SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
HMONG VETERANS' NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1997; AND CANADIAN BORDER BOAT LANDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamar Smith, Sonny Bono, Edward A. Pease, Melvin L. Watt, and Zoe Lofgren.
Also present: George Fishman, counsel; Judy Knott, staff assistant; and Martina Hone, minority counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SMITH
Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims will come to order. I have an opening statement, and then I will recognize Mr. Watt for his opening statement.
Today we will consider two bills: H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997, which was introduced by Representative Bruce Vento and H.R. 2027, which was introduced by Representative Steve LaTourette.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Hmong people have unquestionably suffered greatly over the latter half of the 20th century. Their taking up arms with American forces in anti-Communist guerrilla units during the Vietnam War caused them much loss and hardship both during and after the war. America does owe the Hmong fighters a debt. This debt was repaid thanks to the generosity of the American people when more than 100,000 Hmong refugees were evacuated to the United States after the Vietnam War. Their integration into American society has been hampered by vast differences of culture and level of development. It is to be hoped that, as with many immigrant communities before them, the Hmong refugees' American-born children will find it easier to adjust to American life.
I realize that there has been much anxiety in the Hmong community over the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The act's restrictions on welfare benefits for aliens has led to much uncertainty, especially among those Hmong who are older or have been unable to hold employment in America and have become reliant on public aid.
If Congress decides that this is a situation needing remedy, there are two possible paths we can go down. One is represented by Mr. Vento's bill, H.R. 371. Since the Hmong's eligibility for welfare benefits would be restored once they are naturalized, Mr. Vento's bill would ease naturalization requirements for veterans of Hmong guerrilla units. For instance, it would exempt them from the English language and residency requirements. One problem with this approach is the difficulty we would face in determining which Hmong refugees actually fought in the clandestine CIA-organized guerrilla units. Another is that naturalization standards would be watered down.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second route would be simply to restore Hmong eligibility for various welfare benefits. Preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that this would cost about $300 million to $400 million through the year 2002. The total cost would come down if it were possible to reserve relief just to the Hmong guerrilla. Of course, there are other reasons for the Hmong to naturalize: They would be able to formally express their allegiance to the United States, and they would be able to more easily reunite with family members now overseas.
The second bill we will consider today is Mr. LaTourette's H.R. 2027. By way of background, American and Canadian small boat operators and their passengers returning to the United States from Canadian waters must either enter through a port-of-entry or possess approved I–68 forms issued by the INS and good for 1 year. While the I–68 form allows individuals on boats to enter the United States without being inspected at each docking, persons are physically inspected and entered into INS records once a year when applying at INS offices. Boaters generally find the I–68 form a minor inconvenience. Tourists and houseguests of boaters who might spontaneously want to take boat trips to Canadian waters may not do so if they have not procured I–68 forms. H.R. 2027 would set up a pilot program whereby a U.S. citizen passenger on a small boat would be able to return from Canadian waters without inspection or an I–68 form as long as the passenger was carrying a U.S. passport.
I don't want to leave the impression that I do not have concerns about any waiving of the I–68 requirement. The subcommittee recently held a hearing on alien smuggling in which it was learned that smuggling from Canada has been increasing and will continue to increase as a beefed-up border patrol presence makes the southern border less hospitable to smugglers. Unfortunately, smugglers will look for any available weak link in our border security apparatus.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, there are two aspects to Mr. LaTourette's bill that minimize these security concerns: First, passengers must still carry U.S. passports. Because a passport is the identification document most difficult to counterfeit, alien smugglers will find it difficult to use. Second, experimenting with I–68 waiver as a pilot program will enable the INS to measure its effects and report back to Congress on whether making the waiver permanent is warranted.
I want to do all I can to address the legitimate concerns of Congressmen with Great Lakes constituencies while at the same time keeping the U.S. border as secure as possible. H.R. 2027 seems to carefully balance these two competing interest. I look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses on this legislation.
[The bills, H.R. 371 and H.R. 2027, follow:]
INSERT OFFSET RING FOLIOS 1 TO 6 HERE
Mr. SMITH. I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, for his opening statement.
Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the chairman for scheduling these bills for hearing, particularly H.R. 371, which I think is a matter of some great urgency, not that the other bill is not important, but I would hope that the scheduling of H.R. 371 for hearing is an indication that we're about to actually mark that bill up, and move on it, and try to address this problem.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have already indicated my support for that bill by becoming a cosponsor of the bill with Mr. Vento, and part of that is the recognition that there are a significant number of Hmong residents in western North Carolina, which is my home State; there's a big settlement there, but the more important part is that this is not, and should not be, characterized as simply a mechanism to ease the provision of welfare benefits. I think that's really secondary. The more important thing is what commitments have we as a country made to these people either by implication or by precedent.
A couple weeks ago we marked up a bill, and sent it on to the floor, basically providing citizenship or waiving some of the naturalization requirements for an individual who had saved some documents in Switzerland from being shredded. If we can pass a special bill for that individual, it certainly seems to me that we can honor some of the commitments we ought to be making to people who fought alongside our troops in Southeast Asia. And so I'm hopeful that we cannot just look on this bill as a mechanism to debate welfare reform again or immigration reform again, but look on it as an opportunity to provide equity to a category of people who certainly deserve it.
On the second bill, I'm looking forward to hearing the testimony and trying to evaluate the merits, pros and cons, and making an evaluation of what the proper balance should be, and I look forward to hearing the witnesses on that important bill also.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease, is recognized.
Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I share Mr. Watt's, I guess, priority in today's hearings. I am interested in the I–68 issue, but I am more immediately concerned with the concerns of the Hmong people. I'm not certain, Mr. Chairman, which of a number of approaches is the better approach to address what I believe is an urgent and pressing issue, but I do believe that there is a responsibility in this committee and this Congress and this country to the Hmong people, many of whom fought beside Americans when some Americans were unwilling to do that, and we have, I think, a tremendous responsibility to address the concerns that are addressed in this legislation. I look forward to working with the chairman and the committee to find the most appropriate approach to do that.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pease.
Before I introduce the first panel, the comments of the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from North Carolina remind me to make a couple of additional points that I'm sure will be brought out at some point, but that were not brought out in my original opening statement. And that is two parts of current law that might well help the Hmong refugees: One is that if you have been in the United States for 20 years and are over 50 years old—and that might well apply to a lot of the individuals who did fight alongside American troops in Southeast Asia in the early sixties and late sixties—you're exempt from the English requirement. This would, I think, go a long way to satisfy some of the concerns that we might have about the ability of the Hmongs to pass the English proficiency test that's a part of the naturalization process today. If you've been here for 15 years and are over 55, the same rule applies: You're exempt from the English requirement. Both those provisions should, in fact, help a lot of the individuals that we might be concerned about.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other point I'll make, and I'll try not to make this in any shape or form partisan, is that there is still some disagreement as to the aid to legal immigrants in the budget agreement. And it just so happens, as I understand it, that the Ways and Means Committee variation of the budget agreement pertaining to aid to legal immigrants would actually do a better job of protecting the Hmong who were in the United States prior to last August and who are receiving SSI on account of being elderly.
The proposal made by the administration would withdraw those SSI benefits that elderly Hmong may be enjoying who arrived before last August. So to the extent my colleagues want to help the Hmong, I would encourage them to support the Ways and Means' variation of the budget agreement. [Laughter.]
With that, I welcome our colleague from Minnesota and friend, Bruce Vento, who will be the first panel on this issue.
Bruce, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank Mel Watt and Congressman Pease from Indiana for their presence and support and your support.
You know, this is an issue that we had passed in the overall immigration bill, and so I very much appreciate your support. I'm pleased that we have the chance at this forum to discuss more indepth, I think, what are, or have become, some of the issues.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Key among those, of course, is the backdrop or the stage we're working on now in terms of the welfare reform bill which I supported but recognized, as many did, that the legal immigrant treatment in the welfare was a serious problem. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we will resolve that this year. So that need not be the predicate for the consideration of the measure that we have before us. I think that whether or not the Ways and Means' version or the Clinton version or the Vento version of what happens there works, I think in the end we're going to pretty much take that issue of restoration of benefits to these legal immigrants off the table.
And so the question really gets tacked onto this measure that I've been pursuing long before the introduction or the change in terms of welfare policy, and that is to extend the citizenship and naturalization to the Hmong and Highland Lao people who reside in the United States. All of them are in the United States; many of them are concentrated, as a matter of fact, as our colleague from North Carolina had indicated, in certain sectors. He has a community in North Carolina; St. Paul has one; Wisconsin, Fresno, and so forth. There may be a concentration also in other areas, but they tend to have followed their leadership to these ares.
I very much appreciate your willingness to have a witness list, especially considering the timing of the hearing. Commissioner Susan Haigh is here from Ramsey County, able, and chairman of the commissioners in the district I represent. Jim Anderson's with her, a specialist on refugees. Mark Pratt, I'm very grateful for his presence today. He was a Second Secretary of the U.S. Embassy in Laos from 1963 to 1968. I regret that Gen. Vang Pao, who is the leader of the Hmong community in the United States, is unable to be with us. There had been a death in his family, and he is unable to be here. But Colonel Wangyee Vang is here, the president of the Lao Veterans of America, and I note that there's a brochure that they have prepared that you should receive copies of to look at in terms of explaining some of their views, as well as testimony that I'll ask be submitted for the record.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the past 6 years, as I said, I've attempted to pass this, and I think this isn't just a matter of citizenship, as you've indicated, Mr. Chairman, and my testimony doesn't articulate this. We've all worked to provide for waiving the English language test and civics test for those who are unable to develop those types of skills late in life, for a variety of reasons, whether they're refugees or asylees. The Hmong happen to, incidentally, be entered into the category of refugees in the United States. But this is really, I think, a matter of honor; it's a matter—and as you suggested, if we alleviate the welfare problem on this hand and alleviate the language just because of other reasons—what can we do as a Nation to recognize the contributions of—the outstanding contributions of—the Hmong for this period of history in terms of being an ally of the United States? After all, we had had tens of thousands of Hmong that actually fought side-by-side; 20,000 of them lost their lives. We had men, women, and children—there are films, U.S. films, on news reports which showed 10- and 12-year-old children carrying around guns and rifles in Laos at that time that were on the evening news during the sixties and seventies.
So, I think that at the end of the course, the end of the Vietnam War, we lost that conflict; they fled to Thailand; they fled to the United States; 100,000 Hmong left Laos for fear of persecution, for fear of genocide. It wasn't apparent, I suppose, then, in the aftermath of that Vietnam War, but their contribution plus our role there has led to the new global order and the role of self-determination and democracy around the globe. It's these extreme sacrifices made by the United States and the role that we played there, the Hmong in the jungles and highlands, whether in uniform or whether in peasant clothing; thousands of soldiers, of course, U.S. soldiers and airmen lives were spared in this conflict because of the contributions made.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
They survived and were welcomed to the United States, and I'm proud of the fact that our country, and especially our communities like St. Paul, the various relief organizations, whether it be the Catholic, the Lutheran, or Jewish relief organization in my area that reached out and have done the job that they have, and I think each of you that have those organizations in your community that have done that in the past—it isn't always the most popular thing to do, I might say, but it is the right thing to do in this instance. And I might say that the Hmong community in St. Paul is—it now has elected officials; they even have a city councilman running under the Republican ticket——
Mr. SMITH. Not fair to mention that. [Laughter.]
Mr. VENTO [continuing]. And we'll take care of that. [Laughter.]
But I might say that they are—and we're very proud. They're very hardworking, I think they're going to be a key factor in the vitality of the Minnesota Scandinavian tradition, just like I am, Mr. Chairman.
This legislation, of course, makes obtaining the citizenship possible for these men, women, and children that were in these special guerrilla units. It follows in line with the fact that for those that dutifully had served in U.S. uniform for the United States, they are, even though not citizens, are given naturalization for their service. We have reached out beyond that to the Filipino scouts and other groups that raise the question whether or not there is some precedent under what we're doing here. Well, I would suggest to you that in the context in which the United States projects its military activity and the context in which we project and act today, it is entirely appropriate, I might say, especially given the circumstances surrounding this. The CIA, in fact, went out and hired these individuals; engaged them; encouraged them; made commitments to them, and we kept those commitments. We've kept those commitments; we really have. So I think that one more gesture here—this doesn't deal incidentally with veteran's benefits.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I keep referring to these as the Hmong patriots; we don't want to confuse it. At some particular point that may be an issue that's addressed beyond that, but I think that, you're right, they haven't passed the English language test or a civics test or they haven't done various things, but they probably have passed the most important test, Mr. Chairman, and that is risking their lives for the values and beliefs that we revere as Americans and saving American lives, and that's why I know that this panel at the end of the day is going to overcome that.
I know we have problems with numbers; we have problems with identification. I remember suggesting that we have to have proof of the fact that they're Hmong. So they lifted up their shirts and showed me the war wounds, Mr. Chairman, and so I think that they have some proof, and there is a method here, and there is material available. It isn't as good as we might like, but I think it will serve our needs; served in terms of the refugee status; it will serve in terms of extending citizenship.
Many, incidentally, have obtained citizenship, but after taking the test three or four times and not being able to master the English, you can imagine the frustration and really the demoralization that occurs with that. Most of us haven't been there and had to do that, but I think we can give them the status, and I hope that the committee will.
I have testimony here from Congresswomen Patsy Mink, Congressman Pombo, Congressman Dooley, the Lao Veterans of America, the Asian and Pacific American Legal Consortium, and had Theodore Shackley, the CIA Station Chief in Laos at that time. I'd ask to submit that for the record.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Vento. Without objection, they will be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vento follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 1997, H.R. 371. This legislation would impact the thousands of Hmong and Highland Lao people who reside in the United States, including the large Lao-Hmong community in my home district of St. Paul, Minnesota.
Before I proceed, I would like to thank Commissioner Susan Haigh from Ramsey County for agreeing to testify, and Jim Anderson, the Planning Specialist for Refugees and New Immigrants for Ramsey County for being here in Washington today. I would also like to thank Mark Pratt, who served as the Second Secretary to the U.S. Embassy in Laos from 1963–68, for coming here to share his firsthand knowledge on the service of the Hmong patriots. I would also like to recognize Colonel Wangyee Vang, President of the Lao Veterans of America who joins us from California today.
Over the past six years, I have sought to achieve appropriate recognition for Hmong patriots to honor their decade of contribution and sacrifice to the United States during the Vietnam War. This January, I reintroduced the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act, which seeks to ease naturalization requirements for the Hmong of Laos, who valiantly fought alongside U.S. Armed Forces during the Vietnam War. Hmong of all ages fought alongside U.S. soldiers, and as a result of their courageous action and their loyalty to the U.S., many Hmong lost their lives, and all Hmong tragically lost their homeland. Between 10,000 and 20,000 Hmong were killed in combat and over 100,000 fled to refugee camps in an effort to avoid retribution and persecution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although it wasn't apparent then, the Hmong contribution and actions had a major impact on achieving todays global order and the preeminent role of self-determination around the globe. Extreme sacrifices were made by the Hmong in the jungles and in the highlands, whether in uniform or in peasant clothing. Thousands of U.S. soldiers' lives were spared because of the Hmong patriots' support and help. For their heroic efforts, the Lao-Hmong veterans deserve the recognition and consideration provided in the legislative proposal before the Committee.
Many Hmong who survived the conflict were eventually welcomed to the U.S. and today should be recognized and honored for the contributions they are making as part of our society in Minnesota, and in communities across the nation. Their positive success in rebuilding their families and communities in the U.S. stands as a tribute to their perseverance, but their cause would be significantly helped by passage of the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act which I have proposed.
My legislation makes the attainment of U.S. citizenship possible for those men, women, and children who served in the Special Guerrilla Units, by waiving the English language test and residency requirement. This is necessary because learning English has been the greatest obstacle for the Hmong patriots, as written characters for the Hmong language have only been introduced recently, and whatever chances most Hmong who served may have had to learn a written language were greatly disrupted by time spent fighting alongside U.S. forces.
Many of the Hmong who did survive in the battlefields of their homeland and made it to the U.S. are tragically separated from their family members. This bill would waive the residency requirement for those who scaled in order to speed up the process of family reunification. Finally and most importantly, beyond the English or residency issues, the fundamental point to be considered is that current law permits aliens or non-citizen nationals who served honorably during World War I, World War II, the Korean Conflict, and the Vietnam War to be naturalized regardless of age, period of residence, or physical presence in the U.S. There is a well-established U.S. precedent of modifying naturalization requirements and attaining citizenship for military service, recently reaffirmed by passage of special legislation granting citizenship to those who served in the Filipino Scouts during World War II.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This bill granting U.S. citizenship to the Hmong would only affect individuals who reside legally in the United States. It would not open new immigration channels. Nor would the legislation give Hmong people who served in the Special Guerrilla Forces veteran's status or make them eligible for veteran's benefits.
The Lao-Hmong patriots have passed a more important test for citizenship than the INS English language or civics test. The Hmong were tested by risking their lives. Now it is time for Congress and the President to recognize that test of sacrifice and to give the Hmong the honor, dignity, and recognition they deserve by accepting them as our fellow citizens. Only then will we finally be able to say that the Hmong are home in America.
Again, I would like to thank the Chairman and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify before you today.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Mink, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Dooley, the Lao Veterans of America, the National Asian and Pacific American Legal Consortium, and Mr. Shackley follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PATSY T. MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my support for H.R. 371, the Hmong Naturalization Act of 1997. This Act would help naturalize these veterans who bravely sacrificed their lives to serve and defend our interests in the Vietnam Conflict.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When called upon to join forces with the United States, these veterans did so with honor and resilience. This was done at great sacrifice to themselves, their families and their entire community. Between 10,000 and 20,000 Hmong were killed in combat related incidents and over 100,000 had to flee to refugee camps and other nations to survive.
The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997 would help achieve appropriate recognition for Hmong patriots as well as aid the process of family reunification. This bill simply puts the attainment of citizenship within better reach by allowing these veterans to take the citizenship test with the assistance of an interpreter and by waiving the five year residency requirement. Many Hmong I am told have been unable to pass the required citizenship test due to their difficulty with the English language and the naturalization residency requirements. U.S. immigration policy supports these accommodations. Many elderly and disabled legal residents today are allowed to forgo the English requirement when naturalizing. In addition, aliens or non-citizen nationals who served honorably during WWI, WWII the Korean Conflict, and the Vietnam Conflict have been allowed to be naturalized regardless of period of residence or physical presence in the United States.
We took the opportunity in 1990 to acknowledge the contributions and sacrifices of the Philippine veterans who bravely fought along side American forces in World War II. We must do so again with the Hmong veterans.
———
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997. I appreciate your willingness to consider my views.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The purpose of this legislation is to help expedite the naturalization of Hmong and other Lao veterans who served and fought alongside the United States in special Guerrilla Units established by the CIA in Laos during the Vietnam War. This bill officially recognizes the service of Hmong and other Lao veterans who sacrificed and loyally fought for America and its principles of freedom and democracy. Specifically, H.R. 371 waives the English language test and the residency requirements for Hmongs who served, as well as their spouses and widows.
Current law permits aliens or noncitizens who served honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces during wartime to be naturalized regardless of age, period of U.S. residence, or physical presence in the United States. However, expedited naturalization does not apply to Hmong and Lao veterans and their families because of the covert status of their work. Additionally, H.R. 371 would grant U.S. citizenship to Hmong veterans who reside legally in the United States.
Thousands of Hmong men, women, and children fought and sacrificed their lives in combat alongside the U.S. Armed Forces in units recruited, organized, and trained by the U.S. Government. Enactment of H.R. 371 gives well-deserved recognition to those Hmong soldiers who served and came to the aid of the United States during the Vietnam War. The Hmong people who now reside in my district in my home state of California, as well as those who live in communities across our great nation, should be honored with passage of the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Again, thank you for this opportunity to address the Subcommittee.
———
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony in support of H.R. 371, The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997.
As you know, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 contains a provision that will make legal residents, with a few exceptions, ineligible to receive SSI benefits. This will adversely affect the Hmong people who now live in the U.S. These people were forced to leave Vietnam after cooperating with our government during the Vietnam War. Many elderly and disabled Hmong veterans and their dependents face, under current law, a cessation of their benefits on August 22, 1997. H.R. 371 would waive the English language requirement for Hmong veterans allowing many of these elderly and disabled veterans to obtain U.S. citizenship and thus avoid the cutting-off of their SSI benefits.
Though not considered veterans by our government, during the Vietnam War the Hmong of Laos were engaged in covert operations directed by the Central Intelligence Agency. These Special Forces teams aided our efforts tremendously during the Southeast Asian conflict, but, at great cost and personal loss to themselves. Many of the Hmong lost their lives, suffered innumerable casualties, and lost their homeland to Communist forces. After the war, the Hmong were forced to live in refugee camps, many in substandard conditions, and were later brought to our country as political refugees.
The process of assimilation to the United States has been especially difficult for the Hmong. One major setback for many, is that their command of the English language is insufficient to successfully complete the naturalization process. This is partly because, up until the 1950's, the Hmong did not have a written language, which has made learning to speak, read, and write the English language extremely difficult. Further, the English learning process has been stymied by the high rate of illiteracy among the Hmong in their own native language. Educational opportunities in their homeland, for the majority of the Hmong who were brought to the United States as political refugees, were seriously undermined as a result of the war-ravaged years in Laos.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We must offer the Hmong veterans an opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship. They have sacrificed greatly for our country and we must be willing as a matter of simple decency to provide assistance to them. Therefore, I strongly recommend that this committee pass H.R. 371.
