Mr. Secretary, taking up I think generally where we left off, can you comment whether my specific proposal for an international conference has been actively considered by your task force and have any conclusions been reached on that proposal?

Mr. HABIB. Yes, sir, we not only did consider it, and consider it to be a useful step-we think one thing: that it ought to be held under international, not U.S. auspices; it not ought to be under a U.S. aegis.

We think, as you pointed out, we have got to make these agencies fulfill their functions; so we have been discussing with UNHCR their views of a means of attaining greater international assistance on the problem. We have also been discussing it with certain other countries to get a feel for their reaction.

As I said earlier, some of them are more reluctant to act in a visible manner; but we will pursue your suggestion, I can assure you.

Mr. EILBERG. I asked you at the very outset what the general concepts and outlines of the general recommendations might be; had you completed your answer on that? You were interrupted several times by me. Mr. HABIB. I think interruptions are for clarification, Mr. Chairman; I don't mind them.

I think generally speaking, yes. What I was trying to give you is some idea of the way we are looking at the flow, and how it might impact upon us, and how we might develop a program for the longer term, and not just come to you every 6 months for another parole request. I think that is wrong.

Remember, I did not say we wouldn't do it, because there are certain overriding considerations; but that is not the way to deal with the problem. And I am hopeful when we next come to the committee either informally or in session we will be able to lay out to you our ideas, take your ideas, and then produce a coherent program for the longer

run.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Secretary, I understand you have a limited time. Mr. HABIB. If I can get away by quarter to 11, Mr. Chairman—I regret it, but, as you know, this week is a busy week.

Mr. EILBERG. I understand.

Mr. HABIB. I have to get out to Dulles Airport.

Mr. EILBERG. We will cooperate with you; if we are in the midlde of a sentence, you will be free to go.

Mr. HABIB. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think when you go into your next witness from HEW whose bill this basically is, in terms of responsibility, I will leave behind some of my colleagues; and if technical questions come up for which we have competence to answer, they will be available to the committee. Mr. EILBERG. Thank you.

Mr. HABIB. Thank you.

Mr. EILBERG. We have heard from certain quarters that in terms of the percentage of refugees taken in relation to the size of the U.S. population, that the United States is not the biggest settler of Indochinese refugees. The figures I have indicate that out of 197,000 refugees resettled, the United States has taken 146,000; France, 36,000; Canada, 7,000; Australia, 3,000; which means all other members of the world community have taken 5,000.

Does this appear to you that the problem has indeed been internationalized?

Mr. HABIB. With the exception of a few countries which I think it is apparent from the figures you have used, the problem has not been internationalized. I must say that the French have done what I would consider to be their share, especially if you take the figures post-1975, post the first big influx into the United States and the current plans. It is our understanding that the French will continue to operate in this area. At more or less the general level that they have been taking refugees.

I think that one can say that they have done their share. I think the Canadians have done well. We are expecting-if I may just finish-we have gone back to each of these countries, and others, and we have gone to the international agencies like ICEM, and have reopened the matter, and were able to get their attention again by virtue of the attention that was given to the problem of the boat cases last summer.

And once again we are on the road with the UNHCR trying to influence, persuade people, to accept the responsibility which is not ours alone.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Secretary, with regard to our bill, H.R. 7175 the proposed refugee bill whereby we lay out a procedure for formalizing the consultative process and so on, as far as we are concerned our hearings are concluded on that. I gathered from earlier comment that you are looking at that-do you want to respond to that?

Mr. HABIB. Yes, I understand. And I am not an expert on this. We have certain reservations with respect to certain aspects of the bill. That's why I felt I could not commit myself.

You have had witnesses from State Department that have supported the general thrust of what you are trying to do. And I think that whatever reservations we have had have been in part expressed in the hearings; and if we have anything further to say I think we ought to put it in writing to the committee. [See app. 3 at p. 156 for written response.]

Mr. EILBERG. All right, that was my next question.

