of this subcommittee and full committee, as well as the House, would want to know as rapidly as possible what those options are.

Now, I am not asking you at this moment to outline with precision or tell us exactly what you are going to tell the President; I think that would be rude on our part. But I think we are entitled to some idea of the scope of your study, some idea what the areas or provisions might be, so we can begin to enlighten ourselves.

Mr. HABIB. That is exactly what I propose to do. Let us see if I can satisfy the committee.

As you know, I am here to assist the committee, not to resist it. What we see is a continuing flow of refugees out of Indochina. The numbers-one can speculate. Let's take a look at what the current figures are. I think that will give the committee some idea of what kind of a problem we can anticipate.

At the present time we have about 1,800 a month, 1,700-1,800 a month, coming from Laos and Cambodia into Thailand; those are mostly from Laos. We are running into about 400 or 500 a month coming out by boat from Vietnam. There is no reason for us to expect those figures to fall off in the immediate future. Their character may change a little, but there is no reason for them to change or fall off. So if one presumes future estimates at, say, 400 a month for boat cases, 1,200 a month for refugees from Laos and Cambodia, which is slightly below the recent level, you would come to a figure of anywhere between 53,000 to 68,000 over the next 211⁄2 years.

For planning purposes we ran our estimates through 1980, 32 years; if you figure about 53,000 to 68,000 in the next 311⁄2 years, you get some idea of what it might be in total.

Now, of course, we started from that figure and then worked backward as to how many of them could we possibly expect might become eligible under criteria that have been established in the past and which presumably would be followed in the future, to come to the United States.

Now, we do not have a planning figure for the number that would come to the United States. What the task force tried to do is to state certain criteria which we believe would govern or should govern these people coming to the U.S.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Secretary, may I interrupt?

You have projected figures; now, based on the projection of the figures which you have mentioned, what is your projection of the number of refugees we will have to admit on that basis for the next 3 years?

Mr. HABIB. Well, unfortunately, there have been some inaccurate figures quoted to the press. We don't have a firm planning figure. Now, you are asking the same question that others have asked: what do we think it will be?

Well, it could be somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 over the next 311⁄2 years.

I want to make it clear: that is not a planned figure. That is within the criteria which we have established.

Mr. EILBERG. Repeat those figures?

Mr. HABIB. Between 25,000 and 30,000 over the next 31⁄2 years. That is exclusive of-let me say, that is exclusive of the numbers who are coming in under the present parole, which would have to be added. to that.

You will recall the present parole figure that was decided in August, those people will be coming in over the next 8 months of the new year.

Mr. EILBERG. Let me put it this way, in this morning's Washington Post, Friday, September 23-without objection I shall make it a part of the record-there appears a statement on the subject:

In a hearing on the proposals held yesterday before the Senate Committee on Human Resources, Under Secretary of State, Philip Habib, said it was likely that an additional 15,000 refugees a year would seek to enter the United States over the next 3 or 4 years.

Mr. HABIB. "Seek to"-the phrase was "seek to." That is very likely. Mr. EILBERG. Is it not also very likely that it will be your recommendation when you come to it?

Mr. HABIB. No, sir, we will operate under the criteria which I was just about to state: This is something that we will want to consult with the committee on, and of course have always consulted with the committee about.

We would hope to operate under the criteria that the boat cases that are not provided for within a reasonable period of time by the international mechanism, we would feel some obligation to provide entry into the United States. Even within the boat cases we would operate within the criteria in terms of timing of their movement; that is those with family ties in the United States; second, those who worked for the United States during the period of the Indochina war; third, those whose associations with the United States would be such as to createin our minds a legitimate residual obligation.

Mr. EILBERG. Association with the United States?

Mr. HABIB. There are many people who worked very closely with us who have fled the Indochinese countries because they have suffered by virtue of that association. We feel that we have some moral obligation toward them.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Fish?

Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome back, Mr. Secretary.

If I understand you correctly, the 1,800 a month going to Thailand, 500 boat cases a month, are figures outside the scope of the 15,000 that we were consulted on with respect to parole 2 months ago?