———
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LT. COL. WANGYEE VANG, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, LAO VETERANS OF AMERICA, INC.
Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my deepest gratitude to you and the distinguished members of the Immigration Subcommittee for holding this crucial hearing on H.R. 371, The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997. For many years, the Hmong people have enjoyed the staunch and tireless support of Congressman Bill McCollum, Congressman Henry Hyde, Congressman Steve Chabot, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and many other members of the Judiciary Committee in the struggle against genocide and human rights violations in communist Laos. We are, indebted to Congressman Bruce Vento for his leadership role in introducing this important legislation that, if enacted, will help Hmong veterans who faithfully served in the U.S. Secret Army in Laos finally become U.S. citizens.
Because of a number of key individuals, many Hmong veterans and their refugee families are fortunate to enjoy freedom in the United States of America and to attend this historic occasion before the U.S. Congress. I would like to mention Major General Vang Pao, former commander of the U.S. Secret Army in Laos; Theodore G. Shackley, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Station Chief in Laos and South Vietnam; Mr. Philip Smith, former Legislative Assistant for U.S. Congressman Don Ritter and Washington Director for the Lao Veterans of America; Brigadier General Paul Carroll, USAF–Ret.; Major General Ronald Markarian, USA–Ret; Colonel James Arthur, USAF–Ret.; Jack Matthews, former CIA officer in Laos; Dr. Jane Hamilton-Merritt, distinguished journalist and scholar; and, other dedicated individuals.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, the Lao Veterans of America, Inc. (LVA), like the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), represents veterans who served the United States honorably. It is the largest veterans organization of its kind in the United States and includes tens of thousands of Hmong and Lao veterans and their families who played a critical role in the U.S. covert war in Laos and Vietnam. It is a non-profit corporation—with chapters organized throughout the United States in states such as Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington and Wisconsin. The LVA membership include significant numbers of women who served in combat, and combat support roles.
The LVA and its work have been honored by Members of Congress as well as current and former U.S. military and intelligence officials. Members of the LVA have been presented the Vietnam Veterans National Medal as well as other military honors. The LVA has received bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for its efforts. It has been singled out with Congressional awards and citations as well as being honored in Congressional Record statements. In recent years, the Hmong and Lao veterans—and their leadership—have also been cited in Congressional hearing testimony by former CIA Director William Colby and by Dr. Jane Hamilton Merritt.
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Committee Members, just last month, on May 14–15, after over two decades of silence since the end of the Vietnam War, the Hmong and Lao veterans who served in the U.S. Secret Army were honored for the first time nationally at the Vietnam War Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The national news media recorded this historic occasion—''The Lao Veterans of America National Recognition Day.'' I would urge the Chairman and Members of this committee who did not have the opportunity to attend these national recognition and memorial services to review the public record about these events. Then, please join us in visiting Arlington National Cemetery. The monument that the Department of Defense and Arlington National Cemetery authorized reads: ''Dedicated to the U.S. Secret Army, Laos 1961–1973. In memory of the Hmong and Lao combat veterans and their American advisors who served freedom's cause in Southeast Asia. Their patriotic valor and loyalty in the defense of liberty and democracy will never be forgotten. You will never be forgotten (In Lao and Hmong), Lao Veterans of America, May 15, 1997.''
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Committee Members, I would urge you to carefully examine the newly declassified information regarding the heroic sacrifices that Hmong special units made on behalf of U.S. national security interests.
Secret, classified studies conducted by the defense policy think-tank RAND, for the Department of Defenses' (DOD) Advanced Research Projects Agency [(ARPA) since renamed DARPA] have recently been declassified. Organizing and Managing Unconventional War in Laos, 1962–1970, published in 1972, outlines the special case history of the Hmong tribal people. This and other RAND/DOD/ARPA studies reveal the critical role the Hmong played in support of U.S. clandestine and military activities in Laos—and how this force was specially created by the United States government. The unique role played by the Hmong in the U.S. Secret Army is important and relative to the legislation before the Subcommittee today.
Hmong of all ages—men, women and children fought and died alongside U.S. clandestine and military personnel in units recruited, organized, trained, funded, and paid by the United States CIA, U.S. Air Force and others agencies.
It is estimated that during the United State's involvement in the Vietnam conflict, 35,000 to 40,000 Hmong veterans and their families were killed in combat; 50,000 to 58,000 were wounded; and 2,500 to 3,000 were missing. When the United States withdrew from Southeast Asia, genocide followed the Hmong—thousands of Hmong were murdered by the Communists or fled to neighboring Thailand.
Edgar Buell, for U.S. AID/CIA official working with the U.S. Secret Army in Laos during the war years, said on 60 Minutes, on March 4, 1979: ''Everyone of them that died (Hmong), that was an American back home that didn't die, or one that was injured that wasn't injured. Somebody in nearly every Hmong family was either fighting or died from fighting.... They became refugees because we (United State Government) ... encouraged them to fight for us. I promised them myself: 'Have no fear, we will take care of you.' ''
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
About April 1975, the United States withdrew its troops from Indochina. From May 12–14, 1975, the CIA evacuated about 2,500 Hmong officers and their families from the secret base at Long Cheng in Laos (Headquarters of Major General Vang Pao—the combined base far the Hmong, CIA, Air America, and U.S. Air Force ''Ravens'') to the U.S. air base Namphong, Khonekene, Thailand. The rest of the Special Guerrilla Units (SGUs) and other special units who were left behind began to walk to the Mekong River and crossed to Thailand. Thousands of these soldiers and their families were killed by the Communists forces. During the evacuation and in subsequent years, thousands of Hmong and Lao veterans and their families were killed by Communist forces or died of starvation as they fled toward the security and freedom on the other shore of the Mekong river. Thousands drowned in the river before reaching the Thai border. Even today, despite official denials at senior levels of the Pathet Lao government, the Communist regime in Laos continues to persecute and discriminate against the Hmong because of their role in the U.S. Secret Army.
Currently, the majority of these former soldiers and their refugee family members who are now in America cannot become U.S. citizens, because they lack sufficient English language skills to pass the naturalization test. The intense and protracted clandestine war in Laos and the exodus of the Hmong and Lao veterans into squalid refugees camps, or internment in reeducation camps, did not permit the veterans the opportunity to go to school. Once in America, they have led a difficult life—often in poverty-stricken inner-city conditions, raising large families, not permitting them sufficient opportunity to formally study English. Cultural barriers and the fact that a written Hmong language was not used in much of Laos until late in its history have compounded the problems of literacy for the Hmong and taking the U.S. citizenship test in English.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Committee members, the Hmong soldiers did not come to America as economic migrants; they came to America as political refugees because they were veterans of the U.S. Special Guerrilla Units and other special units in the United States' Secret Army in Laos. The United States has a special obligation to them.
Some 20,000 Hmong veterans—most elderly and aging—will likely achieve citizenship if you act positively on this legislation. On behalf of the Hmong and Lao veterans, I ask that this be done so that America can honorably close this chapter in its history and honor the commitments and pledges it made to care for the Hmong people—and not forsake them.
Thank you.
———
[The Washington Post, Tuesday, May 20, 1997]
DEBTS TO THE HMONG
To anyone with a memory and a commitment to keeping one's word, it is bound to come as a shock that the United States is still not fulfilling its obligations to its Hmong and Lao allies in the Vietnam War. Eleven years ago, Congress authorized the Vietnam Veterans National Medal for the now-American survivors of the secret army that helped America fight its battles in Laos in 1961–73 and that paid dearly for it. Yet only the other day was the medal actually bestowed on the few thousand veterans of that army who had gathered in Washington. In a march meant to recall their earlier escape across the Mekong River to Thailand, the Hmong group crossed the Potomac to the grave of John F. Kennedy, the first American president their units had served.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Hmong or ''Meo,'' and Lao recruits formed under CIA direction at a time when their very presence and role were officially denied. Diverting large numbers of North Vietnamese soldiers from their primary (American) targets, the secret army gathered intelligence, protected U.S. navigational sites and rescued hundreds of downed American pilots. In turn, the United States took on specific protective obligations and of course an overwhelming moral obligation. These debts were fulfilled only raggedly when Communist North Vietnam swept over Laos. Hmong and Lao soldiers and the families were alternately repressed by the victorious forces and forced into exile. Some 135,000 now live in the United States.
Their current complaints go well beyond the tardy receipt of medals for their valor. A concern for their kin has made them advocates of an American policy to press the Laotian government harder to ensure fair treatment of those left behind and to begin Hmong-language broadcasts on the new American-supported Radio Free Asia. They also protest the recent immigration-law changes that limit benefits to non-citizens, including elderly Hmong who have been unable to learn English for the citizenship exam.
In Arlington Cemetery, the Hmong unveiled a memorial to their combat veterans and American advisers. In the Lao and Hmong languages the writing on the monument states, ''You will never be forgotten.'' They almost were.
———
PREPARED STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CONSORTIUM
The National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (the ''Consortium'') is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization to advancing and protecting the civil rights of the nation's approximately 8.8 million Asian Pacific Americans. The Consortium and its three affiliates—the Asian Law Caucus in San Francisco, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York City, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California in Los Angeles—collectively have over fifty years of experience in providing legal services and community outreach and education to immigrants and refugees in such areas as public benefits, naturalization, language rights, and voting rights. In addition, the Consortium works to protect and advance the rights of immigrants and refugees through advocacy, public policy development, and litigation.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
INTRODUCTION
The Consortium supports H.R. 371, introduced by Representative Bruce Vento, as an important and necessary first step toward recognizing the tremendous service and sacrifice of the Hmong and Laotian soldiers who fought on behalf of the U.S. government in the Vietnam War. During the War, tens of thousands of Hmong and Lao soldiers were recruited by the CIA to serve in special guerrilla forces fighting the North Vietnamese and the Communist government in Laos. Fighting alongside American troops, these soldiers performed such valiant acts as rescuing downed American pilots, preventing thousands of U.S. forces from ambush by North Vietnamese troops, and defending critical U.S. intelligence sites. Between 10,000 and 20,000 Hmong and Laotian soldiers lost their lives in service to the U.S. government.
When the war ended, the Hmong and Laotian fled their country in order to avoid persecution by the communist government, with nearly 100,000 of them resettling in the United States as refugees. During the war, the U.S. government promised safe haven to these soldiers and their families, should the U.S. lose the war. Many of them believed they would gain American citizenship. Now, many soldiers and their families feel betrayed and forgotten.
H.R. 371 is an important first step in the government's keeping of its promise to these veterans, and to the families whose fathers, sons, and brothers died fighting for democracy. This bill would allow Hmong and Laotian veterans and their spouse or widow to take their citizenship exam with the assistance of an interpreter.
In addition to H.R. 371, the Consortium would urge Congress to work towards identifying and eliminating other barriers which prevent Hmong and Laotian veterans from attaining citizenship, such as the civics examination. For many, the civics test poses an insurmountable barrier, even if they are able to take it in their native language.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 371 WILL HELP ERADICATE BARRIERS TO NATURALIZATION
Among the different Asian Pacific American ethnic subgroups, the Hmong and Laotian have the highest numbers of those not yet naturalized. 60.4% of the Hmong, and 66.1% of the Laotian are still legal permanent residents, as compared to 29.6% of Filipino, 39.2% of Chinese, and 43.3% of Koreans who are legal permanent residents.(see footnote 1)
The major barriers to naturalizing for many of the Hmong and Laotian veterans are related to their high illiteracy rate and lack of formal education, which prevents them from learning the English needed to pass the citizenship exam. Several factors have contributed to this situation. First, Hmong was not a written language until about 40 years ago, leaving many within the community who were never taught to read or write in their own language. Second, the war interrupted formal education, further contributing to the high illiteracy rate. Soldiers did not have access to any formal education, since children as young as 10 years old were recruited to serve in the special guerrilla units, with many dedicating up to 15 years of their life to military service. Their inability to read and write even in their native language has made learning English difficult, if not impossible for most.
In addition to issues of literacy and education, these veterans have reached an age where learning a new language is more difficult. Many also came in with mental and physical disabilities acquired as a result of the war, making it extremely difficult for them to learn a new language.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Waiving the English requirement is a necessary first step towards eradicating the barriers which have prevented many of the Hmong and Laotian veterans from naturalizing, and the Consortium would therefore urge members of Congress to support H.R. 371.
ADDITIONAL BARRIERS AND MEASURES TO CONSIDER
In addition to H.R. 371, the Consortium would urge Congress to consider other measures which will ensure that Hmong and Laotian veterans may attain the citizenship status they deserve. For instance, the civics exam continues to pose an insurmountable barrier for some. Given their lack of formal education, age and disabilities, memorizing all the laws and American history to pass the civics test is extremely difficult, if not impossible for many. Congress should consider measures which would waive not only the English requirement, but the civics requirement us well.
CONCLUSION
Congress must not abandon the Hmong and Laotian veterans who sacrificed their lives for this country, and must live up to its promises and commitment to assist these soldiers and their families in their struggle to become citizens, and ultimately to live a decent life in the United States. H.R. 371 is an important step in the right direction, by helping to confer upon these veterans the U.S. citizenship status they have earned, and which they deserve.
———
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THEODORE G. SHACKLEY, GLEN ECHO, MD
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prior to arriving in Vientiane, Laos in July 1966 to assume duties as CIA's senior officer in that country, I had an opportunity to review appropriate policy documents on the war in Southeast Asia. This revealed that in 1961 Washington had concluded the Geneva Accords were not going to bring peace to Indochina. President Eisenhower was so concerned about this reality that on 19 January 1961 he told his successor, John F. Kennedy, that Laos was ''the key to the entire area of Southeast Asia'' and might require the introduction of American combat troops to protect our national interests in the region.
President Kennedy took note of this advice. He decided to seek an approach that would be defensive in nature and would buy time. As a result, paramilitary specialists from CIA were tasked to develop a plan for checking Hanoi's expansion into Laos.
CIA subsequently put forth a recommendation that the United States arm one thousand Hmong under the command of Vang Pao, who was both a Royal Lao Army officer and a Hmong tribal leader. This proposal was approved in January 1961 by Assistant Secretary of State, J. Graham Parsons, Admiral Harry D. Felt, Commander in Chief Pacific Forces, arm Winthrop Brown, the American Ambassador in Laos. This decision launched America and its executive agent, the CIA, into over a decade long war In Laos.
Congress, in the period 1961–1973, appropriated and authorized the expenditure of funds which permitted the CIA-directed paramilitary forces in Laos to grow from one thousand to a force level ceiling of 40,000 by 1968. As the intensity of the Lao war grew, a disproportionate burden of the combat was carried by the Hmong. This, in part, can be attributed to the fact that, in the period 1961–1966, they were the natural inhabitants of the areas Hanoi wanted to seize. Equally important was their leaders, such as Vang Pao, had the courage to fight for a vision of a better life for future generations.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the period of my service in Laos, 1966–1968, a two-front war was imposed on us by Hanoi's expansionism. One front was in north Laos. This was a war of position and maneuver where the objective was to hold or gain population and terrain. In a tactical sense, this meant pinning down two North Vietnamese divisions and keeping them out of combat in South Vietnam against American forces. The Hmong fought bravely and suffered heavy casualties to achieve this objective.
The second front was the Lao Panhandle. This was a war of infiltration and attrition. Its objective was to slow the flow of North Vietnamese men and materiel down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. This reduced the combat effectiveness of the forces that Hanoi could put into battle in South Vietnam. The burden of this war was carried by the Lao.
Throughout the war, CIA's paramilitary forces collected intelligence, used it in combat operations to tie down some 50,000 North Vietnamese forces in Laos, rescued downed American pilots and protected sensitive American installations at remote mountain tops like Phu Pha Ti. The latter installation directed all-weather, bombing of North Vietnam and was critical to the conduct of the air war over North Vietnam.
It was partially through this paramilitary force that America projected power into distant land and pursued its foreign policy objectives. The Lao troops who fought with us and on our behalf in order to maintain independence for themselves and their neighbors deserve an opportunity to seek a modicum of success in the land that, by word and deed, urged them to take up arms.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That opportunity for some 20,000 heads of households can best be granted via the prompt passage of H.R. 371. Its impact on the well-being of the former paramilitary forces can be elaborated on by such experts as Colonel Wangyee Vang and Philip Smith of the Lao Veterans of America organization.
I urge you to bring to a successful conclusion the noble effort that will permit America to be generous to its wartime allies from Laos.
Mr. SMITH. I suspect we have some friends in the back of the room. Are these individuals—and I don't know if they're officially with you or not—are these individuals who did, in fact, fight in Southeast Asia?
Mr. VENTO. Yes, they are. They are part of the Lao veterans. I was not aware that they would be here this morning, but I'm very pleased to see that they are present.
Mr. SMITH. Why don't we ask them to stand, if they would. I see that many of them are seated in the back of the room. If those of you all who are veterans would stand up, we'd like to welcome you all, and be able to identify you as well.
OK, thank you very much.
Bruce, thank you.
Let me start off—and I just have a question or two for you, and you alluded to it in your last few sentences—one of the problems that we will wrestle with as a subcommittee, if we move forward, is trying to specifically identify those individuals who, in fact, fought alongside American citizens who were in Vietnam and who have in many instances sacrificed greatly. How is it that we can determine who fought and who would, therefore, be due some special consideration by Congress?
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, on page 3, I indicate the matter of proof that would be necessary, in other words, the review of refugee reprocessing documents given; a high commissioner on refugees has the information with regards to camps; they've kept some records. The affidavit and alien superior officer, if you can establish who the officers were and they would make an affidavit, would be a possibility. There are some original documents; there are not payroll records per se, Mr. Chairman. I did have a briefing with some of the Central Intelligence Agency. So there are a number of—and of course I put down, ''The service shall liberally be construed.'' I hope you didn't mind me using that word, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH. Fact of the matter is, it did give me some legitimate concern, but we'll discuss that later on.
Mr. VENTO. I could think up another synonym for that——
Mr. SMITH. I'm still concerned about your comments about what you're trying to do to that city councilman who's running back home. [Laughter.]
Mr. VENTO. Well, he's got——
Mr. SMITH. When is that election, by the way?
Mr. VENTO. That's his fault, Mr. Chairman, is that he's got an uphill fight, but we encourage participation, and we hope that in the competition of ideas that he'll put forth some good ones, so—it's a nonpartisan race, incidentally.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. I understand, I understand. Mr. Vento, I don't have any other questions, and I'll recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I think I'll pass in the interest of time, too; I know Mr. Vento has a lot to do, and——
Mr. VENTO. Thanks for your support, Mel.
Mr. SMITH. The gentleman from Indiana? No further questions, Mr. Vento. Thank you for your testimony. We appreciate your contributions.
Mr. VENTO. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. We'd like to have our second panel member step forward, Louis Crocetti, Jr., Associate Commissioner for Examinations, Immigration and Naturalization Service. As I understand it, Mr. Crocetti, you would not object if the third panel joined you.
Mr. CROCETTI. That's correct.
Mr. SMITH. OK. So, in that case, we would like to invite the third panel to come forward. Is it Susan Haigh?
Ms. HAIGH. Haigh.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Susan Haigh, Ramsey County commissioner, St. Paul, MN; Mark Pratt, and Mark Krikorian, executive director, Center for Immigration Studies.
And Mr. Crocetti, if you would begin.
STATEMENT OF LOUIS D. CROCETTI, JR., ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR EXAMINATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. CROCETTI. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997.
The legislation is intended to expedite the naturalization of aliens who served for the United States with special guerrilla units in Laos during the Vietnam conflict by waiving the English language requirement of section 312(a) of the Immigration Nationality Act and designate the Hmong guerrillas as having served honorably in active duty status so that they can also qualify under section 329 of the act.
Hmong guerrillas provided service to the U.S. Armed Forces during the Vietnam conflict. Due to this service, these individuals were persecuted in their native country at the conclusion of the Vietnam conflict, many of whom were granted refugee status to come to the United States.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The requirements for eligibility to naturalize, particularly as it relates to the English language, are a significant barrier for the Hmong who are a distinct ethnic group who lived in the isolated mountain regions of Vietnam and Lao. While the Hmong have their own language, their language had no written form until recently. This makes the English language requirement as it relates to possessing the ability to read and write ordinary words in English particularly prohibitive.
The INS takes no position as to whether Congress should amend the Immigration Nationality Act to provide exceptions to the Hmong. However, H.R. 371, as currently written, does set a precedent in that it would establish naturalization waiver categories for a specific group of people. It would also be problematic to implement.
Allow me to briefly review what H.R. 371 does and does not afford the Hmong. Section 2 of the bill waives the English proficiency requirement of section 312(a)(1) of the act. We note, however, that no mention is made of the requirement at section 312(a)(2) regarding an understanding of U.S. civics; thus, we interpret it to require a knowledge of the government and history of the United States, as it does of U.S. military veterans.
In addition, the group that is qualified for special treatment in section 2, paragraph 1, refers to persons who, ''served with the special guerrilla units operating from a base in Laos.'' This statement is insufficiently defined, and does not specifically identify that targeted group. The bill is cited as the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act, but the qualified individuals are not identified by Hmong ethnicity. According to the proposed definition, a person of any ethnicity would qualify for the English language waiver if they served with the guerrilla unit, even if they do not fit into the special category of individuals who were prevented from learning English by the unique circumstance of their native language having no written form. The definition also includes only those guerrillas who were based in Laos. It would seem unfortunate if there were other ethnic Hmong guerrillas who were excluded from the special provision by coincidence of their unit having been based in Vietnam.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Qualification of all spouses and widows in section 2 is overinclusive. Some Hmong guerrillas may have married since their entry to the United States. There is no reason to believe that these spouses or widows would require the English language waiver. Section 3 of H.R. 371 establishes documentation requirements for proof of service with a special guerrilla unit. The language of the section, however, is vague, and presents considerable hurdles for the service to overcome in accepting the documentation at face value.