Mr. HABIB, Yes, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. Please do it as soon as you can because we are going to bring it to the full committee as soon as we can.

And I now yield to Mr. Sawyer.

Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Secretary, I have been listening rather carefully. The numbers, I recognize they are only to some degree what you think or what you guess, but would it be fair to say there's 25,000 to 30,000 over the next 311⁄2 years, and that's in addition to the 15,000 we are immediately concerned with? Do I understand that correctly? Mr. HABIB. Yes, sir.

Mr. SAWYER. So we might be talking, oh, something approaching 50,000, that would be a reasonable guess, anyway?

Mr. HABIB. Yes, sir, 45,000 to 50,000.

Mr. SAWYER. Now, you say that the French are doing their part, France is; but, after all, this was a former French Colony; was it not? Mr. HABIB. That's one of the reasons, of course, they have this association, and therefore, in many respects they follow some of the

same criteria that we follow. For example, family relationships, previous associations, are taken into account in the French program.

Mr. SAWYER. One thing I'm curious about, and perhaps you can answer, is why these people continuing to leave at this rather late date? Is it because of persecution? Or because they don't like the economy of the country, or what?

Is there any overriding or pervasive reason for this?

Mr. HABIB. I think that from our conversations some of the overriding reasons are that they just don't want to live under the conditions in which they are being forced to live. I would say that generally speaking the strong urge to get away, by virtue of the nature of the society and the government under which they are forced to live; these are people who knew something different. These are also people, many of whom by virtue of their previous association, have suffered under the present system. Some of them either have been or fear to be put into the so-called reeducation centers which are in effect concentration camps.

Mr. SAWYER. But, as I understand it, at least from your answer, rather than specific persecution they are just unhappy living under the conditions of their government?

Mr. HABIB. No, sir, in addition, people with previous association with us suffer. It is not easy for them. They don't get employment easily. They are forced to do things they don't want to do. They pay a price for having previously been associated with us.

Mr. SAWYER. Of course if you take the whole Southeast Asian area, even extending down through Burma and India, and so forth probably that whole region of the world are not happy in the conditions in which they are living economically and otherwise, as near as I can tell from my reading.

Mr. HABIB. Not in this respect, sir, we are not getting the refugees out of those areas. This is a fact: You are getting people out of Indochina.

It is interesting, and I didn't put it there, an article in the front page of the Washington Post this morning; and in that article are interviews with some of the most recent refugees, the boat cases, in which they state not only the ordeal they went through but the reasons why they went through that ordeal. And I think it reflects something more than the degree of normal dissatisfaction with their life.

Mr. SAWYER. How long does the administration and Department of State or applicable administration executive agency feel we should extend this mea culpa philosophy that is very pervasive on this whole Vietnamese situation?

Mr. HABIB. I don't know that I look upon it as mea culpa. I look upon it as a degree of obligation, moral obligation, and a humanitarian program.

Mr. Congressman, our country has always had a humane policy toward refugees. I don't know how long this is going to go on.

I suspect, if you asked me to estimate, and as a result of the analyses we have made in the task force, that in the next few years we are going to see some kind of a flow. How it trickles off, what happens afterward, I can't judge that far in advance.

It is quite clear that it is very difficult for the people to get out of Vietnam. The controls, the kind of system they live under, make it difficult to get away; and yet, they still try.

One of the stories this morning is where people planned months ahead, and they positioned themselves; they gathered things. It is a very difficult task. I expect, if I were to be asked, that it will trickle off. Mr. SAWYER. You know, we can debate whether its obligation or mea culpa philosophy, but I don't really see a sharp distinction between the two.

But it seems to me at some point in time, as opposed to being sympathetic with a refugee situation-which I guess we all are there is a distinction between our taking over the whole world burden because we feel it is either our fault or we have an obligation. At some point in time it would seem to me that the term of that obligation should run out to where we share participation with the rest of the world in trying to solve these problems, and not doing it all ourselves.

