refugees from the site of original placement, thus impeding permanent and effective resettlement.

Despite all these handicaps the Indochinese have made remarkable progress. According to the June 20, 1977 report of the HEW Task Force to the Congress, only 7.9 percent of the refugees in the work force were unemployed, compared to approximately 7 percent for our domestic work force in general. (We understand that the report which is due out this week will show that now 5.8 percent of the refugees in the work force are unemployed.) The report points out also that 36 percent of the refugees are receiving some type of cash assistance-to supplement their earnings. While that percentage is high, it indicates, however, that the refugees are not only eager to work but will and are taking menial, entry-level jobs to support themselves and their families.

We feel this brief review of the history of the Indochinese Program is necessary to bring into focus their basic needs, their progress and what we feel is required to further assist them down the road to self-sufficiency. To that end, we recommend that legislation be enacted which will include certain basic provisions.

A. For the refugees now here

(1) A planned phase-down during the next three years with continued funding during 1978 with 100 percent reimbursement to the states. It is essential that the funding for next year be at the 100 percent level. If it is any less, then only the

17 states which have wholly state-funded general assistance programs will have the funds to enable them to participate. The other 33 states have neither the authority nor the funds to continue assistance as at the present time. The funding at the 100 percent level is thus mandatory so that assistance can be granted the refugees during the coming year and to allow the states to pass the required legislation to permit them to participate in future years.

(2) That funding during 1979 and 1980 be reduced so that the states and counties can adjust to and, at the same time, assume responsibility for their needs. (3) That funds be made available for social services and special projects such as job development, job counseling, and job upgrading, to enable those refugees presently in the work force to remain there and to provide the unemployed a means to "get off welfare." Counseling is urgently needed now and will continue to demand a high priority in counteracting the effects of culture shock, the difficulties experienced by professional persons who, for the most part, must depart from their area of expertise to undertake less skilled employment, for the former members of the military, especially the officers who must adjust to new employment in the civilian society and to offset some of the mental health problems which arise as a result of the separation of husbands from wives and children from parents. It is in these areas that the voluntary resettlement agencies not only have the expertise, but fill the void which exist in so many state or county programs. Without these types of projects, the refugee may lose the gains he has made and those presently unemployed will for the most part remain there. B. For new arrivals

We urge support of this subcommittee in developing funding for the processing, transportation and resettlement assistance for the 15,000 additional refugees whose admission has been authorized.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we wish not only to recognize but to applaud the support you have given both individually and collectively in this humanitarian endeavor. Special mention should be made of the action taken by the subcommittee in reporting out H.R. 7769 providing for adjustment of status and our appreciation to Representative Fish, for having sponsored this important legislation. We wish also to take note of the excellent and cooperative relationships which have been developed between the voluntary agencies and the state and local governments, which have been unparalleled in the past. We-and may I include the federal and local public sectors as well-face this resettlement, not from a political standpoint, but as a welcome humanitarian endeavor in behalf of our fellow man.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KLEIN. I would like to state the testimony I am giving this morning is on behalf of the American Council for Nationalities Service; American Fund for Czechoslovak Refugees; Church World Service; HIAS; International Rescue Committee; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; Migration and Refugee Services, U.S. Catholic Conference; and Tolstoy Foundation.

The testimony goes into some of the background of the refugee situation with which you are particularly well acquainted. We do talk some about the present situation, and the phenomenon that was discussed between yourself and administration witnesses last Friday and discussed again this morning, the phenomenon of a high level of work, a very clear work ethic among the refugee population, yet, a high level of reliance on cash assistance, which suggests a high level of underemployment.

The agencies have taken the position that the 100 percent funding the first year is critical, and we believe in a phasedown, we do not believe that we should be coming back to the Congress again if we can get a realistic phasedown.

We believe, as Mr. Breen and other witnesses have testified this morning, and Congressman Stark, that the special projects and the

social services are absolutely critical to the effective resettlement of this population.

We have not taken a position as agencies on the administration bill, but let me simply say that the administration bill does not contain any of the factors which we consider bottom line, and, therefore, we would have trouble supporting it.

Mr. EILBERG. That summarizes the essence of the testimony?

On page 2 of your statement you cite the emergency conditions that surrounded the enactment of the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975. However, you also state that "a basic error was made when the authorizing legislation provided for the termination of the program on September 30, 1977." While I certainly agree that there was an urgent atmosphere surrounding congressional deliberations on that legislation, I disagree most emphatically with your conclusion that the termination date represented a "basic error."

Mr. KLEIN. Yes, I was, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG [continuing]. You would know that we considered all these matters in great detail including the long term needs of these refugees as well as the long term responsibilities of the voluntary agencies. As a result, I would be very interested in knowing the detailed activities of the voluntary agencies which have been designed to make this group of refugees self-sufficient.

Have any of your constituent organizations established any special programs or projects with this purpose in mind?

Mr. KLIEN. Let me first say, Mr. Chairman, that the word "error" may be in error. At that time, as we all know, the country was faced with an immediate task of immense proportions. We were in the middle of a very severe recession. The administration came to the Congress, and I can recite in your hearing in the back listening to administration witnesses and your dialog with them

Mr. EILBERG. And you remember we were on top of it before Saigon fell.

Mr. KLEIN. I am, sir, and I am aware of the fact that the adminitsration was not.

Mr. EILBERG. Yes, I have to agree to that.

Mr. KLEIN. It took congressional intervention for the agencies to start talking with the administration, as a matter of fact, I think what we mean here is simply it was essential to pass legislation at that time and it was hurried. We had no experience with an Indochinese refugee settlement. We had no experience with large Indochinese refugee camps in the United States. The decision had to be made in retrospect. I think we feel that the termination of September 30, 1977, was premature. I think that was what we are driving at in this case.

You asked about the various projects, the things the voluntary agencies have done to assist with the assimilation of the refugees. Each of the agencies, as you are aware, operates differently, depending on our own constituency and our modus operandi how we resettle refugees. Some of us use churches, some of us social agencies, some use regional offices to handle resettlement.

I might ask Nancy Nicalo to respond in terms of the Church World Service, and the various projects they are funding from Church World funds to help with the resettlement of Indochinese refugees.