In essence, a naturalization applicant under this provision of law would simply have to present documents claiming to have served in a special guerrilla unit. Current statutory requirements for other former or active duty military require certification of service by the Department of Defense, short of military records, the only confirmation for the Service would be if the applicant was admitted to the United States as a refugee from Southeast Asia, and would have been old enough to perform military service during the Vietnam conflict. It is the experience of the Service in implementing programs which rely on affidavits such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that fraud may be prevalent.
Lastly, the Service notes concern that H.R. 371 establishes a waiver for both residency and English for a certain group of people. To date, the Congress has elected not to amend the act which waives provisions aimed at any particular group of people attempting to go through the naturalization process, but rather individuals who meet certain criteria. For example, section 312 offers waivers from English and civics requirements only for persons with debilitating mental or physical conditions, and from English for persons with specific age and years as residency combinations. The inclusion of H.R. 371 could set a precedent for other groups attempting to gain waiver categories who do not share the unique situation of the Hmong.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crocetti follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOUIS D. CROCETTI, JR., ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR EXAMINATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 1997. The legislation is intended to expedite the naturalization of aliens who served for the United States with special guerrilla units in Laos during the Vietnam Conflict by waiving the English language requirement of section 312(a) of the Act, and designates the Hmong guerrillas as having served honorably in an active-duty status in the military, air, or naval forces of the United States during the period from February 28, 1961, to September 18, 1978, in accordance with section 329 of the Act.
Hmong guerrillas provided service to the United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam Conflict. Due to this service to the United States, these individuals were persecuted in their native country at the conclusion of the Vietnam Conflict, many of whom were granted refugee status to come to the United States. The requirements for eligibility to naturalize, particularly the requirements as to understanding the English language, are a significant barrier for the Hmong. The Hmong are a distinct ethnic group who lived in isolated mountain regions of Vietnam and Laos. While the Hmong have their own language, their language had no written form until recently. This makes the English language requirement as it relates to possessing the ability to read and write ordinary words in English for naturalization particularly prohibitive for the Hmong.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The INS takes no position as to whether the Congress should amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide special exceptions for the Hmong for the purpose of naturalization. However, H.R. 371 as currently written, does set a precedent in that it would establish waiver categories for a certain group of people attempting to naturalize. H.R. 371 would also be problematic to implement. Allow me to briefly review what H.R. 371 does and does not afford the Hmong.
Section 2 of the bill waives the English proficiency requirement of the INA at section 312(a)(1). We note, however, that no mention is made of the requirement found at section 312(a)(2) regarding an understanding of United States civics. Thus, we interpret it to require a knowledge of the government and history of the United States.
In addition, the group that is qualified for the special treatment in section 2, paragraph (1) refers to persons who ''served with a special guerrilla unit operating from a base in Laos.'' This statement is insufficiently defined and does not specifically identify the targeted group. The bill is cited as the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act but the qualified individuals are not identified by their status as Hmong who served with United States armed forces in Vietnam. According to the proposed definition, a person of any ethnicity would qualify for the English language waiver if they served with a guerrilla unit, even if they do not fit into the special category of individuals who are prevented from learning English by the unique circumstance of their native language having no written form. The definition also includes only those guerrillas who were based in Laos. It would seem unfortunate if there were ethnic Hmong guerrillas who were excluded from the special provision by the coincidence of their unit having been based in Vietnam.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Qualification of all spouses and widows in section 2, paragraph (1) is over inclusive. Some Hmong guerrillas may have married since their entry to the United States. There is no reason to believe that these spouses/widow would require the English language waiver simply based on their marriage.
Section 3 of H.R. 371 establishes documentation requirements for proof of service with a special guerrilla unit. The language of the section, however, is vague and presents considerable hurdles for the service to overcome in accepting the documentation at face value. In essence, a naturalization applicant under this provision of law would simply have to present documents claiming to have served in a special guerrilla unit. Current statutory requirements for other former or active duty military requires certification of service by the Department of Defense. Short of actual military records, the only confirmation for the Service would be if the applicant was admitted to the United States as a refugee from southeast Asia and would have been old enough to perform military service during the Vietnam Conflict. It is the experience of the Service in implementing programs which rely on affidavits (such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) that fraud may be prevalent.
Lastly, the Service notes concern that H.R. 371 establishes a waiver for both residency and English for a certain group of people. To date, the Congress has elected not to amend the Act with waiver provisions aimed at any particular group of people attempting to go through the naturalization process, but rather individuals who meet certain criteria. For example, section 312 offers waivers from English and civics requirements only for persons with debilitating mental or physical conditions and from English for persons with specific age and years of residency combinations. The inclusion of the language in H.R. 371 could set a precedent for other groups attempting to gain waiver categories who do not share the unique situation of the Hmong.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill. I will take any questions you may have at this time.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Crocetti.
Ms. Haigh.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN HAIGH, COMMISSIONER, RAMSEY COUNTY, MN
Ms. HAIGH. Thank you very much. I'm Susan Haigh, and I'm chair of the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, and I'm very pleased to be here to support Congressman Vento's introduction of the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act.
Ramsey County is home to just under a half a million people, and about 25,000 Hmong make Ramsey County their home. We've really been enriched, both economically and culturally, by their presence in our community. Every year, we set new records for high school graduates, college graduates, new Hmong businesses, new Hmong homeowners, Hmong lawyers, doctors, teachers, police officers. We recently elected a school board member who is Hmong in St. Paul, and, in fact, in the recent year three of the seven high schools in the city of St. Paul were led by valedictorians who were Hmong-speaking Hmong natives. So, they're an enriching presence in our community.
And I just wanted to share with you an invitation I received recently that was sent to me by a family of four Hmong brothers, and it's a graduation celebration of their children, their grandchildren, their sons and daughter-in-law, and there are 32 of them who received high school, technical, college, or graduate degrees just this spring. So, I think it's a fair indication of their strength and vitality in our community.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just a short walk from my office in downtown St. Paul is a commercial strip that 10 years ago was abandoned, virtually abandoned, faced with boarded-up windows and facing economic decay, and today it's a very vital economic center because of the presence of Hmong and Southeast Asian entrepreneurs. A local banker tells me that, of the 300 loans he has made along this commercial strip in the past 10 years, not a single loan has resulted in default.
These impressive successes of the Hmong in my county, though, are really not why I'm here. There are many immigrant groups who are successful immigrants in our community, but I'm urging you to support this act because to me the Hmong have made a lasting and a vital contribution to our country, and they have made it to our country when we needed it most, during a very difficult war.
In order to stop the expansion of the Vietnamese communist influence in Laos and to disrupt the Ho Chi Minh Trail, supply routes from the north to South Vietnam, America actually recruited the Hmong to fight for us, and they responded with unparalleled valor and bravery, and because they fought, thousands of U.S. soldiers did not have to fight and die in defense of Laos. The Hmong paid a very heavy price for their support of the United States. Estimates that we have are that nearly one-tenth of the Hmong population was killed between the years of 1960 to 1975. Many of those who did survive were wounded.
When the fighting stopped, the Hmong were a hated enemy in their own country. One hundred and fifty thousand were forced to flee to refugee camps in Thailand, and eventually to the safety of other countries, and particularly the United States. When they were in Laos, the Hmong lived a very rural and agrarian lifestyle. Little had changed there in the past 250 years. In fact, a written Hmong language was not developed until the 1950's by western missionaries. The vast majority of the Hmong generation who grew up fighting in this war for America never became literate in their own language, let alone in the English language, and the illiteracy is a daunting barrier for the many older Hmong who want to become citizens.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just imagine what it would be like to be an older Hmong patriot who is seeking to be a citizen in this country. You would have faced 15 years of unremitting war, injury, suffering and loss; forced exile from your homeland that you could never return to; the death, the disappearance, the maiming of your family and friends, and perhaps years in a refugee camp. We should be able to understand from this the high incidence of post-traumatic-stress disorder and the depression that haunts so many of the Hmong veterans, and makes it even more difficult for them to learn the English language so that they can become citizens.
But I really want to put human faces on this story, and I want to tell you about two Hmong people who live in my county: Kao Yang and Phia Thao. Kao Yang was recruited to fight on behalf of the United States when he was 13 years old. He was a mere boy. He would not have been old enough to fight in the American army had he been fighting for the U.S. Government. At 14, a rifle blew up in his face, blinding him in one eye, leaving him with very limited sight in the other. He continued to fight for our country. He suffered severe shrapnel wounds in his neck, and is now undergoing terrible nightmares and post-traumatic-stress disorder. He's approximately in his midthirties, married; he has six children. He has severe memory loss. It's very unlikely that he will ever learn enough English to become an American citizen.
And then there's the story of Phia Thao. She's a widow of a Hmong soldier who was killed in the war. He was in flight from Laos after the end of the war, and as she was fleeing, she had her 5-year-old child shot as he was running to her arms. She never recovered from this trauma. She doesn't speak; she doesn't respond to people around her; there's no indication that Phia will ever qualify to become a citizen under our requirements. Kao and Phia gave as much as any American did during the Vietnam War: the life of a husband, the life of a child, and now permanent disability. Can we not give them the recognition they deserve and make them American citizens?
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To me this passage of this act is really a matter of justice and decency. It's an indication that the American people and the American Government will recognize the Hmong people for the work they did for us. It will be a clear statement by our Government and by all of us that we acknowledge the Hmong as true American patriots; that we are honored to count them as our fellow citizens.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Haigh follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN HAIGH, COMMISSIONER, RAMSEY COUNTY, MN
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Sue Haigh and I am Chairperson of the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners. I was elected to the Board in 1994 and, before assuming public office, I worked in the Ramsey County Attorneys Office, serving as chief legal counsel to the County Board, chief deputy prosecutor, and managing attorney. Just a short walk from my office in downtown St. Paul is a two-mile stretch of University Avenue that, 10 years ago, featured boarded up windows and a general aura of economic decay. Today, that two-mile stretch is one of the more vibrant and thriving areas of the city, thanks—in large part—to the Hmong and other Southeast Asian entrepreneurs.
I am very pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 1997. Ramsey County is home to over 25,000 Hmong, and we have been enriched both economically and culturally by their presence. Every year, we are setting new records for the number of new Hmong high school and college graduates, new Hmong businesses opened, new Hmong homeowners, new Hmong lawyers, doctors, teachers, and social workers. In 1994, three of the seven high school valedictorians in St. Paul were Hmong. We have a Hmong school board member and Hmong police officers and Hmong judges. Like other immigrant groups who came before them, the Hmong are seizing the opportunity provided them in America, and their efforts are a significant reason why we have so much optimism for the future of our County.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The impressive successes of the Hmong in Ramsey County is only one reason I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today. I urge you to pass the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act, not because of the contributions that the Hmong are currently making to the United States, but because of the deep and lasting contribution they and other Lao people made to our country and our servicemen when we needed them most.
In order to stem the expansion of Vietnamese Communist influence to Laos and to disrupt the Ho Chi Minh Trail supply route from North to South Vietnam, we recruited the Hmong to fight in our stead. The Hmong responded to our request with valor and bravery. They fought heroically and, because of their willingness to do so, uncountable numbers of U.S. soldiers did not have to fight and die in defense of Laos. The Hmong paid a very heavy price for their efforts. By some estimates, nearly 1/10 of the Hmong population was killed in the war between 1960 and 1975. Many more were grievously wounded. When it was all over, the Hmong were a hated enemy in their own country and well over 150,000 were forced to flee to refugee camps in Thailand, and eventually to the safety of other countries, most notably the United States.
The Hmong lived a rural, agrarian lifestyle in Laos that changed very little over the past 250 years. A written Hmong language was only developed by Western missionaries in the 1950's, so the vast majority of the Hmong generation that grew up fighting in the war never became literate in their own language. This has created a very difficult barrier for many in learning English and makes the achievements of the younger Hmong generations, raised in the refugee camps and in the United States, all the more impressive.
Add to that older Hmong veteran generation, the oppressive weight of 15 years or more of unremitting war, injury, suffering and loss, the tragedy of patriots forced to leave their homeland forever, the death or disappearance of countless friends and family, and it becomes easier to understand the high incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression that haunts so many Hmong veterans and so greatly affects their ability to learn and retain the necessary English and U.S. history to pass the citizenship test.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The sense of frustration felt by many of our Hmong veterans over the inability to make substantive progress toward U.S. citizenship has led to increasing talk of giving up or even suicide. Their inability to become citizens represents to them their failure to continue to be able to contribute to their families. Concern over the deteriorating emotional state of many Hmong veterans and widows has led Ramsey County to establish a Hmong Crisis Line to counsel, in the Hmong language, those who feel increasingly desperate and isolated.
I would like to tell you about Kao Yang who was recruited to fight on behalf of the U.S. when he was 13 years old. At age 14, a rifle blew up in his face blinding him in one eye and leaving only very limited sight in the other. Kao also suffers from shrapnel wounds in his neck and terrible nightmares almost nightly about the war. Kao is now in his mid-thirties, is married and has six children. Severe memory problems make it unlikely that he can retain enough English to become an American citizen.
I would like to tell you about Phia Thao, a widow of a Hmong soldier. Phia, in flight from Laos after the war, saw her 5-year-old child shot in the back as he ran for the protection of her arms. She has never recovered from this trauma. She does not speak and does not respond to people around her. There is no indication that Phia will ever qualify to become a citizen under current processing requirements, as her ability to learn English is significantly impaired.
I would like to tell you of many other Hmong in Ramsey County whose circumstances may preclude them from becoming a U.S. citizen even though they have served our country with distinction and honor for many years.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, here is yet another factor that has been even more painful for me to observe which compels me to view the passage of the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 1997 as a matter of justice. When I talk to the Hmong in Ramsey County, even those who are highly educated and sophisticated about life in the United States, there is a deep sense of pain that the incredible sacrifices paid by the Hmong in service to this country have seemingly gone unnoticed and unappreciated. Even in Ramsey County, where the Hmong have been such a strong presence for the past seventeen years, most of our native-born population do not know the great debt we owe to the Hmong and the countless American lives they saved through their own sacrifice.
Passage of the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act will stand as a clear statement by the government and people of the United States that we recognize the debt we owe to the Hmong veterans, that we acknowledge them as true American patriots, and that we are honored, as well we should be, to count them among our fellow citizens.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Haigh.
Mr. Pratt.
STATEMENT OF MARK S. PRATT, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. PRATT. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I'm delighted to be here in support of Congressman Vento's legislation.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For 15 years of my foreign service career—that's 1963 to 1978—I was charged with following Lao affairs including the activities of the Hmong special guerrilla units. They were, of course, under the leadership of Gen. Vang Pao for this entire period. I was sent to Laos in 1963 to handle political—military affairs. The 1962 Geneva Agreements were supposed to result in the neutralization of Laos in that the Vietnamese forces were to leave and the neutralist, Souvanna Phouma, was to preside over a coalition government. Very early on, however, it was clear that the Vietnamese did not intend to abide by their undertakings and Souvanna Phouma had to rely on the support of the United States and others who desired to contribute to his efforts to promote Lao neutrality.
Part of the support for Souvanna Phouma was in the form of military assistance to the neutralist forces and the Royal Lao Army. In addition, with Souvanna Phouma's authorization the special guerrilla units were supported by the United States more directly, but in a discreet and unacknowledged fashion. Since the Vietnamese denied their presence in Laos, Souvanna Phouma wished to have this kind of support be unavowed on our side in order to maintain the fabric of the Geneva Agreement. Hence, while the so-called ''secret war'' was a secret to no one, least of all the Vietnamese or the American press, there were a number of ways in which the U.S. support for the Hmong SGU's was handled differently from any other aspect of the Lao military, ways which resulted in a greater U.S. Government responsibility for these forces and the contribution which they made to the general war effort in the area, and also ways which made them in particular anathema to the North Vietnamese. Souvanna Phouma's wisdom in maintaining the ''Asian'' position of denial of this effort was vindicated when the Communists later took over all of the former French Indochina. The Lao transition was less traumatic than that of the Vietnamese or the Cambodians. This, of course, was not true for the Hmong.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As political-military officer in Vientiane from 1963 until January 1968, I was involved in discussions of the conduct of the war which included, at least in general terms, the contribution of the special guerrilla units. Operational control, of course, was in the hands of the CIA, but the interconnection with the regular Lao forces, including the neutralist forces and later the U.S. Air Force, were within my responsibility.
I traveled extensively through areas such as the Plain of Jars and Luang Prabang, where the contribution of the frontline battles of the Hmong against the Vietnamese provided a necessary defense to maintain the viability of the Lao Government. I traveled to the SGU headquarters many times and to a number of outposts on hills behind the Vietnamese forces, locations from which the Hmong mounted operations to rescue downed American airmen in Laos and across the border in Vietnam as well. They also provided defense for navigational assistance to American pilots, which added to the effectiveness and safety of U.S. Air Force operations in the northern sector.
My visits to Hmong areas included visits not only to recent battle sites, but also to villages and hospitals where the sacrifices of the troops and the civilians was clearly in evidence. I might note that this was not a regular army force, and, therefore, as you'll note, in the back of the room there are women who served right alongside the men, because the Vietnamese battle was not just against uniformed troops; it was against the entire people. Thirteen years old was—I shan't say an average age, but it was not at all an unusual age; some were even younger, and as I said, women also carried their share of the burden. Nowhere else in Indochina—and I also visited Vietnam and Cambodia—did I see any group of combatants fight harder, more effectively, and with greater courage, despite the terrible losses, than did the Hmong.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After nearly 5 years in Laos, I returned to Washington where I worked at the Lao desk in the State Department. Shortly after my return, the military situation called for an organizational change, and the Interagency Ad Hoc Group on Laos was set up and later added to the Vietnam Working Group to become the Ad Hoc Group on Indochina. Chaired in the State Department, this group coordinated the actions of State, Defense, and the CIA on behalf of the National Security Council under the National Security Adviser, Dr. Kissinger. One of the key issues and responsibilities was the support of the Hmong SGU, who were under pressure from increased North Vietnamese forces in Laos at the same time that the SGU numbers were being greatly reduced as a result of their very high casualties. With pressure on the Royal Capitol, the SGU were being asked to do even more. However, it was becoming clearer that those efforts to arrive at an agreement with North Vietnam on the Vietnam aspect of the war would also have a considerable impact on Laos.
In 1973, I participated in the final phase of the negotiations which led to the Act of the International Conference on Vietnam. I served as a liaison with the North Vietnamese, the South Vietnamese, the Lao, the Cambodians, and also the Chinese in connection with this conference and following this conference. Thus, I was usually able to keep track of the struggle of the Lao Hmong even after 1973, as well as the general deterioration of the situation in Vietnam and Cambodia, including the spinoff effect on Laos.
Following a medical problem, the Lao Prime Minister, Souvanna Phouma, was evacuated to France for medical treatment, and from conversations with him and his son who served as his aide-de-camp, it was clear that he was reading the U.S. situation accurately and was trying to work out a transition which would be the least harmful to his people. He realized that some, such as the Hmong, could not be protected by his efforts to the same extent, that they would be hunted down by the Vietnamese, and would have to leave.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'm sure he was more optimistic about the treatment awaiting most of the Lao civilians, if not military leaders, and I doubt he expected that such a large number of persons, including the royal family, would be sent to Sam Neua nominally for reeducation, but in fact to their death; instead Souvanna Phouma expected that the United States would show the same concern about rescuing the Hmong that the French had shown in 1954 about some of their special forces, such as the Tai Dam. He knew that, in addition to their contribution to Laos, the Hmong under Vang Pao provided services for the United States which earned for them a continuing American debt of gratitude.
With the passing of this legislation, we can belatedly make another small payment on the enormous debt we owe these courageous fighters who contributed so much to U.S. interests. The negative results of the U.S. actions in Indochina have been discussed without end since the 1970's, but the positive aspects of that struggle are awaiting the examination of historians. In the end, the U.S. Government will be judged also on how positively it fulfills its obligations to those for whom we assumed such a responsibility.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pratt follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK S. PRATT, WASHINGTON, DC
From 1963–1968, I was posted to the political section of the American Embassy in Vientiane, Laos to handle political and political and military affairs. Although I was more closely involved in the U.S. involvement with the regular forces of Laos, I was aware of much of the activity of the irregular forces in Laos, particularly those of General Vang Pao, which were the principle responsibilities of the CLA. While not involved operationally, I frequently visited the Vang Pao headquarters and a number of forward positions, sometimes escorting observers from Washington, as part of my general responsibility. I also participated in meetings connected with the Hmong contribution to the tieing down of Vietnamese forced in Laos, the rescuing of American airmen, and the protection of forward guidance posts assisting the USAF.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In Washington, I served as the chief representative for Laos on the Interagency ad hoc group on Indochina in the State Department from 1968–73. In this capacity, I was involved in the military planning and policy decisions concerning the U.S. involvement in the conduct of the military actions in Laos. This included attending the WSAG and 40 Committee meeting concerning Laos.
From 1973–1978, I was posted to the political section at the Embassy in Paris for the negotiations of the Act of the International Conference of Vietnam and subsequently, acted as the liaison with Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and China. In addition, I worked with the French government on the handling of refugees at the fall of Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Communist takeover of Laos.