Mr. HABIB. No, sir. That figure is has been the recent experience; therefore, those 400 to 500 a month is what has been coming in. About 7,500 or so of them will be covered under the recent parole actions. Mr. EILBERG. So if we were given a figure of 7,500 boat cases back in July, that wasn't a 7,000-headcount at that time? It was an estimate of future boat cases?

Mr. HABIB. No, sir, that was 7,000 headcount at that time. In other words, that is the figure of what has recently been coming out.

Mr. EILBERG. 400 to 500 boat cases a month would not be included in that figure?

Mr. HABIB. That is correct. That would be additional to that figure. Mr. EILBERG. OK, I understand you. We are talking about new cases. Now, you might recall there is a sense of emergency about boat cases as a distinct add-on to the thousands of such cases which we already have in Thailand. If you recall when the news hit of these boat cases

back in the early summer, it resulted in some unfavorable publicity to this committee, in which the interest, the diligence of this committee, was questioned-I think very unfairly.

And if there are indeed now 500 boat cases added on each month which are not encompassed within the agreed parole, I would certainly like to know what steps are being taken. If I understood you correctly, you will be applying a criteria to these boat cases which you did not do to the boat cases included in the 15,000?

Mr. HABIB. Yes, sir.

Let me say two things: First of all, any criticism of the committee does not reflect my opinion or that of the Department of State. I have the highest regard for this committee and I so stated in my opening statement, and I meant that; I have worked with this committee over the years, and I have watched it. And I must say, anybody who doesn't understand the care and the attention which this committee has taken, the humane approach they have taken, just doesn't know what he is talking about.

Second, about the 400 to 500, I said we would apply the criteria in terms of picking them as we take them out. The idea of doing that is to take those first, those boat cases first, to whom we have an obligation. Hopefully, then, the others will be picked up by the international mechanism.

In other words, what I am saying is in the future our planning would be such that we would not feel-we do not plan to take all of them. We think that ought to be shared internationally. And we would hope it would be.

Mr. EILBERG. Under what authority do we pick up any of these boat cases?

Mr. HABIB. At the present time the future boat cases could only be picked up under the conditional entry provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which exists. I think we would take 100 to 150 a month under the conditional entry provisions.

Mr. EILBERG. Does that mean to say, Mr. Secretary, you will not seek to have some of these refugees enter through the nonpreference category?

Mr. HABIB. No, sir, it does not; and I would not want to mislead the committee. But nonpreference numbers are not currently available. One of the reasons the boat cases are being better treated now as they are discovered at sea, as they wash up on the shores of other countries, is because there is an understanding that they may not have to stay in some of those countries indefinitely. This is particularly true, say, in Singapore, Malaysia. places like that where they can expect by virtue, if nothing else, of the flow of current and tide that these boat cases will land. Ships at sea most recently-and to a certain extent this has happened-just reject any assistance to these people so as to avoid any obligation to them; a most unfortunate practice.

Now, since it became clear that there were first of all a willingness to provide at least temporary refuge by the countries in the area, that has been changed. Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, other countries, have been prepared to provide temporary refuge at least, and since it has become known that we are prepared to play a role, and that the UNHCR is taking seriously its responsibilities with respect to these people, we

have had a decline in this kind of callous treatment of these people, sitting out on these cockleshell boats in the middle of the ocean.

I would like to at least sustain that humane behavior.

Mr. EILBERG. Will the gentleman further yield?

Mr. FISH. Yes.

Mr. EILBERG. Does that mean to say you will ask for authorized additional nonpreference entry for some of these refugees? Does that mean to say there will be no further parole requests?

Mr. HABIB. I would not want to promise that to the committee. I once did that to this committee, and I had to in effect come back to you and plead an ignorance before the fact; and I am ready to say I pleaded ignorance before the fact.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Secretary, we understand your former promise and inability to keep it.

Mr. HABIB. Yes, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. The Chair does not feel that way; we simply are not going to do business on the basis of your pleading each time.

Mr. HABIB. That's why I am not doing it this time.