Mr. HABIB. I would agree we should be part of a world effort and in many respects we are.

You will recall, I am sure, Mr. Congressman, that there still is a flow of refugees from Eastern Europe. There is a general trend of refugees from communism all over the world. The flow is not the other way. There are very few refugees from the West into the Communist world; very few people flee in that direction.

And we and the rest of the countries of the world have to deal with it. Now, I don't accept that it is our obligation alone. I am sure you would not want us to. All I am saying is that, in the case of the Indochinese refugees, we have established certain criteria which we think do describe some degree of obligation on our part. I expect those numbers will tail off: I don't know how much.

Mr. SAWYER. I was interested in Chairman Eilberg's comment or question as to why we don't employ a little linkage in getting cooperation from, oh, say, West Germany, England, South American countries, various other countries, many of whom we subsidize pretty heavily in a lot of other instances; South Korea, for example.

Why don't we put a little pressure on them to get into the act and take their share of this situation?

Mr. HABIB. Well, we have been

Mr. SAWYER. We do it on our own States. When they don't integrate their schools, we tell them we are going to cut off the school funds; or if they don't enforce the 55-mile-an-hour limit, we cut off their highway funds.

Why can't we get a little tougher internationally like that?

Mr. HABIB. Well, as I mentioned-I think while you were away voting, Mr. Congressman-we have over these past several months put the arm on countries in various places to do more than they are doing with respect to these refugees.

Mr. SAWYER. Not too successfully.

Mr. HABIB. It is a little early to say how successfully.

One thing we have managed to do. We have gotten a little money out of some of them-a little more money, I should say, out of some

96-72

of them. We have gotten promises of willingness to take more refugees from some of them. This is an ongoing effort which we will continue.

And I couldn't agree with you more, I would like to persuade them with whatever means available; but I am not so sure I would necessarily threaten to stop something that for other reasons we may wish to continue.

Mr. SAWYER. We do it to our own States. Why would we employ a different philosophy with different countries?

Mr. HABIB. It is a kind of balance that I think we just have to take into account. Your intention, with which I agree, must be weighed against the other relationships which we have with these countries which have a certain value to them. But I am not going to argue with the necessity of getting this thing shared internationally. I agree with you completely. I think we should do everything we can. I don't want to simply say flatly, if country X does not take 5,000 refugees, we'll cut off all their economic aid.

Mr. SAWYER. Even though we do it with our own States?

Mr. HABIB. Well, I didn't realize we did that.

Mr. SAWYER. Well, we do it on school integration. We threaten to cut off their school aid. We do it on the highway speed limit enforcement; and it is pretty effective.

Mr. HABIB. It's a good thought.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Secretary, I recognize that you do not wish to go into the technicalities of the bill before us.

Mr. HABIB. You are going to have a witness who can do that better than I can.

Mr. EILBERG. That may or may not be. I want to ask you a very pertinent question. I find this situation very questionable to say the least, of getting this request from the administration at virtually the last minute, with very little time to put this legislation through the Congress, while other committees and subcommittees are acting on the same thing, thus making it less and less possible for us to do what the administration now wants us to do.

I ask you this, upon which I think your opinion would be at least as good as anybody else's: In the event we cannot process the legislation in full, what do you think of the concept of perhaps having a limited extension, say, 6 months, during which we would look at this? We and you would be looking at this whole problem again; and then moving on some 2 or 3 or 4-year term for a windup of the problem? What would you say to that?

Mr. HABIB. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I really shouldn't comment on another department's budgetary problems; but I would say offhand I would hope the committee would take care of this aspect of the problem.

Let me say this: It's not my fault. I apologize for the lateness. I would say as a matter of fact it's not only not my fault, but when I found out the delay that was going on, I can assure you I moved very quickly. As you will recall. I think we had a conversation at a dinner when you yourself called the problem to my attention.

Mr. EILBERG. Yes.