For fifteen years of my Foreign Service career (1963–1978), I was charged with following Lao affairs, including the activities of the Hmong Special Guerrilla Units under the leadership of General Vang Pao. I was sent to Laos in 1963 to handle political and military affairs. The 1962 Geneva Agreements were supposed to result in the neutralization of Laos in that the Vietnamese were to leave and the Neutralist, Souvanna Phouma, was to preside over a coalition government. Very early on, however, it was clear that the Vietnamese did not intend to abide by their undertakings, and Souvanna Phouma had to rely on the support of the U.S. and others who desired to support his efforts to promote Lao neutrality.
Part of the support for Souvanna Phouma was military assistance for the Neutralist and Royal Army forces. In addition, with Souvanna Phouma's authorization, the SGU were supported by the U.S. more directly, but in a discreet and unacknowledged fashion. Since the Vietnamese denied their presence in Laos, Souvanna Phouma wished to have this support be unavowed in order to maintain the fabric of the Geneva Agreements. Hence, while the ''Secret War'' was a secret to no one, least of all the Vietnamese or the American press, there were a number of ways in which U.S. support for the Hmong SGU was handled differently from any other aspect of the Lao military—ways which resulted in a greater United States government responsibility for these forces and the contribution which they made to the general war effort in the area. Souvanna Phouma's wisdom in maintaining the ''Asian'' denial position was vindicated when the Communists later took over all of former French Indochina. The Lao transition was less traumatic for the general population than that in South Vietnam and Cambodia.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a political/military officer in Vientiane from 1963 until January 1968, I was involved in discussions of the conduct of the war which included at least in general terms, the contribution of the SGU. Although operational control was in the hands of the CIA, the interconnections with the regular Lao forces (including the Neutralist forces) and later the USAF, were within my responsibility.
I traveled extensively through areas such as the Plain of Jars and Luang Prabang where the contribution of the front line battles of the Hmong against the Vietnamese, provided a necessary defense to maintain the viability of the Lao government. I traveled to SGU headquarters and a number of outposts on hills behind the Vietnamese forces, locations from which the Hmong mounted operations to rescue downed American airmen in Laos and across the border into North Vietnam. They also provided defense for navigational assistance to American pilots which added to the effectiveness and safety of USAF operations. My visits to Hmong areas included visits, not only to recent battle sites, but also to villages and hospitals where the sacrifices of the troops and civilians were clearly in evidence. Nowhere else in Indochina—and I visited also Vietnam and Cambodia—did I see any group of combatants fight harder, more effectively, and with greater courage despite terrible losses, than the Hmong SGU.
After nearly five years in Laos, I returned to Washington where I worked at the Lao desk in the State Department. Shortly after my return, the military situation called for an organizational change and the Interagency Ad Hoc Group on Laos was set up and then later added to the Vietnam Working Group to become the Ad Hoc Group on Indochina. Chaired in the State Department, this group coordinated the actions of State, Defense, and CIA on behalf of the National Security Council under the National Security Advisor. One of the key issues and responsibilities was the support of the Hmong SGU, which were under pressure from increased North Vietnamese forces in Laos at the same time that SGU numbers were being greatly reduced as a result of their high casualties. With pressure on the Royal Capitol, the SGU were being asked to do even more. However, it was becoming clearer those efforts to arrive at an agreement with North Vietnam on the Vietnam aspect of the war would also have a considerable impact in Laos.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1973, I participate in the final phase of the negotiations which led to the Act of the International Conference on Vietnam. I served as the liaison with the North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, the Lao, the Cambodians, and also the Chinese in connection with this conference and following this conference. Thus, I was able to generally keep track of the struggle of the Lao-Hmong as well as the general deterioration of the situation in Vietnam and Cambodia including the spin off effect in Laos.
Following a medical problem, the Lao Prime Minister Souvanna Phouma was evacuated to France for medical treatment, and from conversations with him and his son, who served as his aide-decamp, it was clear that he was reading the U.S. situation accurately and was trying to work out a transition which would be the least harmful to his people. He realized that some, such as the Hmong, could not be protected to the same extent and that they would be hunted down by the Vietnamese and would have to leave. I am sure he was more optimistic about the treatment awaiting most of the Lao civilian if not military leaders, and I doubt he expected that such a large number of persons, including the Royal Family, would be sent to Sam Neua nominally for reeducation, but in fact to their death. Souvanna Phouma clearly expected that the USG would show the same concern about rescuing the Hmong SGU that the French had shown in 1954 about some of their special forces, such as Tai Dam. He knew that in addition to their contributions to Laos, the Hmong under Vang Pao had provided services for the U.S. which earned for them a continuing American debt of gratitude.
With the passing of this legislation, we can belatedly make another small payment on the enormous debt we owe these courageous fighters who contributed so much to U.S. interests. The negative results of the U.S. actions in Indochina have been discussed without end since the 1970's, but the positive aspects of that struggle are awaiting the examination of historians. In the end, the United States government will be judged also on how positively it fulfills its obligations to those for whom we assumed a responsibility.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pratt.
Mr. Krikorian.
STATEMENT OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Mark Krikorian, and I am executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the panel today about the possible implications of H.R. 371.
As a research organization, the center doesn't recommend that lawmakers vote for or against any specific piece of legislation, but I ask that members of this panel consider the full implications of this legislation before acting on it.
Others have highlighted the heroism of Hmong tribesman who fought against totalitarian aggression and who, after the Communist victory, were subjected to genocidal retaliation from Hanoi, most notoriously in the form of the ''yellow rain.'' I, too, laud the bravery of the Hmong in the defense of their homes and their freedom and have a special appreciation for their subsequent ordeal, my own grandparents having survived the first genocide of this bloody century.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It was for these reasons that the United States admitted thousands of Hmong refugees over the past 20 years. The 1990 census counted 90,000 and others have arrived since. There's a strong argument that our Nation had a responsibility to take in the Hmong after the Communist victories in Southeast Asia, given our involvement in organizing and supporting their military efforts. Providing our former allies the safe haven in the face of an enemy extermination campaign would, thus, seem to have been the right thing to do.
The bill under consideration, however, carries this responsibility further. It would eliminate two of the requirements: a minimum period of residency and a knowledge of the English language, which are intended to ensure that new citizens are sufficiently rooted and invested in the United States to be entrusted with a permanent role in our future.
The House of Representatives was instrumental in the recent tightening of the procedures for naturalization, prompting the Immigration and Naturalization Service to, among other things, wait for the completion of FBI fingerprint checks before proceeding with an alien's citizenship application. This and other measures are helping to safeguard the integrity of one of our most important institutions: the granting of membership in our Nation to outsiders. Though many challenges remain, I am confident that the vigilance of Members of this House, along with the ongoing efforts of the INS, will make sure that the process of minting new Americans will not be further compromised.
However, H.R. 371 and other measures like it which are before the House would appear to fly in the face of these efforts by promoting the further cheapening of U.S. citizenship. The contradiction would be stark between this House's insistence on tougher procedures for those who have met normal citizenship requirements and the simultaneous extension of special treatment to other groups. The mixed signals sent by such a move would further muddy America's image in the eyes of current and future immigrants and contribute to the growing cynicism plaguing our polity.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Beyond the debasing of U.S. citizenship H.R. 371 would bring about, its adoption would also corrupt the immigration law with yet another special-interest gimmick. The immigration law, after all, takes second place only to the tax law in being larded with provisions intended to benefit politically-connected constituencies, and this measure is not just any gimmick, but arguably the worst kind: one intended to benefit a specific ethnic group joining other such schemes, such as the Lautenberg amendment, the Diversity Lottery, the Cuban Adjustment Act, the Chinese Student Protection Act, and others.
National origins quotas were rightly eliminated from the immigration law in 1965. The principle of a racially-and ethnically-neutral immigration policy in the national interest, however, cannot be upheld if the immigration law is shaped by the special pleading of the myriad ethnic groups that make up our population.
What's more, the inequity of such legislation could inflame ethnic grievances and conflict. Mexicans, after all, are the largest national origin group seeking naturalization, and they are expected to meet all the normal requirements, while other groups, perhaps viewed as more sympathetic by some, would be admitted without meeting many requirements—affirmative action citizenship, if you will.
It's clear that H.R. 371 and other legislation intended to expedite the naturalization of various groups is prompted, at least in part, by the welfare reform law enacted last year which barred most noncitizens from most Federal welfare benefits. The Hmong have a high rate of welfare dependency and a low rate of naturalization. The Office of Refugee Resettlement reported that in fiscal year 1995 non-Vietnamese Southeast Asians, which is to say Laotians and Cambodians, about one-fourth of whom were the Hmong, had a welfare participation rate of 85 percent, while a Center for Immigration Studies report based on 1990 census data found that only about 17 percent of Laotians were naturalized, and even among those who had been in the United States for more than 10 years, only about one-third were citizens.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But if the objective is to maintain welfare eligibility for people who are not now citizens, logic would dictate addressing that problem forthrightly, rather than through the side door of naturalization. Freely handing out citizenship would, indeed, preserve the welfare eligibility of the new Americans, but only at the cost of debasing the meaning of Americanism. This is a bargain which I urge lawmakers to think long and hard about before making.
And, looking ahead, my final point is that the dilution of standards that this bill and others like it represent would open the door to further assaults on the integrity of the entire immigration and naturalization process. For instance, spokesmen for Central American illegal aliens, including just a couple of days ago members of the very governments they fled, are pressuring Congress and the administration for yet more ethnically-specific exemptions from the rules in order to avoid the deportation of several hundred thousand people. One might ask whether arguments against another illegal alien amnesty would be plausible in the wake of H.R. 371 and similar special-interest legislation?
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and I will be happy to answer any questions you or the members of the subcommittee may have.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Krikorian.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krikorian follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Mark Krikorian, and I am Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit, non-partisan research organization which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center is funded through grants from foundations and individuals and from publications sales, and does not receive any federal funds.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before this panel today about the possible implications of H.R. 371, a bill which seeks to make acquiring citizenship easier for certain immigrants who fought in Laos against the Communists as our allies during the Vietnam War. As a research organization, the Center does not recommend that lawmakers vote for or against any specific piece of legislation, but I ask that members of this panel consider the full implications of H.R. 371 before acting on it.
Other witnesses and commentators no doubt will highlight the heroism of the Hmong tribesmen who fought against totalitarian aggression and who, after the Communist victory, were subjected to genocidal retaliation from Hanoi in the form of the infamous ''yellow rain.'' I, too, laud the bravery of the Hmong in the defense of freedom, and fully appreciate their subsequent ordeal, my own grandparents having survived the first genocide of this bloody century.
It was for these reasons that the United States admitted thousands of Hmong refugees over the past twenty years—the 1990 census counted 90,000 Hmong, including some American-born children. There is a strong argument that our nation had a responsibility to take in the Hmong after the Communist victories in Southeast Asia, given our involvement in organizing and supporting their military efforts. Providing our former allies safe haven in the face of an enemy extermination campaign would thus seem to have been the right thing to do.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bill under discussion, however, carries this responsibility further. It would waive the English-language requirement for naturalization, and would treat former Hmong guerrillas seeking naturalization as though they were veterans of the United States armed forces, thus waiving the residency requirement. This would eliminate two of the requirements—a minimum period of residency and a knowledge of the English language—which are intended to ensure that new citizens are sufficiently rooted and invested in the United States to be entrusted with a permanent role in our future.
The House of Representatives was instrumental in the recent tightening of the procedures for naturalization, prompting the Immigration and Naturalization Service to, among other things, wait for the completion of FBI fingerprint checks before proceeding with any alien's citizenship application. This and other measures are helping to safeguard the integrity of one of our most important institutions—the granting of membership in our nation to outsiders. Though many challenges remain, I am confident that the vigilance of members of this House, along with the ongoing efforts of the INS, will make sure that the process of minting new Americans will not be further compromised.
However, H.R. 371 and other measures like it which are before the House would appear to fly in the face of these efforts by promoting the further cheapening of United States citizenship. The contradiction would be stark between this House's insistence on tougher procedures for those who have met the normal citizenship requirements and the simultaneous extension of special treatment to other groups. The mixed signals sent by such a move would further muddy America' image in the eyes of current and future immigrants and contribute to the growing cynicism plaguing our polity.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Beyond the debasing of United States citizenship H.R. 371 would bring about, its adoption also would corrupt the immigration law with yet another special-interest gimmick. The immigration law, after all, takes second place only to the tax law in being larded with provisions intended to benefit politically connected constituencies. And this measure is not just any gimmick, but arguably the worst kind—one intended to benefit a specific ethnic group, joining other such schemes, such as the Lautenberg Amendment (which, in effect, grants presumptive refugee status to, among others, Jews and Ukrainian Catholics and Orthodox from the former U.S.S.R.), the Diversity Lottery (which started as an amnesty for Irish illegal aliens and is now an immigrant-recruitment program for Africans and Eastern Europeans), the Cuban Adjustment Act, the Chinese Students Protection Act, and others.
National origins quotas were rightly eliminated from the immigration law in 1965; the principle of a racially and ethnically neutral immigration policy in the national interest cannot be upheld if the immigration law is shaped by the special pleading of the myriad ethnic groups that exist in our country.
What's more, the inequity of such legislation could inflame ethnic grievances and conflict. Mexicans, after all, are the largest national-origin group seeking naturalization, and they are expected to meet all the normal requirements—while other groups, perhaps viewed as more sympathetic by some, would be admitted without meeting certain requirements—affirmative action citizenship, if you will.
It is clear that H.R. 371 and other legislation intended to expedite the naturalization of various groups is prompted by the welfare reform law enacted last year, which barred most noncitizens from most federal welfare benefits. The Hmong, in particular, have a high rate of welfare dependency and a low rate of naturalization. The Office of Refugee Resettlement reported that in Fiscal Year 1995 Laotian refugees, about half of whom are Hmong, had a welfare participation rate of 85 percent, while a Center for Immigration Studies report based on the 1990 census found that only 17 percent of Laotians were naturalized, and even among those who had been in the United States for more than 10 years, only about one-third were citizens.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But if the objective is to maintain welfare eligibility for people who are not now citizens, logic would dictate addressing that problem forthrightly, rather that through the side door of naturalization. Handing out citizenship like lollipops at a doctor's office would indeed preserve the welfare eligibility of the new Americans, but only at the cost of debasing the meaning of Americanism. This is a bargain which I urge lawmakers to think long and hard about before making.
And, looking ahead, the dilution of standards this bill and others like it represent would open the door to further assaults on the integrity of the entire immigration and naturalization process. For instance, spokesmen for Central American illegal aliens, including the governments of the very countries they fled, are pressuring Congress and the administration for yet more ethnically specific exemptions from the rules, in order to avoid the deportation of several hundred thousand people. Would arguments against another illegal-alien amnesty be plausible in the wake of H.R. 371 and similar special-interest legislation?
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and I will be happy to try to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Mr. SMITH. Let me address my initial questions to Mr. Crocetti.
Mr. Crocetti, first of all, I want to get a feel for the universe of individuals, the number of people that we're talking about. As I understand it, roughly—tell me if this correct—roughly 130,000 to 150,000 Hmong have been admitted as refugees since about 1975. Is that the case?
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CROCETTI. This is correct, and of that number, approximately 5,000 were approved as refugees based on claims of guerrilla service.
Mr. SMITH. Five thousand, so we are talking about 5,000 individuals then?
Mr. CROCETTI. Well, not necessarily. In our recent communication with the State Department, it has been reported that caseworkers did not verify claims of guerrilla service, and since almost all of the Hmong seemingly would fit into one refugee category or another, it didn't matter, and State also noted that the refugee files are dubious at best as a means of verification and that many Hmong may not have mentioned guerrilla service during refugee interviews. So, we cannot rely upon any of that data based upon a recommendation from the State Department.
Mr. SMITH. Do you have any idea or is there any way to determine how many Hmong actually fought in Southeast Asia, and is there any way to determine or verify a person's participation?
Mr. CROCETTI. We are unaware of any such mechanism. We have conducted inquiries into verifying military service with the Department of Defense, and that appears to be a challenge as well.
Mr. SMITH. If it's that difficult or impossible to verify either the number or the eligibility, that leads me to my next question, which might be at least partially the answer. I am wondering if the problem is not smaller than we imagine, and let me explain why: It seems to me that it's reasonable to assume that the height of the Vietnam War was around 1965 to 1967, that probably guerrillas had an average age of around 18 to 20, and that, as we know, most individuals were admitted as refugees in the late seventies and some in the early eighties. It seems to me that, given current immigration law which says that, if you're 50 and you've been in this country for 20 years, you're exempt from the English requirement, that most of the Hmong would fall into that category, if not now, then in the next couple of years—not all, but most. Is that a possibility?
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CROCETTI. Yes, it is.
Mr. SMITH. And so, therefore, that would eliminate a majority of the problem.
Mr. CROCETTI. It would appear so, yes.
Mr. SMITH. OK. That was a quick answer and a welcome answer in many respects.
Mr. Krikorian, let me ask a question of you, and I appreciate your willingness to stand up on the other side, which is not necessarily a popular thing to do. You mentioned in your testimony that, were we to take actions specifically for the Hmong, that that would not set a good precedent. What other groups might ask for the same or similar consideration if the Hmong were granted special status?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. It would seem that the most immediate concern that might come up would be Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans. I mean, there's a large pool of Central Americans here, several hundred thousand, whom we granted unofficial temporary residence to without any kind of permanent promise that they would be allowed to stay, and they fled, of course, as a result of the civil wars in Central America, and there's a strong push by the Governments there and by various advocacy groups to somehow come up with a way for these people to be allowed to stay, either to apply the old rules with regard to suspension of deportation as opposed to the new rules which Congress passed last fall, and the President signed, or arguably to come up with some kind of new amnesty which has not in any written form been proposed yet, but is entirely plausible, it seems to me. So, the most immediate people to whom this precedent might apply, it seems to me, would be Central America.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. OK, thank you, Mr. Krikorian. I don't have any other questions.
Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I'll not ask Mr. Krikorian any questions. I'll try to be civil today.
Mr. Crocetti, It seems to me that all of the technical concerns you raised about the bill probably have some validity, but, obviously, could be addressed if you and your Department could sit down and address them. Have you all made any effort at all to try to address these concerns rather than just come in here and tell us what's wrong with the bill? Maybe craft something that would meet the concerns that you've raised?
Mr. CROCETTI. I am unaware of any such effort, having only recently gotten familiar with this legislation.
Mr. WATT. OK. Well, then, that leads logically to my next question: I assumed you all would be willing to sit down with Mr. Vento's staff, and try to—I've been working with Mr. Vento for a long time, ever since I came into this Congress; he's a very reasonable man, and I'm sure he would recognize that a number of the technical concerns that you have raised about the bill are legitimate concerns. Would you be averse to having a member of your staff sit down with a member of his, and try to work out a bill that we could get through this thing that would address the concerns you're talking about?
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CROCETTI. We will be more than willing to answer any questions and provide any assistance we possibly could. If I could, in reference to a prior question, after having a few moments to think about the technical aspects, the English requirement for the elderly, for example, one important connection to make is that under section 312 you have the residency requirements, whereas under this legislation you would not. So, they would not have the residency requirement, for example, over 50 requires 20 years of permanent residency.
Mr. WATT. Well, we assume that—I think the chairman's assuming that if somebody came in as a refugee more than 25, 30 years ago, and that person was 25 or 30 years old already, that that would automatically get them over 50, and meet the residency requirement, too. Is there something that I'm missing here?
Mr. CROCETTI. Providing they applied and were granted permanent residence.
Mr. WATT. Would that not have been the case with the people who came in?
Mr. CROCETTI. I would have to assume that most refugees do make a subsequent application and are granted permanent residence, but it is not automatic. There is an action that has to be taken.
Mr. WATT. Oh, OK. So, there's a technical step that I was missing there, OK.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All right, well, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can get the Department and Mr. Vento to sit down, and maybe let us move a bill or a substitute for this bill that would address the technical concerns which I thought sound pretty reasonable, and still address the principal concerns that Mr. Krikorian seems not to be much concerned about—I'm not going to stop picking on him; I told you that I wasn't going to ask him any questions.
I just want to say that it just amazes me how we stand behind the fear of setting precedent for doing something good. I mean, America should never be afraid of setting a damn precedent for doing something good and honorable, and the notion that by granting some privilege to these people, above all, cheapens citizenship, it's just alien to me. I mean, I just don't know how anybody could fix their mouths to say that for this group of people that we would somehow be cheapening American citizenship. It's just mind-boggling to me, but I'm going to yield back the balance of my time; I told you I wasn't going to get on my soapbox today.
Mr. SMITH. That was mighty close, Mr. Watt. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Bono, is recognized.
Mr. BONO. It was an apple box. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Like my friend, Mr. Watt, I'm somewhat confused here, and maybe I don't know enough of the details, but it appears that we have a group of people that were willing to give their lives for this country. It seems like that should be no effort at all to give something back in return, because they paid the higher of the two prices. It almost seems like an ethical obligation on our part to give something in return for what they paid a much higher price. This confuses me. I guess the issue, then, is establishing who fought for us and who didn't, and the clarifying of that. Would that be correct, Mr. Crocetti?
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CROCETTI. Crocetti. That is one of the concerns that we have, yes.