Mr. EILBERG. We have legislation in the hopper, as you well know, a bill, H.R. 7175, which would seek to provide some outline of how the numbers might be admitted, and we would like to have your active support on that.

Mr. HABIB. We will, when we get a firm administration position, or at least current administration position, come to the committee with our views. We will of course be prepared to testify on that bill.

I think that the committee is approaching it in a manner which we would find consistent with our own views, that is, we ought to look at this thing as a longer term thing. In the earlier days nobody realized that it was going to be the kind of problem that has now developed. So I am fully sympathetic with what the committee is trying to do. although I don't think I can at this point commit the administration to a particular formula.

Mr. EILBERG. I would like to say, the administration so far in its statements has indicated full support for the bill. I take it you wish or may wish to express an additional opinion. I am not certain we are going to have additional hearings. If you have an opinion at any time, we would like that in writing.

Mr. HABIB. Yes. [See app. 3 at p. 156 for response.]

Mr. EILBERG. One more item before we go to vote: In your last comment a few moments ago you said, you said you expected-as I understood it-additional support from the UNHCR in relocation of some of these refugees.

Mr. FISH. Most of them.

Mr. EILBERG. Most of them; I am corrected by Congressman Fish. Now, Mr. Habib, we have been around this subject of the UNHCR, it seems to me, from time immemorial. Now, it appears to me, that the UNHCR receives a great deal more credit than he is entitled to. To me, he is believed to have a great deal more power than he actually has. And you and I know-and I ask you to contradict this-he hasn't any influence at all over the States in that area. He has no pressure or authority or any ability to insist or to provide for the placement of refugees. In general he has been unsuccessful.

Why do you insist upon going back to an institution which is so weak? Why can't we go directly to an international conference and try to remind the nations of what their obligations are?

Mr. HABIB. Mr. Chairman, I would say two things: First of all, I think you have been harder on them than they currently deserve. I use that word very carefully.

Second, we understand the Government of Thailand is bringing this matter to the U.N. General Assembly.

Mr. EILBERG. Who is?

Mr. HABIB. The Government of Thailand, is bringing the matter to the U.N. General Assembly; and I think that operates in the general direction in which your interest lies; and that is, getting an organized international effort-better organized than it has been. Although I must say that what the UNHCR has done with respect to the careI didn't say the "resettlement"-I said the care of refugees, is a substantial effort.

They have been involved to a certain degree in resettlement operations, also; but the 80,000 to 90,000 refugees in Thailand, are generally cared for by a combination of the Thai Government and the UNHCR. And without the UNHCR I regret to say I don't think those people would have been as well cared for, even though their present care leaves much to be desired.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Secretary, I would simply like to observe, it seems to me and I say it quite clearly, quite deliberately that an anticipation of Thailand making an appeal to the U.N. just makes me laugh in terms of its possible influence in getting anything done. And on that basis I am quite confident that once again the UNHCR will be asked to do what it is not able to do now.

I say, again, Mr. Secretary, do you contemplate, or is there anything in your recommendations or conclusions whereby the United States, who is taking the lion's role in the care of these refugees, will show any initiative in requesting an international conference on this subject? Mr. HABIB. Obviously the long-term solution lies in more international effort, and an international conference could be a very useful step. We have said that to you before.

On the other hand, as you know, Mr. Chairman, some of the countries that are involved and who have been taking substantial numbers of these refugees, do not particularly want to get involved in a publicly visible manner which imposes upon them obligations which they have been exercising. I am just stating a fact: Our interests are the same in getting these people resettled, and there are different ways of doing it.

Mr. EILBERG. One more comment on this subject, and we can belabor it indefinitely: A great deal has been said about the concept of linkage in the last several months and years. It seems to me that the United States is quite remiss if it does not use linkage in terms of expecting other countries to do their share; and I suggest to you, Mr. Secretary, you start thinking about that concept, because we certainly feel it should be done.

We will take a recess at this time, and be right back.

[Recess.]

Mr. EILBERG. The subcommittee will resume.