Mr. BONO. Well, I think, Mr. Watt, you're suggesting, and you can go into that a little bit more, and get a clarification on that. If that is the single issue——
Mr. WATT. Will the gentleman yield? I thought it was a reasonable proposition that some State Department certification—I would think that would be fairly routine to get through that process, and put it in the bill; if that's what historically has been the requirement, let's put it in the bill, and let it go through that process, but that's not a reason to not do this, in my opinion.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BONO. I feel the same way. You're talking about people who we had die for us, and then graciously giving them a pittance—I'm not going to use a word like ''cheapen,'' because I think we need a counterpoint to that. If giving them a pittance for dying for us or getting blown up for us or getting killed for us is out of the question, it is not fair in exchange. I think humanity survives on exchange; if you buy something, you get something; if you ask somebody to do something for you, you pay them; if you ask people to die for them, and they say, ''What for?'' ''Just do it.''—I don't think that's a good exchange.
I think it is our absolute ethical obligation to make sure that we pay people back. Especially when they do things of this nature. I think Mr. Watt's suggestion is very reasonable and makes total sense. Work out the details. But if they in fact went through the hardships that they went through for us, absolutely we owe them. And I would consider it an honor to pay them back.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bono.
The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, first, would like to thank Congressman Vento for his persistence in pursuing this. I understand this is the fourth Congress where he has introduced this bill, and I think it's important that he did so.
I think the question before us is really—there are two questions: One is technical issues, and we can solve those, and I'd be happy to work with the Congressman and the Department, along with the chairman and Mr. Watt; those can be resolved. The important question, the policy question of: What do we owe, if anything, to this brave group of people? When the CIA—I mean, it's one of the most important stories from the Vietnam War, and the most inspiring stories, is the bravery of this group of people who stood by us under unbelievable circumstances, showing tremendous bravery, and saving American soldiers and weighing-in on us, never wavering from our side, and do we owe these people any kind of thanks? Do we owe them performance of the promises made to them at that time? And my answer, as Mr. Bono has said, is yes, we do. We do, if we're an honorable country.
We should live up to the promise that we made back in those days. I was not old enough to make the promise. I was a student; I was in school, but that doesn't matter, because it's our country that made the promise, and those of us who followed behind have the obligation to live up to promises made by our Nation at that time, and so I think this is the right thing to do.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I do have a technical question for Mr. Pratt, and the Hmong are the greatest group that were in this circumstance, but in my dealings with this group in California, and many Hmong people originally came to San Jose, but then moved on to the Central Valley because our area was too urban, really, to be comfortable for them. There are some other, the Humyen and other tribal Lao people who were in similar circumstances. Do you believe the drafting of this would also cover—they're much smaller in number—those individuals who were also in circumstances similar to the Hmong?
Mr. PRATT. Yes, the CIA was involved very closely with a number of tribal groups, because, of course, they inhabited the mountainous areas which were difficult for the Vietnamese to go through, and you had to be able to conduct—as the name of the troops implies—a guerrilla warfare. Therefore, in the southern part you had Lao Theung—they generally use three terms in Laos: The valley Lao are the Lao Loum and then the higher mountain people, Lao Sung, and the others are the Lao Theung. And so Lao Theung include people like the Khmu who are both in the northern part and the southern part and also the Haw and the Yao people up in the northern area. Gen. Vang Pao was very helpful in coordinating much of these approaches, because he, as a person who not of the valley Lao ethnic origin, was more persona grata with these other ethnic groups than some of the people we dealt with who were in the valley Lao group, but they did have different leaders up in the—particularly the northwest. I don't know how many of these ever were able to get out.
Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I have met a few in California. It's very much smaller numbers than Hmong, and it may be because of when those refugees were able to leave that they're covered under existing law.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other thing that I would like to raise, and we don't need to deal with it now, my recollection is that most of refugees after five years of presence as refugees became permanent residents to the Inn. So the timeframe that the chairman has outlined under existing law may be disturbed because of the 5-year add-on to the refugee status. So we need to examine the numbers with the Department. Again, that's a technical issue, but I think it's important that we do this and I think it's wonderful that we appear to be doing it in a bipartisan fashion that honors our country and our community.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease.
Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I find myself in the position of having virtually everything that I intended to say already been said, and rather than take a great deal of time, let me just say that it should have been obvious from my opening statement that I'm predisposed to be supportive of this legislation. I do understand technical and other concerns that were raised, and I, too, would be willing to assist in any way possible to come to some conclusion on it.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pease.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We don't have any further questions. Thank you for being with us, and we appreciate your testimony.
[Whereupon, at 10:38 a.m., the subcommittee proceeded to other business.]
Mr. SMITH. Our first panelist for this hearing is Congressman Steve LaTourette.
Steve, we welcome you and look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN C. LA TOURETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I promise not to be as exciting, apparently, as your last hearing. [Laughter.]
I bring before you today a very important issue, and, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and express my appreciation for the leadership that you've shown in conducting a hearing on what's known as the Canadian Border Boat Landing Permit, which has another name and is known as the I–68. We've recently introduced——
Mr. SMITH. Steve, if I may interrupt you just for a minute—could I ask those who are still speaking to move out into the hall? And anyone by the door, if they could either take a seat or move out into the hall. Thank you.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LaTourette, please proceed.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have recently introduced legislation that would modify the I–68 program to allow greater flexibility for recreational boaters from the United States that wish to call on a Canadian port and then return home without the inconvenience that the current program places on boaters.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service is charged with the important responsibility of keeping our borders secure from illegal immigration. It's a mission that I support, but current law requires that vessels that have visited Canada undergo a face-to-face inspection with INS upon return.
However, since 1963 boaters have had the option and the opportunity to apply for what's known as an I–68 permit that would allow multiple crossings without inspection. Now this permit was issued without charge and did not require annual renewal.
However, beginning in the 1995 boating season, INS began charging $16 per person for an annual I–68 permit that requires all passengers that may be on a boat going over to Canada to apply in person at the INS office. Until this change, many boaters thought that they were complying with the law by calling-in to Customs and were unaware of the INS inspection requirement or the I–68. Now this has led to a great deal of confusion to boaters all along the Canadian-United States border because they're not required to pay a fee at Canadian-United States land crossings.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These boaters, many of whom live in my district and other districts across the Great Lakes, wonder if they aren't once again being singled out for a fee without service, such as the ill-conceived FCC radio license fee of a couple of years ago where someone thought it would be a good idea to charge a fee for a ship-to-shore radio, and we wound up having less ship-to-shore radios.
I'm a supporter of the fee-for-service concept and believe that if a particular class of citizens are receiving an individualized service from the Government, they should help pay for it. However, there appears to be no discernible increase in INS inspection activities for recreational boaters along the border.
Additionally, if INS is willing to forego the face-to-face inspection requirement for a $16 fee, it appears that they don't consider recreational boaters as a major conduit for illegal aliens, but rather as a source of additional revenue.
In the old situation they were getting an annual I–68 form; now they're paying to get an I–68 form, and they're paying for the privilege of not having their boat inspected, basically, and it's created an adverse economic impact in our local economy. It's estimated that since the charge went into effect there has been a 15-percent reduction in the amount of crossings between the two countries, which has resulted in a net loss to each economy, both on our side of the border and also the Canadian side, of $2 million annually.
Mr. Chairman, with your guidance and patience we've crafted and reintroduced the legislation. This legislation that went through the subcommittee in the last Congress was sponsored by my former colleague, Martin Hoke of Ohio, and will give the boaters an additional option and that is to have a passport rather than the I–68 form.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additionally, at your suggestion, we have made this legislation as a test case for the 1998 boating season. There's a requirement in the legislation that INS would report, after the legislation sunsets, as to the impact it may have had on illegal immigration from Canada to the United States.
It's my belief that this is a pragmatic approach that will provide the committee with the proper evaluation of the program and a better understanding of the scope of threat that recreational watercraft may pose to border security.
I want to thank very much the chairman for your suggestions. I don't want to hide my intentions under a basket; however, I hope that after that report is done after the 1998 boating season that I can reappear with Great Lakes boaters before this subcommittee and convince you that perhaps we don't need the I–68 program.
But I think your suggestion is an entirely reasonable one; it's an incremental change. We'll be able to see the effects almost immediately, and I hope that this subcommittee will act favorably upon our legislation.
We have with us today a representative from BOAT/U.S. and also a gentleman, Rolf Tinge, from our district as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. LaTourette follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your leadership in conducting a hearing on the Canadian Border Boat Landing Permit known as the I–68. I have recently introduced legislation that will modify the I–68 program to allow greater flexibility for recreational boaters from the United States that wish to call on a Canadian Port and return to home without the inconvenience that the current program places on boaters.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service is charged with the important responsibility of keeping our borders secure from illegal immigration; a mission that I wholeheartedly support. Current law requires vessels that have visited Canada to undergo a face to face inspection with INS upon return, however, since 1963 boaters have been afforded the opportunity to apply for an I–68 permit that would allow multiple crossings without inspection. This permit was issued without charge and did not require annual renewal. However, beginning in the 1995 boating season INS began charging $16 per person for an annual I–68 permit that requires all passengers to apply in person at an INS office. Until this change, many boaters thought they were complying with the law by calling into Customs and were unaware of the INS inspection requirement or the I–68. This has caused much confusion to boaters all along the Canadian-U.S. border because they are not required to pay a fee at Canadian-U.S. land crossings. These boaters, rightfully wonder if once again they are being singled out as a broad target for additional user—fees, such as the ill- conceived FCC radio license fee.
Mr. Chairman, I am a supporter of the fee-for-service concept; and believe that if a particular class of citizens are receiving an individualized service from the government they should help pay for it. However, there appears to be no discernible increase in INS inspection activities for recreational boaters along the border with the I–68. Additionally, if INS is willing to forgo the face-to-face inspection requirement for a $16 annual fee, it appears that they do not consider recreational boaters as a major conduit for illegal aliens, but rather as a source of additional revenue.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unfortunately, the I–68 permit has had an adverse economic impact on our local economy along Lake Erie and the economy of Canada. Since INS began charging a fee for the permit, it is estimated that recreational boat crossings between our two countries have dropped about 15 percent. This translates to about 6,000 less boat trips and an economic loss of about $2 million for each country in destination spending. One of the remarkable features of my congressional district are the four major ports that serve thousands of recreational boaters. The Great Lakes recreational economy is a important growth industry in Northeastern Ohio, fueled largely by recreational boaters that come from all over to enjoy fishing, sailing and power boating on Lake Erie as well as the other Great Lakes. We should do all we can to encourage this growth and the ease of safe and legal passage between Canada and the U.S. is a large part of the equation.
Mr. Chairman, with your guidance and patience I have crafted and introduced legislation that will give boaters an additional option to the I–68 without compromising the security of the U.S.-Canadian border.
This bill would allow passengers on a vessel not more that 65 feet in length to utilize a U.S. passport in lieu of an I–68 permit if inspected by INS. It seems reasonable to me that a U.S. Citizen should be afforded the opportunity to re-enter their own country without paying an additional fee.
Other important features of the legislation are that the owner or operator of the vessel must posses an I–68, so INS will have a record of the vessel and skipper, and hence, be alerted that this person and vessel anticipate making border crossings during the boating season. Additionally, my legislation, at the wise suggestion of the chair, would allow for a one season ''test run'' of the program during the 1998 boating season, whereafter, the program would sunset and INS would be required to report to Congress on the effect of these regulatory changes regarding illegal immigration from Canada to the United States.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think this pragmatic approach will provide the Committee with a proper evaluation of the program and a better understanding of the scope of threat that recreational watercraft may pose to border security. These proposed changes also provide an important additional opportunity for boaters to comply with an immigration law that until recently, they were not familiar with.
I wish to thank you and the Subcommittee for your quick consideration in holding a hearing on this issue that is so important for my constituents and boaters throughout the Great Lakes Region and beyond. I believe we will see broad support for this level-headed approach to immigration between two friendly countries that will help promote relations and economic development while keeping our borders secure.
Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette. And let me say as well that I appreciate your willingness to alter the original piece of legislation and put in a couple of safeguards, one being the passport requirement. And I think we'll hear from the INS shortly that the passport is a document that's hard to fraudulently reproduce, and I think that that will help deter any temptation for individuals to come in illegally.
Secondly, I know it was a hard thing for you to change the bill by putting in a 1-year pilot program. I appreciate your willingness to do that.
And I would simply say to my colleagues that that willingness, to me, shows a great deal of good faith on your part. It also shows your confidence that it will work and that we can extend it and go on from there. But it shows, I think, a good-faith effort on your part to alter the bill and make it far more palatable and allay the concerns that we might have and that the administration might have.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I don't have any other questions. I just wanted to make that comment and hope that we can move your bill along. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. LaTourette.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to try and keep an open mind about this if I can, but let me ask a couple of questions. As I understand it, you can cross the Canadian border by boat without going through any of the technicalities under the I–68 program?
Mr. LATOURETTE. Currently, now, if you're a—let's say you own a boat under 65 feet and you base it in Cleveland, OH, and you want to go to Canada for the day, you need to have an I–68 form.
Mr. WATT. Or you could go through the regular process and——
Mr. LATOURETTE. Come into a port-of-call and check in with INS when you land; that's correct.
Mr. WATT. Right. So basically the I–68 program is a way to keep from going through all of the time-consuming inspection process.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LATOURETTE. That's correct. The difficulty is that in our area, as an example, Cleveland, OH, is the only place where there is an INS office that you could check in. That's the only port-of-call. The lakefront is much larger than that, so a boater who lives in Ashtabula, which is 50 nautical miles away, would have to come back from Canada and go to Cleveland before he could return to his home.
The other reason behind the I–68 form—and to my understanding it was enacted first in 1963—was that it was a cold war measure to allay concerns about Soviet individuals coming across the Canadian border into the United States via the Great Lakes.
Mr. WATT. OK. Well, I won't raise any more questions about it. I guess my real underlying concern would be more a concern about the perception of inequities along the Canadian border with other borders. And maybe there are justifications for that, but it sounds to me like now we've cut out all of the complications, and now having cut out the complications we're going to the next step in saying, ''OK, not only do we want to cut out the complications, we want to cut out the cost of not having to have complied with the complications of everybody else who crosses the border.''
And, I mean, I really don't have any particular problems with that, except that we're sending so many contrary signals in all of our other policies that it just seems to me that we—well, don't let me get on that. Today is a tough day for me. You keep running things at me that require inconsistencies in our philosophy, and, you know, I'm just having some trouble with this.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I won't—if there's a strong amount of support for this bill—I assure you I won't be jumping up and down about it. I understand what you're trying to do, and I think I understand the equities of your argument. I'm having some trouble with some underlying principles that you can't address in this bill. You know, there are just some underlying inconsistencies about the way we're dealing with the Canadian border and the way we're dealing with a lot of our other immigration policies. And perhaps there's justification for that, but I'm just troubled by it.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. I might ask Mr. LaTourette—he doesn't need to respond now—about the uniqueness of the situation if, in fact, it is unique. But perhaps in response to some of the other questions, you might want to address that.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. The gentleman from California, Mr. Bono.
Mr. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to go on record saying I've supported the bill as you have recommended, and I hope it goes through.
Mr. SMITH. OK, thank you, Mr. Bono.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease.
Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaTourette, I think I understand the proposal, but I'm unsure as to whether the concern expressed by those in your area is with the amount of the fee that's being charged. Is that the crux of it?
Mr. LATOURETTE. It's both. Certainly when the fee was charged in the beginning of 1995, that was the first time a number of the voters even knew there was such a thing as an I–68 form. Many assumed that in the past that what they would do when they returned from a day's fishing in Canada, or just a shopping trip, that they would call Customs and report as to whether or not they had anything to declare, but they didn't even know that there was an I–68. So that was the first confusion.
The second confusion is, certainly, if you pay a fee for service you should get a service. What my understanding as to what INS has done with the approximately $1 million that they collect from charging this fee is to advertise the program so that more people are aware that there is an I–68 program.
It's my understanding also that after that advertising you have not seen an appreciable increase in the number of people who have made application for I–68's, and the detrimental impact—I mean, speaking colloquially aside from the inconvenience to the boating public—is that it has caused a $2 million economic decrease on our side of the border in terms of people who are coming here and spending money.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So where you used to have to have an I–68, nobody knew about it. Now you pay for the privilege of having an I–68, and there's no additional inspection activity going on by INS. So if it's a fee for service, there's no service.
Mr. PEASE. I appreciate that. I don't understand—and I'm sympathetic—I don't understand how you've measured that there's an economic loss on the U.S. side of the border because our people are not going to Canada to fish.
Mr. LATOURETTE. What I'm suggesting is that the interchange between Canadians coming here and our citizens going there, what typically happens—and maybe there's a misunderstanding that goes back to the chairman's observation about uniqueness—what's unique about our region in the Great Lakes and these excursions is that there are a number of Canadian and American boating organizations that get together on the weekends for regattas and things of that nature, and so hordes of Canadians will come over to our shores and will buy things and will consume our food and alcoholic beverages and things of that nature, and our citizens will reciprocate.
And so it's not typical of some of the immigration difficulties you may have in other parts of the—and that's really what we're talking about. And it's that spending that it's measured by, and the representative from BOAT/U.S. may be able to give you a more accurate barometer of how that's measured, but that's the measurement that I've been provided with.
Mr. PEASE. OK, I guess I'll ask that question later because I'm still trying to understand how the fee that we charge our people is resulting in less expenditures here by Canadians, but I'll reserve it until one of the other folks testifies.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, I would think that just—not being a boater myself—things like marine fuel purchases and things like that that you would need for that sort of thing that would be purchased by our citizens to make the crossing would have an impact and affect tax revenues as well.
And I should note in response to Mr. Watt's concern, and I understand him fully, that this bill provides that it doesn't completely relieve the I–68 responsibility. The skipper or the owner of the boat still has to have an I–68. The passengers—what we're doing is saving the passengers—the passengers have to carry a passport, and you can travel anywhere in the world with an American passport if you're an American citizen. And all we're saying is that we want a way that INS can still verify, one, that this boat may be involved in cross-border trips during the boating season so that they have a record of that; it still gives them that ability.
But for the passengers, if you own a boat and you say, ''Steve, would you like to go Canada for a day?'', I'm not real excited about going down to the INS office, waiting in line, paying $16 for that 1-day trip if I have an American passport. And that's all this bill does.
Mr. PEASE. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pease.
Any other questions?
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Mr. SMITH. Mr. LaTourette, I think you're off to a good start. I think you have a lot of support on the subcommittee, and I think I read Mr. Watt as being neutral, but I'd talk to him a little bit more if I were you.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. And we hope that we can——
Mr. WATT. No, this has been very helpful. We've been kind of working out some of the equity problems up here. I hope you don't take anything I said as being opposed to your bill. I think it's probably a reasonable proposition, but there are a lot of perception problems going on and people are having to deal with those.
And I can't overstate the perception issue, so this needs to be talked about in some ways that rationalize it in the overall context with what we're doing with immigration policy. But I understand exactly what you're doing. I think it makes a lot of sense.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'd like to ask our second panelist to come forward, Donna Kay Barnes, Chief Inspector, Immigration and Naturalization Service. And, as I understand it, the administration is willing to have the third panel, which consists only of two individuals, join Ms. Barnes, and we would ask them to step forward now as well.
Elaine Dickinson, director of State affairs, Boat Owners Association of the United States, and Rolf—is it Tinge?
Mr. TINGE. Yes, Tinge.
Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Tinge, president, Greater Cleveland Boating Association. We thank you all for being here, look forward to your testimony, and Ms. Barnes, we'll begin with you.
STATEMENT OF DONNA KAY BARNES, CHIEF INSPECTOR, DIVISION OF INSPECTIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Ms. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to comment upon H.R. 694, a bill which would affect the Canadian Border Small Boat Program, popularly known as the I–68 program.
Before I comment upon this bill, I would like to provide an overview of the I–68 program. Section 235(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires all aliens who are seeking admission, readmission, or permission to transit through the United States to be inspected by an immigration officer.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, section 235.1, requires that a person claiming U.S. citizenship must establish that fact to an immigration officer's satisfaction and that he or she must do so at a U.S. port-of-entry during the time that port is open for inspection, unless otherwise exempted.
Recognizing that the Service is unable to maintain a presence at every convenient landing point, the I–68 program was established in 1963 to facilitate pleasure boating and fishing on the boundary waters in Minnesota. The program was implemented along the entire northern border several years later when Service districts began a publicity campaign to educate boaters as to the requirements for entry into the United States by boat and the benefits of obtaining an I–68 permit. During fiscal year 1996, approximately 1,000 permits were issued by the Service.
The program is available to citizens or permanent residents of the United States, citizens of Canada, or landed immigrants of Canada having a common nationality with Canadians who arrive on a small pleasure boat along a northern border waterway.
Those persons who are neither citizens nor permanent residents of the United States are further restricted to visit for pleasure, not to exceed 72 hours in duration and which does not require travel beyond the immediate shoreline area. All entries for other purposes by persons who are not citizens or permanent residents of the United States are not allowed. Such persons must report in person for an inspection at a U.S. port-of-entry.
Service district offices have made the permits readily available by sending inspectors to marinas and boat shows and involving boat organizations in the process. Until recently, the I–68 was issued gratis. In 1995 the Service was required to impose a fee for the adjudication of the application as the result of an audit by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General, which determined that in accordance with the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952, the I–68 is a public benefit which must be supported by user fees.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is the imposition of this fee which has resulted in an unprecedented number of complaints about the program. There has been much misleading information that the Service is requiring all boaters to obtain a permit. This is incorrect. There is no requirement to obtain form I–68; however, boaters who choose not to obtain form I–68 must report in person for inspection at a port-of-entry.
This is the same requirement applicable to every person seeking admission to the United States. U.S. citizen boaters who enter the United States without form I–68 or without reporting for inspection may be subject to fine and/or seizure of the boat.
Boaters who transport aliens who are not in possession of form I–68 and have not reported in person for inspection are subject to arrest, fine, imprisonment, and possible seizure of the boat. Non-U.S. citizens traveling by boat who do not have form I–68 and who have not presented themselves for inspection are subject to arrest, possible fine, and/or removal from the United States.
In the minds of many persons, the border between Canada and the United States is often no more than a line on the map. In spite of the long history of amicable relations between our two countries, attempts at illegal entry into the United States from Canada occur. In fiscal year 1996, 95,414 individuals were refused admission, withdrew their applications for admission, or were referred to an immigration judge along the northern border.
Although not well known, Service estimates show that Canadians are the fourth largest illegal immigrant population in the United States. The Service has also detected terrorists attempting to enter the United States from Canada. Therefore, it is important to remember that not all recreational boats contain only recreational boaters. The northern border is not risk-free.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A program which would facilitate travel between the two countries must not increase the potential for abuse. This especially is important as the Service begins to implement the requirements of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which requires the Service to take certain measures to deny admission to persons who are not eligible to enter the United States.
As those measures begin to impact the flow of inadmissible persons through the ports-of-entry along the northern border, we expect to see some of that flow being diverted to areas between the ports.
The Service believes that every person seeking to enter the United States must be seen by an officer of the Federal Inspection Service in order to comply with the requirements that Congress has established. Once having been seen and vetted as a low-risk person, the Service believes that it may be an acceptable risk to allow such an approved individual to cross the border unsupervised for a limited period of time.
This belief is expressed in a number of Service programs currently in operation, such as INSPASS, SENTRI, Automated Permit Ports, Dedicated Commuter Lanes, as well as the I–68 program. If it's the intention of H.R. 694 to exempt U.S. citizens who are passengers on small boats, including commercial vessels, from inspection, the Service does not believe that this is a sound policy.
For example, a ferry is a commercial vessel, and in this example United States citizen passengers on a ferry would be exempt immigration inspection if landing at other than a recognized port-of-entry or if landing at a port-of-entry during hours in which it is not in operation.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It raises, also, other questions. If boaters are granted an exemption, then what should the Service say to hikers, skiers, horseback riders, and others who want similar treatment? The result would be an additional loss of control on the northern border. It's unlikely that a United States citizen, assuming that he or she remembered to take it, would be willing to risk taking his or her passport out in a boat where it might easily be damaged by the environment.
Members of the committee should also be aware that under the current rule governing travel by U.S. citizens, no citizen is now required to be in possession of a passport when returning to the United States from Canada. H.R. 694 would change that longstanding rule for this group of people.
The bill is also unlikely to reduce the burden on the boating public, as it would substitute a $55 document, the U.S. passport, which in general each covered person must purchase, for a document which costs a maximum of $32 and which may have an entire family upon it.
The reaction of the boating public to what it will perceive as a new Service-imposed requirement is expected to be both negative and vocal. An additional negative publicity factor will be that our border patrol agents would have to detain boaters while they called back for a check against Service lookout data bases.
One advantage of the I–68 program is that a border patrol agent encountering these boaters knows that these data bases, such as the FBI's national arrest warrant data base, has already been queried on permit holders. Knowing this, the agent can quickly complete a check of boaters with an I–68 and continue on patrol. More patrol time spent checking data bases means less time available for additional patrol activities and, therefore, an additional loss of enforcement on the northern border.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In general, the Service has other concerns with this bill. Does the U.S. passport, for example, have to be valid, or will an expired passport suffice? Additionally, the bill does not clearly address situations where both U.S. citizens and noncitizens are aboard. This is a very common occurrence.
Let me conclude my prepared remarks by telling the members of this subcommittee about a program which the Service is implementing along the same——
Mr. SMITH. Ms. Barnes, how long will it take you to tell us about that program?
Ms. BARNES. Very—I'm racing. I've got just a few sentences more.
Mr. SMITH. OK.
Ms. BARNES. Let me tell you about a new program that we're instituting along the St. Lawrence River, which we believe may meet our concerns with enforcement while easing the burden on the legitimate boater.
As a result of language in our most recent supplemental appropriations bill, in four towns on the St. Lawrence River, the Service is installing video telephones for use by boaters who are not in possession of I–68. Video telephones are inexpensive devices which attach to a telephone line and, as the name implies, allow callers to see and hear each other.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This concept is very similar to other programs, such as the Automated Permit Port and Remote Video Inspection System, which the Service has been testing for several years. We believe that the video telephones will satisfy both our concerns and those of the boating public and may be a useful alternative to the existing procedures.
This completes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barnes follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONNA KAY BARNES, CHIEF INSPECTOR, DIVISION OF INSPECTIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity comment on H.R. 694, a bill which would affect the Canadian Border Small Boat program, popularly known as the I–68 program.
Before commenting upon this bill, I would like to provide an overview of the I–68 program. Section 235(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires all aliens who are seeking admission, readmission or permission to transit through the United States to be inspected by an immigration officer. Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 235.1 requires that a person claiming United States citizenship must establish that fact to an immigration officer's satisfaction and that he or she must do so at a United States Port-of-Entry during the time the port is open for inspection, unless otherwise exempted.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Recognizing that the Service is unable to maintain a presence at every convenient landing point, the I–68 Program was established in 1963 to facilitate boating and pleasure fishing on boundary waters in Minnesota. It was expanded in 1967 to additional areas. The program was implemented along the entire northern border several years ago when the Service districts began a publicity campaign to educate boaters as to the requirements for entry into the United States by boat and the benefits of obtaining an I–68 or Canadian Boat Landing Permit. During fiscal year 1996, approximately 1,000 permits were issued by the Service.
As currently structured, the program is available to citizens or permanent residents of the United States, citizens of Canada or landed immigrants of Canada having a common nationality with Canadians who arrive on a small pleasure boat of less than five net tons along a northern border waterway. Those persons who are neither citizens nor permanent residents of the United States are further restricted to a visit for pleasure not to exceed 72 hours in duration and which does not require travel beyond the immediate shoreline area, to include residential and shopping areas. All entries by other means or for other purposes by persons who are not citizens or permanent residents of the United States are not allowed. Such persons must report in person for an inspection at a United States Port-of-Entry at each entry.
Service District Offices have made the permits readily available by sending inspectors to marinas and boat shows and involving boating organizations in the process. Until recently, the I–68 was issued gratis. However, in 1995 the Service published regulations establishing a fee for the adjudication of the application for an I–68. This action resulted from an audit by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General, which determined that in accordance with the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (commonly referred to as the ''user fee statute''), 31 U.S.C. 9701, the I–68 is a public benefit which must be supported by user fees. Further, the respective Appropriations subcommittees of the Congress have premised the authorization of certain land border inspections positions on the collection of this fee. It is the imposition of this fee which has resulted in an unprecedented number of complaints about the program.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The fee for an I–68 is set at $16.00 per individual with a family cap of $32.00. The statute referenced earlier requires that this fee be set at a level which ensures the recovery of the full cost of adjudicating the application and any additional costs associated with the administration of the fees collected.
There has been much misleading information that the Service is requiring all boaters to obtain a permit. This is incorrect. There is no requirement to obtain Form I–68. However, boaters who choose not to obtain Form I–68 must report in person for inspection at a Port-of-Entry upon each trip to the United States. This is the same requirement applicable to every person, including U.S. citizens, seeking to admission to the United States at other land and air Ports-of-Entry. Boaters who have not obtained Form I–68 may report, in person, either to an Inspector of the Immigration and Naturalization Service or an Inspector of the United States Customs Service. Inspection by the Customs officer will satisfy the Service requirement of reporting in person for immigration inspection. Telephonic inspections, while allowed by the Customs Service regulations to satisfy its reporting requirement, are not authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.
United States citizens who enter the United States without Form I–68 or without reporting in person for inspection may be subject to fines or criminal sanctions. Boaters who transport aliens who are not in possession of Form I–68 or who have not reported in person for inspection are subject to arrest, fine, imprisonment, and possible seizure of the boat. Non-United States citizens traveling by boat who do not have Form I–68 or who have not presented themselves for inspection are subject to arrest, possible fine, or removal from the United States.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the minds of many persons on both sides, the border between Canada and the United States is often no more than a line on the map. This is a reflection upon the long history of amicable relations between our two countries. In spite of this well established relationship, attempts at illegal entry to the United States from Canada still occur annually. For example, Canada currently allows citizens of many nations to enter Canada without a visa. Some of these countries have not been able to qualify for inclusion in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program in the United States. Numerous instances have been detected along the northern border of individuals from these countries attempting to enter the United States along the Canadian border. In Fiscal Year 1996, over 95,414 individuals were refused admission, or withdrew their application for admission, or were referred to an Immigration Judge at Ports-of-Entry along the northern border. While it is not well known, according to the INS official estimates, Canadian citizens themselves are the fourth largest illegal immigrant population in the United States. The Service has also detected known terrorists attempting to enter the United States over the northern border. Not to belabor the point, the northern border is not risk free and it is the belief of the Service that any program which would facilitate travel between the two countries must not increase the potential for abuse by those persons who might be tempted to take advantage of our desire to make travel across an international boundary easier for the legitimate traveler.
This factor is especially important as the Service begins to implement the requirements of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (the 96 Act). The 96 Act requires the Service to take certain measures to deny admission by persons who are not eligible to enter the United States. As those measures begin to impact upon the flow of inadmissible persons through the Ports-of–Entry along the northern border, we expect to see some of that flow being diverted to the areas between the Ports. Some persons might well ask, ''Where are the hordes of illegal immigrants seeking to enter the United States across the waterways dividing our country from Canada?'' The answer is that they may be in Canada waiting for us to relax our control over the border.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Service does not believe that the provision which would exempt United States citizens in possession of a United States passport from having to obtain a permit reflects a clear understanding of the current rule. Boaters seeking to enter the United States are not required to obtain a permit now. As indicated above, a person may choose not to obtain a permit, although they must then report for immigration inspection.
The Service believes that every person seeking to enter the United States must be seen by an officer of a Federal Inspection Service in order to comply with the requirements that Congress has established and to prevent the entry into the United States of those who are ineligible to enter legitimately. Once having been seen and vetted as a low risk person, the Service believes that it may be an acceptable risk to allow these approved individuals to cross the border unsupervised for a limited period of time. This belief is expressed in a number of Service programs such as INSPASS, SENTRI, Automated Permit Ports, Dedicated Commuter Lanes, and the I–68 program. Like the I–68 program, individuals in these other programs must be seen and vetted yearly by a Service officer. There is no indication that participants in those other programs believe the Service is imposing an undue burden on them in order to participate.
As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the bill, as written, does not seem to reflect a clear understanding of the existing I–68 program, as it is not mandatory for a boater to obtain an I–68 permit. However, if it is the intention of the bill to exempt United States citizens who are passengers or crew on small boats, including commercial vessels, from inspection, the Service does not believe that this would be a sound policy. For example, a ferry is a commercial vessel and in this example, United States citizen passengers or crew on a ferry would be exempt from Immigration inspection. This provision would, for the first time, create an exception in statute from the requirement that every person seeking admission to the United States be admitted on the basis of an interview by an officer of the United States Government. If boaters are granted an exception then what should the Service say to hikers, skiers, horseback riders, and others who might want similar treatment? The result would likely be a loss of control over the northern border.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also have to question the likelihood of a United States citizen, assuming that he or she remembered to take it at all, would be willing to risk taking his/her passport out in a boat where it might become ruined from the water and sun. Members of the committee should also be aware that under the current rule governing travel by citizens of the United States, no citizen is now required to be in possession of a passport when returning to the United States from Canada. This bill would change that long standing rule.
The bill is also unlikely to reduce the burden on the boating public, as it would substitute a $55 document for each person to purchase and carry for the I–68 which costs a maximum of $32 for an entire family. The reaction of the boating public to what they will perceive as a new Service imposed requirement will be both negative and vocal. An additional negative publicity factor will be that our Border Patrol agents will now have to detain boaters while they call for a check against Service lookout databases. One of the advantages of the I–68 program is that the Border Patrol agent in the field knows that these databases, the FBI's national arrest warrant database for example, has already been already been queried on permit holders. This means that the Border Patrol can quickly complete its check of the boater and continue on with its mission. Having to call and wait while the check is being made will result in less security on the northern border.
In general, INS has other concerns with the language in this bill. It refers to trips of less than 72 hours duration. How are these to be measured and does it mean trips to Canada or from Canada? Does the United States passport have to be valid or will an expired passport with a ten-year old photograph suffice? Additionally, the bill does not clearly address situations where there are both United States citizens and non-citizens on board.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me conclude my prepared remarks by briefly mentioning a program which the Service is implementing along the St. Lawrence River and which we believe may have the potential to meet our concerns with enforcement while easing the burden on the legitimate boater.
As a result of language included in our most recent supplemental appropriations bill, in the towns of Morristown, Ogdensburg, Waddington, and Clayton, New York, the Service is installing video telephones for use by boaters who are not in possession of an I–68. Video telephones attach to a telephone line and, as the name implies, allow callers at each end of the connection to see and hear each other. This concept is very similar to other programs, such as the Automated Permit Port and Remote Video Inspection System, which the Service has been testing for several years. In our implementation, the boater will dock at a marina, proceed to the video telephone and call an immigration inspector. The inspector will conduct a face-to-face inspection of the individual and, upon approval for entry to the United States, issue the person a control number which the boater will use to establish his/her lawful admission in the event he or she is encountered by an officer of the Border Patrol. Video telephones are relatively inexpensive. While the Service has bought the video telephones which will be used in New York, the price might eventually fall to a level where operators of marinas or dockside restaurants might find it attractive to purchase them for use by their clientele.
This completes my testimony and I am available to answer your questions.
———
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SECTION
Q. How many I–68 permits has the service issued?
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A. In Fiscal Year 1996, the last year for which complete information is available, the Service issued 1,091 permits.
Q. What has been the effect of the imposition of the I–68 fee?
A. In Fiscal Year 1995, the year prior to the imposition of the fee, the Service issued 10,002 permits. I must mention that since the imposition of the fee, the Service is issuing more multiperson permits as the family cap encourages such applications. Prior to the imposition of the fee, there was no incentive to group an application by a family so that the apparent drop-off in permits is not as dramatic as it might first seem.
Q. Would the Service support elimination of the fee?
A. The collection of the fee is a requirement imposed upon the Service by the Congress. However, the Service would not be opposed to the elimination of the fee should Congress so direct.
Q. How much money did the Service collect for the I–68 in fiscal year 96?
A. The Service collected approximately $33,816.
Q. You said a boater must apply for a permit yearly. Would you be willing to make the permit valid for multiple years?
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A. As you know, the Service has recently purchased the equipment necessary to produce high security cards in order to reduce instances of fraud. These cards contain digital pictures, signatures, biographic, and biometric information. The Service is currently in the process of ramping up to meet the requirements of the 96 Act as they relate to border crossing cards. Once the Service is in a position to do so, it may replace the current paper I–68 form with a high security card. Should it do so, the Service would be willing to consider making the permit valid for a number of years.
Q. You said the Service is required to collect a fee for service; yet, with the I–68 there is no service. That is, boaters are paying to not be inspected. How can you justify this?
A. The fee is not imposed to support the non-inspection of the boater. The fee has been established to recover the cost of adjudicating the application for the permit.
Q. You have mentioned the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 several times. How does a bill which relates to aliens impact this bill which relates to United States Citizen boaters?
A. One of the requirements the 96 Act established was a requirement to collect information relevant to the arrival and departure of every alien coming into the United States. In order to ensure that every alien has given the Service the data the 96 Act requires, it will be necessary to have contact with every person seeking to exit from the United States. While the 96 Act is not applicable to United States citizens, it will be necessary that persons seeking to depart from the United States establish that fact to the satisfaction Officer. This rational is the same as that of a citizen seeking to enter the United States. If the Service were to fail to establish citizenship upon departure, then every alien who has overstayed their lawful admission or who entered illegally or who otherwise has violated their status will self-declare themselves to be United States citizens and depart without detection by the Service. Absent detection upon departure, it will not be possible for the Service to establish that the alien has overstayed nor will it be possible to take the enforcement actions the Congress has told us in the 96 Act it wishes us to take.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q. How many officers does the Service have stationed on the northern border?
A. There are 575 Immigration Inspectors and ——— Border Patrol agents.
Q. How many adverse actions did the Service take against boaters last fiscal year?
A. I can make available the Service's complete report of adverse action along the northern border available to the Committee. Let me just cite two examples now, 46 persons aboard vessels made a false claim to United States citizenship and 504 criminal aliens were encountered.
Q. How many of these were against persons seeking to enter the United States by small boat?
A: The Service statistics do not differentiate by size of vessel. However, anecdotally, the number of enforcement actions against boaters on northern border waterways seems to be relatively small. We think that this is due to two factors; one, the current requirement that boaters must be seen by an officer of a Federal Inspection Service functions as a deterrent against abuse and, two, outside of the boating community the I–68 program has not received wide publicity, until recently.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q. I can understand the Service position on control of the border. But the reality is that you don't control the northern border. If you did, you would be catching more of the boaters who are entering the United States without the permit. Since you have an impossible task which you are not able to accomplish, why is the Service opposed to this bill?
A. As you know, the Service has had to temporarily deploy many of its assets from the northern border to the southwestern border. As additional resources for that border become available, those temporarily diverted assets will be returning to the northern border. Hopefully, the Congress will also approve some additional resources for the northern border. We believe that the Service will be in a position soon to return to an enforcement posture along the northern border. This is critical as the smugglers of aliens and drugs have begun to direct their attention from the southern to the northern border. We believe that this bill, which for the first time, creates a statutory exemption from immigration control for a specific class of individuals will lead to enforcement problems along the northern border, will result in pressure from other special interest groups for similar treatment, and will not reduce complaints by the legitimate boater.
Q. But what can the Service do for the legitimate boater to reduce the burden upon them?
A. The two principle complaints by the boating public seem to concern the perceived difficulty in obtaining the permit and the cost. The Service would not be opposed to the elimination of the requirement for the collection of the fee to adjudicate the application; nor would the Service be opposed to the automatic inclusion of individuals who are enrolled in one of the Service's other alternative inspections programs, such as INSPASS or the Dedicated Commuter Lanes, into the I–68 program. There are tens of thousands of such persons along the northern border already in the limited areas where these programs operate and soon there will be many more thousands as these programs expand. We recognize that there are some boaters who for one reason or another either can not or will not participate in one of these pre-enrollment programs. As I mentioned in my direct testimony, the Service is beginning the deployment of video telephones for use by non-enrolled individuals. If the Service was given sufficient resources, it would be in a position to make such technology available at many convenient locations along the waterways.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q. If the United States Customs Service is satisfied with a report by telephone, why isn't INS?
A. The Customs Service is concerned with the entry of things and the Immigration and Naturalization Service is concerned with the entry of persons. Since the Customs Service knows that all boaters who legally have entered the United States have either been vetted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, as evidenced by possession of the permit, or have been seen in person by a Service officer, they can safely rely upon us to have done much of their work for them.
Q. Does Canada have a similar program?
A. Canada has a program they call CANPASS—Private Boats. Similar in many respects to the I–68 program, it allows pre-enrolled persons to enter into Canada by means of a small boat when coming from the United States. This program requires the payment of a fee, currently $25 Canadian, to enroll. The permit holder must call Revenue Canada before departing for Canada and they must dock at a government approved dock or marina. Boaters who do not have a permit must also call before traveling to Canada and dock at an approved location. Either type of boater may be instructed at the time of the call to report to a staffed Port-of-Entry. If allowed to proceed to the approved location, the non-enrolled boater must call Revenue Canada again upon arrival in Canada. At that time they will be told if they will be allowed to enter Canada or must wait upon the arrival of an officer of the Canadian government.
Q. What does the Service think about a requirement to work with the Chief Executive Officers of the various states to have them issue the permit?
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A. The Service would be willing to work with the chief executive officers of Northern border states to make the application forms available for prospective enrollees. The Service believes, however, that persons who are enrolled in alternative inspections programs, like the I–68 program, must be approved by immigration officers who have access to watch lists and are trained to detect false documents and misleading or false statements. As I have mentioned, there are many inadmissible persons in Canada seeking to enter the United States. The Service believes that giving the authority to determine who may enter the United States to someone other than a trained officer of a federal inspection service would create a potential for abuse that does not currently exist.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Barnes.
Ms. Dickinson.
STATEMENT OF ELAINE DICKINSON, DIRECTOR OF STATE AFFAIRS, BOAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, BOAT/U.S.
Ms. DICKINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Elaine Dickinson, and I'm pleased to be here today representing 500,000 BOAT/U.S. members who are recreational boat owners, tens of thousands of whom boat on the waters of the Great Lakes and the waterways shared with Canada. We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on the bill introduced by Congressman LaTourette.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me begin by saying that the I–68 program, a product of the sixties and seventies, was conceived to address a very serious concern—illegal immigration. We recognize that this is still a serious problem. Back in the sixties and seventies, big Government programs were seen as a means to address every need. But today, the I–68 process is a cumbersome and ineffective holdover of that era. We feel it's time to reduce the bureaucratic burden on law-abiding Americans.
To understand why the I–68 program is a failure with boat owners, I'd like to share with you the portions of a letter that one of our members, Mark Muglich of Strongsville, OH, sent to President Clinton and members of the Ohio congressional delegation.
Mr. Muglich was planning to take his boat to Canada during the July Fourth holidays last year. First, he had to travel by car from Strongsville to the Federal office building in downtown Cleveland. As he wrote us, he was sitting in a 90-degree waiting room with 34 people ahead of him and only two INS clerks on duty:
In order for me to return to my country legally after touching Canadian soil I must possess the INS form I–68, which costs $16 a person. The cost is not the only part that bothers me. It's the investment in time and inconvenience that is most troublesome. Because I was fortunate enough to be born here, I have never had to suffer the inconsideration of the INS before. It's discouraging to see how our Government treats its ''customers.''
When I arrived at 1:30 p.m., I received queue number 142. The next number up was 122. I did complete my transaction at 2:20 p.m., an appalling amount of time for a very simple task. I have no idea for the basis of this law. Does someone think I'm going to smuggle Canadians illegally into my boat, or maybe some snow since we didn't get enough this last winter? The story does not end well. All of the above was written before my number was called.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Muglich goes on to say that after spending an hour waiting, he was turned away by the INS clerks without an I–68 because he did not have exact change. Unbelievably, they had no capacity when collecting these fees to make change, and Mr. Muglich did cancel his trip to Canada.
Mr. Chairman, it's not real surprising why recreational boaters are not flocking to Government offices to line up and get these INS forms. Most boaters are not even aware of the requirement for an I–68. They know they can drive back and forth between Canada and the United States in their cars without having to fill out forms or paying any fees, and they assume boating is much the same.
The public awareness efforts that have been launched by the INS have been too little and largely ineffective. I'd say that compliance by the boating public is minimal. The requirement is also virtually unenforceable in our opinion, because recreational boaters do not depart and return from designated ports-of-entry. They boat from all corners of the Great Lakes. You're talking about thousands and thousands of miles of shorelines, from the smallest creeks to the biggest cities.
The other problem is that Great Lakes boaters are feeling singled out for some kind of special enforcement, and then on top of that they're being asked to pay for it. That's one reason why this program is just not sitting well.
In our view, the I–68 process is also wasting valuable INS resources on law-abiding boaters that could be better spent focusing on other bigger problems with illegal immigration.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Any boater knows that he or she can be stopped at any time on the water by U.S. Coast Guard or U.S. Customs, and they respect the need for that kind of enforcement. We see no reason why carrying proof of U.S. citizenship when returning from Canada is not sufficient for spot checks on the Great Lakes by these agencies, as well as by INS.
We agree with the direction of Congressman LaTourette's bill in that carrying a passport could be an alternative, and we very much support this reform, although we do not feel that this bill as currently drafted goes far enough.
I would like to point out one benefit with the passport is that it's good for 10 years, whereas the I–68 is only good for one short boating season, and you've got to go through this whole same rigamarole again if you want to go boating next year. At least the passport has a little longer lifespan.
Short of eliminating it altogether, we'd prefer that the requirement to carry either a passport or an I–68 apply only to the skipper of the vessel. This eliminates the problem of unexpected guests or racing crew coming on board who may not have a passport or have time to run down to an INS office during working hours.
In many instances the skipper of the boat is held responsible for everyone on board, and this could be the case with any problem that arose with illegal immigration.
We're very happy to support a pilot program. We're not sure 18 months is adequate; it's really only one short boating season, and I'm not sure that's enough time to have this whole program publicized, implemented, and evaluated. But we greatly appreciate the subcommittee's time in hearing our concerns, and we will be happy to work with you in any way to resolve these problems. Thank you.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dickinson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELAINE DICKINSON, DIRECTOR OF STATE AFFAIRS, BOAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, BOAT/U.S.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Elaine Dickinson and I'm pleased to be here today representing more than 500,000 BOAT/U.S. members who are recreational boat owners, tens of thousands of whom reside in or boat on the waters of the Great Lakes, as well as many of the waterways shared with Canada. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the bill introduced by Congressman LaTourette, as well as the I–68 program managed by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Let me begin by saying that the I–68 program, a product of the 1970s, was conceived to address a serious government concern—illegal immigration—and we recognize that this is still a serious problem. Back in the 1970s, ''big government'' was seen as the means to address every need. But today, the I–68 process is a cumbersome and ineffective hold-over of that era. We feel it's time to reduce the bureaucratic burden on law-abiding Americans.
To understand why the I–68 program is an abject failure with boat owners, I would like to share with you portions of a letter from one of our members, Mark E. Muglich, of Strongsville, Ohio that was sent to President Clinton and members of the Ohio Congressional delegation.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Muglich planned to take his boat to Canada during the July 4th holidays in 1996. But, first, he had to travel by car from Strongsville to the federal office building in downtown Cleveland. As he wrote us, he was sitting in a 90-degree waiting room, with 34 people ahead of him and only two clerks on duty.
In order for me to return to the United States legally after touching Canadian soil I must possess INS Form I–68, which costs $16.00 per person. The cost is not the part that bothers me. It's the investment in time and inconvenience that is most troublesome.
Because I was fortunate enough to be born here, I have never had to suffer the inconsideration of the INS before. I find it discouraging to see how our government treats its ''customers.'' When I arrived at 1:30 p.m., I received queue number 142, the next number up was 122. I completed my transaction at 2:20 p.m., an appalling amount of time for a very simple transaction. I have no idea of the basis of this law. Does someone think I'm going to smuggle in Canadians illegally or maybe some snow since we didn't get enough this past winter?
The story does not end well. All of the above was written before my number was called. The rest is as follows: Ms. Henderson gave me a form to complete and told me the cost would be $32.00. I completed the form and returned to Ms. Henderson's window and tendered two $20.00 Federal Reserve Notes, which were refused because it was not exactly $32.00. I offered to leave the remaining $8.00, but that idea was also rejected by Ms. Henderson and her supervisor, Mary Bican. They advised me that they did not have the capacity to give change and that I would have to go get the correct amount if I wanted the I–68 form.
Since our government needs money so badly, I don't understand why they cannot make it easy to pay. If our diligent federal employees thought it was improper to keep the $8.00, they should have suggested I donate it to the deficit.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, most recreational boaters are not as diligent as Mr. Muglich. Most boaters are not even aware of the requirement for an I–68 to return from a trip to Canada. Many of them know they can drive back and forth to and from Canada without filling out forms or paying fees and assume boating is the same. Whatever public awareness efforts have been attempted by INS have been too little and largely ineffective. I would say that compliance by the boating public with the I–68 process is minimal.
The requirement is also virtually unenforceable. Boating and boat racing are both social and sporting activities that occur everywhere on the Great Lakes, from the smallest creeks and harbors to major cities and bays. It is not possible for either INS, Coast Guard or Customs to be in the right place at the right time when a boat is returning to the U.S. Recreational boaters do not depart and return from designated ports of entry, but from all corners of the Great Lakes shoreline and at all hours. We have also heard of instances where boaters did try to do the right thing by sailing hours out of their way to a designated port of entry on the Great Lakes only to find it closed or with no staff on duty.
Obtaining an I–68 form is ''very inconvenient.'' Having to drag friends and relatives to an INS office, during business hours, stand in long lines and pay $16 per person or $32 per family, is not the way most Americans want to spend their free time.
Recreational boaters will never perceive this program to be a government ''service.'' Many boaters know that it wasn't until revenue was involved that the INS made much effort at all in publicizing the requirement for an I–68.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In our view, the I–68 process is wasting valuable resources of the INS on law-abiding recreational boaters that could be better spent focusing on the real problems in illegal immigration.
Since the fee went into effect three years ago, organizations such as BOAT/U.S. have received many complaints from irate and frustrated citizens. In fact, we understand that the confusion and public outcry against I–68 in the Pacific Northwest has led to the program being suspended. Even U.S. Customs, which was taking most of the blame from the boating public in that region, won't having anything to do with I–68 in Washington state.
Another reason why this program is a ''hard sell'' with the boating public is that boaters know it is directed only at the Great Lakes northern border. Any cruising boater in Florida can go to the Bahamas and back and there is no I–68 requirement. Nor do they have to have one in Louisiana, Texas, or even California. Most boaters are aware that they must report their arrival to U.S. Customs to clear in to the U.S. and Customs is cross-deputized to clear people in for INS.
Great Lakes boaters are not only feeling singled out for special enforcement but are being asked to pay for it as well. We realize that Congress has authorized ''user fees'' for those programs that benefit specific segments of the public, but the average citizens doesn't see the I–68 process as a specific benefit.
What is the solution? Illegal immigration, similar to drug smuggling, must be fought in a variety of ways, but not with bureaucratic red tape such as the I–68. Any boater knows that he or she can be stopped out on the water at any time, for any reason by the U.S. Coast Guard or Customs. Recreational boaters are citizens who know they must abide by a variety of state and federal rules and they respect the need for some enforcement. We see no reason why carrying proof of U.S. citizenship when returning from Canada is not sufficient for spot checks on the Great Lakes by these agencies, as well as INS.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We agree with the direction of Congressman LaTourette's bill in that carrying a passport is a viable alternative; a passport is good for 10 years and is more convenient to obtain. But we would also prefer that the requirement to carry either a passport or I–68 apply only to the owner or skipper of the vessel. This eliminates the problem of unexpected guests or racing crew coming on board who may not have a passport. The skipper or owner of the vessel could be held responsible for everyone on board if a problem arose.
While we very much support this effort to reform the I–68 system, we do not feel that this bill, as currently drafted, goes far enough. It only allows the passport option for the passengers on board, so the major inconvenience remains for every owner/operator on the Great Lakes. The sunset clause in 18 months allows only one short boating season for this very minor change to be publicized, implemented and enforced. We don't think it's sufficient time to see any results.
The most important thing to do now is to take steps as soon as possible to resolve the problems with the I–68 process as it now exists. BOAT/U.S. and a variety of other boating groups have met with INS since last year hoping for regulatory relief. After months of discussing our concerns with INS program managers, there has not been substantial progress.
We are just now heading into another summer boating season with more complaints coming in every day from Great Lakes boat owners. Special races, marine events and rendezvous in Canada are being canceled because of I–68. At a time when U.S.-Canadian free trade is supposed to be. easier, a program such as this is a detriment. I'm sure that the marine and recreational industries are losing jobs at marinas, restaurants and other waterfront facilities that are directly affected when people are discouraged from vacationing on their boats across our borders.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's time in hearing our concerns and we will be more than happy to work with you to resolve this problem. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Dickinson.
Mr. Tinge.
STATEMENT OF ROLF R. TINGE, HIRAM, OH
Mr. TINGE. Yes, Rolf Tinge. I represent a large number of recreational boaters from the Cleveland area and from across the United States. The organizations that I represent have an approximate collected membership of 2.5 million recreational boaters.
The boaters across the United States, are taxed to the gunnels. Federal marine gasoline tax, State marine gasoline tax over and above the Federal tax, excise taxes on purchases of boats, and all types of related equipment; radio license fee and operator's license fees on boats over 30 feet which dock at a foreign port; U.S. customs fees for boats over 30 feet which travel to a foreign part, and the I–68 fee for boat owners and guests going to a Canadian port.
The image of boating as an exclusive sport for the yacht-owning rich is a natural and a national misconception. According to the study by the National Marine Manufacturers Association, only two percent of all boats out there fit into this high-ticket category.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We would like to see the repeal of I–68 altogether. If not, removal of all fees involved with I–68 and be an easier method of obtaining an I–68. When the I–68 was enacted in 1963, there were no fees attached, and even today the fees are not collected consistently across the United States at every INS office. It seems to be hit and miss.
I was asked to attend a meeting by the Office of Inspections, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in August 1996. At this BOAT/U.S. office in Alexandria, VA, in the course of this meeting, I asked Assistant Chief Inspector Ronald J. Hays, INS, ''How many violations of I–68 by recreational boaters have been documented?'' After much discussion with other INS personnel in the room, they all agreed that there had been no documented violations of I–68 by recreational boaters.
There were no documented violations of I–68 by recreational boaters involved in illegal drugs. There were no documented violations of I–68 involved in illegal alcohol by recreational boaters. There were no documented violations of I–68 involving contraband by recreational boaters. From INS' own records, there seems to be little advantage to continually enforce I–68, which was started during and because of the cold war period in this country's history.
I'd like to say, I sent away to the U.S. Government Immigration and Naturalization Service Center in—it's in Virginia, Vermont? I asked them that I'd like to have a copy of an INS form so I could study it and something about the law. This is what I got back from them:
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''The form I–68 that you have requested are not available for public distribution. Please contact your local INS district office for further assistance.'' This is the type of thing that the boater in the United States has gotten from INS continuously.
I'd like to also state that if this INS policy on I–68 is so wonderful and so great, why is it not enforced in the States where they do have an illegal problem, like California? The California recreational boater can go to Mexico; he has no I–68. The man from Texas—the man from Texas who goes down to Mexico—and you know in Texas they've got a tremendous problem with illegal aliens—they have no I–68.
And in Florida—my God, in Florida, where they have all these people coming in from all over the Caribbean—they have no I–68. Those people can get in a boat, go to the Bahamas; they can go over to Bermuda; they can go to all these international ports. Why, if this is such an important policy for this INS to have, why don't they enforce it all over? They do not enforce it in Washington.
I have letters here from people all over the country: The Marine Trades Association in Cleveland, Chesapeake Bay Yachting Clubs Association in Maryland, National Boating Federation in Erie, PA, Recreational Boaters Association of Washington in Seattle. I have about 15 letters here all stating the same thing.
In Washington, INS doesn't even bother to enforce the I–68. It's only enforced in little sections, and Lake Erie happens to be one of them. We're not saying that we don't want the I–68, or it's not—we're just tired of being taxed to begin with. The recreational boater is really tired of being taxed, and he's tired of this law that's enforced in one area and not enforced anywhere else.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Go to Wisconsin, go to a lot of these places. They don't know about it because it's not enforced. They do not have the people to enforce it. If we come back into Cleveland and call the INS office after 4:30, you'll get a message, and I think you all know what that message is because you probably got it here in Washington—the same thing that we get in Cleveland. They have nobody there, and they're not able to do it.
Mr. SMITH. Sounds like the IRS. Thank you very much, Mr. Tinge.
Mr. TINGE. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tinge follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROLF TINGE, HIRAM, OH
My name is Rolf R. Tinge. I live at 189 Sunrise Lane, Hiram, Ohio 44234. I represent a large number of recreational boaters. I am past commodore of a yacht club, past commander of Greater Cleveland Boating Association, past commodore of Inter-Lake Yachting Association, past president on the Inter-National Order of Blue Gavel and currently am chairman of the Issues and Policy Committee for the National Boating Federation. These organizations collectively have a membership of approximately two and one-half million recreational boaters.
I currently serve as a member of the Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan (RAP), a committee appointed by the Federal EPA. I am on the board of directors of Boating Association of Ohio, a political lobbying group representing recreational boaters and manufacturers. I am on the executive committee of the International Order of the Blue Gavel, an associate restricted to past commodores around the world. I am co-chairman of the Political Action Committee of Greater Cleveland Boating Association on the South Shore of Lake Erie. I represent both GCBA and IOBG at the National Boating Federation.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The boaters across the United States are taxed to the gunnels—Federal marine gasoline tax, State marine gasoline tax over and above the Federal tax, excise taxes on purchases of boats and all types of related equipment, radio license and operators license fees on boats over 30 feet which dock at a foreign port, U.S. Customs fees for boats over 30 feet which travel to foreign ports and the I–68 fee for boat owners and guests going to a Canadian port.
The image of boating as an exclusive sport for the yacht-owning rich is a national misconception. According to a study by the National Marine Manufacturers Association, ''only two percent of all boats out there fit into this high-ticket category.'' We would like to see the repeal of I–68 altogether. If not, removal of all fees involved with I–68 and an easier method of obtaining an I–68. When I–68 was enacted in 1963, there were no fees attached. An even today, the fees are not collected consistently across the United States at every INS office. It seems to be hit and miss.
I was asked to attend a meeting by the Office of Inspections, United States Immigration and Naturalization Services in August, 1996 at the BOAT/U.S. Office in Alexandria, Virginia. In the course of this meeting I asked Assistant Chief Inspector Ronald J. Hayes (INS) how many violations of I–68 by recreational boaters have been documented. After much discussion with other INS personnel in the room, they all agreed there had been no documented violations of I–68 by recreational boaters. There were no documented violations of I–68 by recreational boaters involving illegal drugs. There were no documented violations of I–68 involving illegal alcohol by recreational boaters. There were no documented violations of I–68 involving contraband by recreational boaters. From INS' own records, there seems to be little advantage to continuing enforcement of I–68 which was started during and because of the ''cold war'' period in our history.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. I'm going to ask Ms. Barnes the first question, and that is to respond to what Mr. Tinge just said. And I would also like you to address, if you would, why we seem to have a double standard. Should we have I–68's for individuals from Mexico and California who are traveling back and forth? And the same thing for Texas and Mexico?
Ms. BARNES. The people who are going to Mexico and to the Caribbean are required to report at a port-of-entry. There is no I–68 program on the northern border because—excuse me, the southern border—because the southern border has been deemed to be a higher-risk border; therefore, we have no recreational boater program. Those people are required to report at a port-of-entry, and there is a procedure in place for them to do so.
However, I must admit, Chairman, that they don't all report. And, yes, some of them are in noncompliance and break the law on a regular basis when they come back.
Mr. SMITH. Ms. Barnes.
Ms. BARNES. Yes, sir.
Mr. SMITH. Let me go to a couple of your concerns that you mentioned about the bill and see if we can't allay them. You mentioned and I mentioned earlier, as well, the concern about illegal entry. Don't you think, though, the bill as now written, requiring citizens to have passports and having a short pilot program, at least as now written, doesn't that put us in a very strong position to check the program to make sure that it's not going to be abused?
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BARNES. To be honest with you, Chairman, it does—on the surface it does—but it still presents some problems. If I understand the legislation that's being proposed correctly, the owner or operator of the boat is still required to have the I–68, so that person is still required to have a face-to-face interview annually——
Mr. SMITH. That's correct.
Ms. BARNES [continuing]. With an immigration officer for the purpose of issuance of the boat permit. It is my understanding that it is not normal procedure for American citizens visiting the northern border or residing on the northern border to carry a passport, and while Ms. Dickinson did make the point that the passport is valid for 10 years, those people who make a random, spur-of-the-moment or short-term visit to a relative or a friend, et cetera, that would occasion the type of recreational boating events that we're speaking of are not necessarily going to be in possession of a passport.
Mr. SMITH. Isn't that—are you arguing that they should be allowed to go back and forth without a passport?
Ms. BARNES. No I'm not. I'm saying I think we may need to look at other ways to do this. That's one of the reasons why we would prefer to try the video phones, because it gives us a chance to have a face-to-face interview.
Mr. SMITH. That was my next question. In fact, the program that you mentioned that had been tried, I think, on the St. Lawrence River, as I recall, wouldn't that require every boat owner to either have a video phone or go to where a video phone was present?
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BARNES. Yes; it would require them to go to where a video phone is present, but it's hoped that the video phones would be much easier to install and would be available on a 24-hour basis, where with immigration inspectors, it's not practical to have them in multiple locations.
Mr. SMITH. It sounds like we have votes coming up, and I want to give the other members of the subcommittee an opportunity to ask questions, so perhaps I will stop right there and yield to Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT. Let me just ask a question on this consistency issue. Mr. Tinge——
Mr. TINGE. Yes, sir.
Mr. WATT [continuing]. Suggested that there is a different standard, even along the Canadian border. If you go to the Canadian border in Washington, it's different than if you go to the Canadian border off of Cleveland.
What's your response to that, Ms. Barnes?
Ms. BARNES. Sir, the I–68 program is also used in the Washington area. There was at one time some problems with the I–68 program, and enforcement of it during one particular season, I think, was amended to handle—until some problems could be worked out. But it's my understanding that currently the I–68 program is applicable all along all waterways along the northern border.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WATT. Mr. Tinge, you've heard Ms. Barnes' explanation of why there is no I–68 program along the Mexican border. As a responsible U.S. citizen, would you favor having an I–68 program along the Mexican border?
Mr. TINGE. All I said was that it's not done——
Mr. WATT. Well, I heard what you said. I understand what you're saying. I'm asking you, could we as responsible legislators pass an identical program that would apply consistently along the Mexican border?
Mr. TINGE. If they have no cases of violation on record of anybody with a recreational boat doing anything wrong on the Great Lakes going to Canada with I–68, why would you want to start? All you'd be doing is just forming another form of government.
Mr. WATT. Ms. Barnes is going to tell you that that ain't true of the Canadian border either.
Ms. BARNES. Right; yes.
Mr. WATT. I think she's anxious to tell you that.
Ms. BARNES. Thank you, Congressman.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WATT. Go ahead, Ms. Barnes.
Ms. BARNES. One of the reasons we may not have any records of I–68 people violating this is the I–68 people have been vetted by us and checked through the lookout system. Their bona fides have been established. It is important to note also that our Service records, which we can make available to the committee, show that during the last fiscal year 1946 persons aboard vessels made false claims to United States citizenship, and 504 criminal aliens were encountered aboard vessels along the northern border.
Mr. WATT. Well, it sounds like, Mr. Tinge, your argument that all of these people are in fact recreational boaters, as opposed to some other people, may not be as valid as you think it is. Now let me restate the question. Given that background and assuming that what Ms. Barnes says is correct, and given a similar kind of recognition that I think people assume without even bothering to document along the Mexican border, would you support an I–68 program along the Mexican border?
Mr. TINGE. Again, let me tell you that when I say recreational boaters, I'm talking about boaters who do this as a recreation——
Mr. WATT. But there's no way to determine that in advance, Mr. Tinge. I mean, you know you can say I'm going to define recreational boaters as only the people who never do anything wrong. If you define them that way, then I guess we could, but there wouldn't be any way to determine that without some kind of program that could be applied consistently is the point I'm making.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TINGE. All I'm telling you is that INS made the statement that there were no violations of I–68.
Mr. WATT. But all of the I–68 people went through a prescreening process, and you're talking about doing away with the I–68 process now and just letting them come. So——
Mr. TINGE. I'm saying that anybody that got caught along that shoreline, they're all governed under the law of I–68, are they not? So they would be all——
Mr. WATT. So you'd have to spot check a lot more people, then if they got caught then you would deal with them after they got caught.
Mr. TINGE. Well, most assuredly, that's what they're doing. They're checking this way of doing this. We're not disputing the I–68. We're not saying that it's not an effective thing. All we're saying is that make it more easy to get, and why charge us a fee for something that we're not getting? They're not giving us anything for this fee.
Mr. WATT. Well, the reason you're not getting it is because you have been accorded a preferential status already, and now you're saying, ''Don't charge me in addition to that.'' You made one step when you say, ''Don't give me a I–68 program.'' It's another step beyond that to say, ''OK, then don't charge me for that I–68 program.'' And I'm saying if it's good for the goose, it must be good for the gander, and all I was trying to find out is whether you thought it would be responsible legislatively for us to do the same kind of program along the Mexican border.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TINGE. I don't understand——
Mr. WATT. OK.
Mr. TINGE [continuing]. How you could figure that because, again, I go back to the INS' own statement. They have no violations of I–68. They have none.
Mr. WATT. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
We thank you all. We're going to have to run to get to a vote. We appreciate your input on this bill, and before we end—I wish there were more people to hear this—that George Fishman, to my right, has been the legal counsel for both yesterday's hearing and today's hearing. They've gone very smoothly. I think Mr. Watt would agree, and we appreciate the good help we received. But thank you all again.
The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X E S
Appendix 1.—Seven Letters of Support Submitted by Rolf Tinge, President, Greater Cleveland Boating Association
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
| National Boating Federation, |
| Erie, PA, June 20, 1997. |
MS. DORIS MEISSNER,
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Washington, DC.
DEAR MS. MEISSNER: My name is Bill Heider and I am Secretary-Treasurer of the National Boating Federation. NBF is an organization of boating associations that represents between two and one-half to three million recreational boaters nationwide.
A large part of the people we represent live in the Great Lakes area. We have members in every state that touches the Great Lakes.
I am writing on behalf of our members to protest the charging of a fee for the issuance of the I–68 form.
While we feel use of the I–68 form is a good idea to facilitate travel between our home ports and Canada the fact that the government is now charging for something that has always been at no charge is just another form of taxation. As boaters we pay our share of taxes.
Not only is charging a fee for this form out of line but the way that it is to be administered is ridiculous.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I was told at a recent meeting with Immigration Officers from the Pittsburgh office that if I purchase an I–68 form that I can only use it on my own boat. If I were to travel to Canada on a friends boat and return without checking in I would be considered illegal.
In the same talk the official stated that they were not interested in the boats only the people. I asked if you were only interested in people why then couldn't I use my I–68 form when traveling with friends. His answer was because that's the way the law is written.
Often times our sailboaters may crew in races between the U.S. and Canada on several different boats during the course of a season. this means that they would have to purchase an I–68 for each boat.
We realize that the I–68 form is voluntary but there are many boaters who boat out of the smaller ports that do not have an immigration office that would benefit from the use of an I–68. However to charge $32.00 per boat for the issuance of the form is excessive.
NBF strongly urges that you reconsider the idea of charging for the I–68 form or at the very least make the charge more affordable.
Sincerely,
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
| William A. Heider, Sr. |
| Sec.-Treas. |
———
| Chesapeake Bay Yacht Clubs Association, |
| Towson, MD, June 20, 1997. |
HON. BUD SHUSTER,
Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
Washington, DC.
Re: INS I–68 Program & Customs CF399 Decal.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN GILCHREST: The Chesapeake Bay Yacht Clubs Association (CBYCA) is adamantly opposed to the Form I–68 ($32) and the U.S. Customs decal fee ($25) imposed on recreational boats. CBYCA represents 50,000 boaters in a five state region. We believe imposition of these fees is highly discriminatory since no special forms, decals, or fees are imposed on all other citizens returning to the United States from Canada. Additionally, there is the cost and inconvenience of being required to report in person at a port of entry or having the pre-approved clearance through Form I–68. Ultimately, for failure to comply, an individual can have their boat confiscated, again an extreme measure not imposed on any other citizen.
We would hope that Form I–68 and its fee would be eliminated although through legislation. Barring that, we should at least have the right of all citizens to re-enter the United States by presenting proper identification or passports.
We sincerely appreciate your efforts in our behalf, and, we are sure our appreciation extends to all boaters nationwide.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sincerely,
| Donald W. Amos, |
| Legislative Director. |
———
LAKE ERIE MARINE TRADES ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION
Whereas, recreational boating families of Ohio are being unfairly required to obtain an I–68 from the Immigration & Naturalization Service in order to return from visits of short duration across Lake Erie to Canada; and
Whereas, obtaining an I–68 imposes an inconvenient and unreasonable burden of personal appearance by families at INS offices of which there are only 3 in Ohio and none of which are open for convenient access by working Ohioans; and
Whereas, obtaining an I–68 further imposes a discriminatory fee against Ohio's recreational boaters which is not paid by people who drive over to Canada; and
Whereas, this discriminatory fee of $16.00 per person up to $32.00 per family is imposed on boaters but no fee is charged for autos returning from Canada; and
Whereas, the I–68 fees imposed on Ohio's boating families have been set in an arbitrary manner and cannot be justified by INS; and
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Whereas, the enabling legislation for the I–68 program was passed some 25 years ago and the INS never saw need to implement this program against Ohio's recreational boaters until just 2 years ago; and
Whereas, the INS is unable to produce any records of any cases involving illegal immigration across Lake Erie from Canada to Ohio aboard the small craft owned by Ohio's recreational boating families.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the 120 members firms of the Lake Erie Marine Trade Association do hereby petition the Congress of the United States to:
Pass legislation exempting Ohio's recreational boating families from any requirement to obtain an I–68 on the basis that such a requirement is discriminatory, unnecessary and constitutes an unjustifiable imposition on Ohio's boating families; OR
Pass legislation directing the INS to (a) eliminate the imposition of all fees for I–68 forms because such fees constitute a discriminatory action against one group of citizens over another, and (b) implement a program enabling Ohio's recreational boating families to obtain an I–68 by telephone and mail thereby eliminating the inconvenience of personal appearance at INS offices which now can cause a family to have to travel as much as 100 miles or more.
Inform members of Congress that the current proposal by the Honorable Steve LaTourette, Representative of Ohio, while possibly helpful in reducing the number of Ohioan's effected by the I–68 debacle, clearly does not go far enough in correcting a program in which the INS has suddenly created an unnecessary and unjustified burden on a group of Ohio citizens.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Approved by unanimous vote of the members assembled this 20th Day of June, 1997, at Westlake, Ohio.
| Norman A. Schultz, President. |
| Kenneth Strayer, Secretary. |
———
| Recreational Boating Association of Washington, |
| Seattle, WA, June 23, 1997. |
Mr. ROLF TINGE,
National Boating Federation.
DEAR MR. TINGE: This letter is written on behalf of the Recreational Boating Association of Washington State (RBAW). Our President has given me the authority to advise you RBAW is clearly in full support of the passage of H.R. 694. RBAW is a political motivated organization with the mission of enhancing and protecting recreational boating on the state level. We are over 30 years old and have over 30,000 members including about 100 yacht clubs in the State of Washington.
Since we have thousands of boaters who vacation in Canada and transit Canadian waters to Alaska, we would like to see the time limit restriction in H.R. 694 extended from 48 hours to a much longer period of time or have no time limit whatsoever. Most boaters from Washington spend at least a week in Canadian waters and many people go for a lot longer.
We feel the I–68 requirement for U.S. Citizens is an injustice to recreational boaters because it penalizes our form of recreation unfairly. For instance there is no special fee for driving a car across the border or using public transportation to cross back into the U.S. from Canada. A driver's license is usually sufficient identification at these border crossings. Also if a U.S. Citizen comes into the U.S. from any foreign country by public transportation a passport is the requisite to reenter the country.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Apparently the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) maintains the reason for the I–68 fee is to pay for the increased costs of administration that has resulted from increased pleasure boat traffic between the U.S. and Canada. This reasoning is flawed. In Washington State the INS has no officials employed at the major clearance ports for recreational vessels and thus no administration costs in these ports. U.S. Customs handles the work of the INS for recreational boaters in Washington State but INS still has the I–68 requirement.
Thank you for your work in supporting H.R. 694 and if RBAW can be of any further assistance please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
| David Kutz, |
| RBAW Trustee and National Boating Fed. Delegate. |
———
| Inter-Lake Yachting Association, |
| Toledo, OH, June 23, 1997. |
GENTLEMEN: Allow me to introduce myself and the organization I represent. My name is Fred B. Weiss and I am currently the Commodore of the Inter-Lake Yachting Association. I–LYA, as it is known, was organized in 1885 and is one of the oldest yachting organizations in the United States. Today I–LYA is comprised of 142 member clubs located in five states and Ontario, Canada.
When Commodore Tinge asked if I would like to state I–LYA's position on the I–68 requirement, I gladly jumped at the chance, since it has a major impact on our membership. Below is a summary of our feelings on the I–68 form. I have also included comments regarding the Custom's ''User Fee for vessels over 30 feet returning from Canada'' and the FCC radio station license requirements for vessels over 30 feet.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For a number of years our government bureaucracies have been using what I refer to as a ''Fat Cat'' policy when coming up with new ways to generate income to offset budget cuts. They either create new regulations or dust off old ones and direct them toward a segment of our population that they feel can afford to pay and in all likelihood will make little noise about it. In many cases this has been the boating community.
Our group already pays exuberant taxes on the fuel we use to travel by boat from port to port. These additional taxes were supposed to be earmarked for water safety and the Coast Guard, yet these agencies keep receiving cut backs. Thus the boating community has to ask, where is our money going? If we are not receiving additional services for this additional cost in fuel than we should be treated the same as the owners of land RV's and pay normal fuel prices.
The fees being levied against boaters are very discriminatory and in the case of the I–68 fall just short of extortion. Why should the owner of a vessel thirty feet or longer, visiting Canada, have to purchase a ship's station license and have a radio operator's license while smaller craft with the same radio equipment are not required to follow suite?
Why should the owner of an airplane or a boat owner with more than thirty feet of boat be required to purchase from U.S. Custom's a ''Users Decal'' for $25 a year if visiting Canada? Boaters with smaller craft can visit all they want without this decal. I'm not a lawyer but this sure seems like discrimination to me!
The best one of all is the I–68 form. We are required to spend $16 for each non-family member and $32 per boat for I–68 permits which are required by the Department of Immigration if visiting Canada. What do we get for this money? We don't have to check back in when we return to this country. If checking backing into this country is important, why should you be allowed to avoid it with an I–68 permit?
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What happens if we elect to check back in instead of purchasing the I–68?
To answer this question for our membership, Commander Nick Glynos, of the Greater Cleveland Boating Association, and I asked the Chief Immigration Officer out of the Sandusky, Ohio Immigration Office if our members could just report back when returning from Canada instead of purchasing the I–68? His response to us was as follows:
You can elect to report back into this country instead of carrying the I–68 but be aware that you must enter a port of entry and report to both Custom's and Immigrations. Custom's is generally too busy to come down and inspect your vessel but Immigration will. If you check back in during normal business hours Monday thru Friday there is no charge for this inspection. However, if you return after 5:00 p.m. or on a weekend there will be a $25 inspection fee. Furthermore you and all persons aboard must remain on the vessel until after the inspection.
This falls about as close to extortion as you can get without crossing the line. What are they going to inspect for? A cargo hold full of illegal Canadian immigrants that we are smuggling into the states? The I–68 is simply a ploy to get money and is ridiculous. If our boating organizations were to urge their memberships not to purchase the I–68 and instead report back in, each time after visiting Canada, we would tie up Immigration to the point that they won't be capable of doing the job they are supposed to be doing which is protecting our borders against illegal entry.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As Commodore of I–LYA, I respectfully urge your body to look into the aforementioned fees and eliminate them. Contrary to popular belief, boaters are not the ''Fat Cats'' many believe we are. My yacht club is typical of most in our organization. We have a little over a hundred members with boats ranging from twenty to thirty-five feet. Our membership is primarily made up of school teachers like myself or police and firemen. Granted we have a couple of lawyers and a doctor along with some small business owners but the bulk of our membership is middle income. We work hard to maintain our club ourselves to keep the cost of boating down. Many of us live aboard our vessels during the summer and enjoy traveling about the great lakes visiting other clubs in both the states and Canada. Please try to put an end to these ridicules and unjust fees.
Respectfully submitted,
| Fred B. Weiss, |
| Commodore. |
———
| Pennsylvania Boating Association, Inc., |
| Erie, PA, June 24, 1997. |
ROLF TINGE,
Past President,
International Order of the Blue Gavel,
Hiram, OH.
ROLF, In regards to the I–68 Documentation we here at the Northwest area of the great state of Pennsylvania do not think, or should I say know, that it is not in the best interest to our friends to the north. It is also not in the best interest to the recreational boaters who travel to Canada. The Canadian boaters who travel across Lake Erie, spend about one million dollars in Erie, Pennsylvania a year, as shoppers and tourist. This is a very low estimate. The I–68 is not practical or is it Productive, it set's the country back Fifty Years, we need to look ahead not back. It makes an open boarder a closed boarder, do we want that when we have a free trade agreement with Canada, or do we just want to make some money?
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Yacht Clubs in the Northwest area of Pennsylvania are upset about this issue of having to get a permit to travel to Canada and back. The Canadians have to go to Buffalo for their permits before they can cross to Erie, Pennsylvania, traveling 100 miles out of their way, a great inconvenience. The Pennsylvania Boating Association and their 1,800 plus members do not agree with this I–68 project and as a member of the board of directors I write in protest of this project that is detrimental to recreational boating, the complete board is in agreement.
| Perry D. Ross, Director, |
| Northwest Pennsylvania Boating Association. |
———
| International Order of the Blue Gavel, |
| JUNE 24, 1997. |
DEAR CHAIRMAN: It is a privilege to be able to add the perspective of the International Order of the Blue Gavel to the testimony presented to the committee on the question of I–68. The IOBG represents some 4,000 yachtspersons who have been commodores of their respective yacht clubs. The great majority of our membership is in the United States, though we count many members in Canada and other countries.
As a voice for yachting and the yachting community, the IOBG is most concerned with the imposition of onerous and seemingly unnecessary regulations which also place another financial requirement on the enjoyment of our natural resources. One would have hoped that the lesson had been learned that the boating public is not an inexhaustible financial resource which can be taxed at will with no ill effects.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is, however, the seemingly unnecessary aspect of the I–68 regulations which calls loudest for its repeal. Speaking for its members who frequently cross the border between the United States and Canada, the IOBG calls for the elimination of this essentially bureaucratic approach to a non-problem. Boaters are not, and have not been, a significant concern in the field of immigration in this country. To pursue senseless regulation of this popular recreation activity is to misuse the assets and energies required to address real immigration problems which deserve professional attention.
Accordingly, on behalf of the many boaters who ply the boundary waters, the International Order of the Blue Gavel joins in urging the repeal of I–68.
Sincerely,
| Philip B. Arms, Jr., |
| President. |
Appendix 2.—Prepared Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Kennedy, a Representative in Congress From the State of Rhode Island
Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Watt, I am honored today to speak on behalf of the thousands of Lao and Hmong Veterans who live and work in my state of Rhode Island
My sincerest thanks to Congressman Vento for his leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank Mr. Philip Smith, Washington Director of the Lao Veterans of America for his invaluable assistance
I am offering this statement as a tribute to Major General Vang Pao, Lieutenant Colonel Wangyee Vang, and my Rhode Island compatriots, Lieutenant Ger Xiong, Major Xia Sher Kue and Captain Xay Ge Kue, the soldiers and families that sacrificed their homes, and in many cases, their lives for the United States
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Lao and Hmong Veterans have fought and died in the name of American democracy—now it is our turn to honor and repay them for their service to our great nation.
There is no Memorial to honor the Hmong and Lao soldiers who died to uphold American ideals and principles. There are no veteran's benefits awarded to the brave soldiers who put their lives on the line for freedom.
Citizenship is perhaps the greatest way America can keep its promise to these heroes—who have had little recognition for their service with American forces in the Vietnam War.
Our Hmong Veterans have a unique challenge to becoming American citizens. Because written characters in the Hmong language have only been developed recently, many have had difficulty learning to read and write in English—a prerequisite for passing the citizenship exam.
Many Hmong, because of their contribution to the American effort were torn apart from their loved ones and have yet, decades later, to be reunited. Naturalization would allow the veterans to rebuild their families and conclude the pain and suffering of separation.
H.R. 371 would facilitate granting these deserving veterans with the highest honor—American citizenship. It has been just in the last month, over 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War, that we have begun to rightfully salute our Hmong and Lao veterans. Making citizenship an attainable goal—not a distant dream. at the very least, can be the first step in honoring our commitment to these soldiers.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Appendix 3.—Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Kind, a Representative in Congress From the State of Wisconsin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, for providing me with the opportunity to discuss the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997, H.R. 371.
The current budget reconciliation act promises to reverse some of the basic discriminatory provisions of last year's welfare reform act as it applies to legal immigrants. However, this legislation, H.R. 371, takes the next step in assisting a special group of legal immigrants who served with the U.S. Armed Forces and now require help in obtaining U.S. citizenship. It waives the residency requirement for those who served with in order to speed up the process of family reunification. Additionally, it waives the English language test and residency requirement for attainment of U.S. citizenship. It would only affect individuals who reside legally in this country and would not grant veteran's status or make the Hmong people who served in the Special Guerrilla Forces eligible for veteran's benefits.
This very necessary legislation would impact thousands of people in the United States, including the large Lao-Hmong community in my home district of western Wisconsin. The history of the Hmong demonstrates the need for this legislation. The Hmong are not considered veterans by our government even though they participated in covert operations directed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Many served in non-uniformed units, therefore making it uncertain if ''veteran'' status can be proved. The Hmong aided our efforts during the Southeastern Asian conflict at a high personal cost. Between 10,000 and 20,000 Hmong lost their lives. The Hmong population lost their homeland to Communist forces. After the war, more than 100,000 Hmong were forced to either flee or live in refugee camps. Many Hmong were separated from their families.
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The process of assimilation to the United States has been especially difficult for the Hmong. A major problem for many Hmong is an insufficient command of the English language which prevents them from completing the naturalization process. This is partly due to the fact that the Hmong did not have a written language until the 1950s. Therefore, learning to speak, read, and write the English language has been extremely difficult. The English-learning process has also been stymied by the high rate of illiteracy among the Hmong in this recently acquired written language. The majority of the Hmong who were brought to the United States as political refugees had very little opportunity for education during their war-ravaged years in Laos.
Earlier this year, a bi-partisan group of Wisconsin legislators wrote to me asking that residency requirement assistance be provided to the Hmong people. I urge this Committee to consider their request. The Hmong people need our help. It is wrong to abandon these men and women who served as valuable allies to us during the Southeastern Asian conflict.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important legislation and for your interest in this problem.
Appendix 4.—Prepared Statement of Hon. Gary A. Condit, a Representative in Congress From the State of California
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to testify today before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997, H.R. 371. This legislation, introduced by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Bruce Vento of Minnesota, would help honor Lao-Hmong Patriots who aided the American forces in Vietnam. These men and women fought on behalf of the United States during the Vietnam Conflict, yet they have faced difficulties in obtaining naturalized citizenship in America.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a cosponsor of H.R. 371, I support Mr. Vento's legislation because it would make naturalization possible for Hmong in my district who served in the Special Guerrilla Units. I believe this is the least we can do to aid people who so unselfishly helped us in the past.
Let us follow the precedent of honoring non-citizens who served in past wars by modifying naturalization requirements so that the Hmong of Laos may also find justice.
This legislation not only benefits the Hmong who served, but also America as a whole through the deserved recognition and justice granted to our allies. It is time to recognize and reward their contribution by passing the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act.
Again, I thank the Chairman and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify before you today.
Appendix 5.—Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Klug, a Representative in Congress From the State of Wisconsin
The Hmong population of Laos came to the aid of U.S. forces in Vietnam when the U.S. needed them most, sacrificing many thousands of lives by fighting alongside our armed forces in Special Guerrilla Units during the war. Those who weren't killed fled to refugee camps to avoid the vengeance of the North Vietnamese. These refugees numbered over 100,000 men, women and children. Clearly, we owe them a debt of gratitude for their sacrifice.
The U.S. Hmong population, including those in my home state of Wisconsin, have faced serious hardships since their relocation here after the Vietnam War. Adjustment to our culture and society has been difficult, and while many Hmong have persevered and become self-sufficient, many other Hmong veterans and their families continue to be dependent on government benefits.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many Hmong veterans have been unable to achieve U.S. citizenship because they're elderly, disabled, illiterate or any combination of these factors. Additionally, learning English has proven especially difficult for the Hmong because they don't have a written language of their own. The instability and uncertainty of the status of the Hmong, especially since passage of the new welfare law (P.L. 104–193), has thrown their lives into turmoil. Although a temporary extension of benefits has been granted, these Hmong patriots are in danger of losing what they need to survive in their new homeland.
I have received countless letters from Hmong in my district that express uncertainty and fear about the status of their federal benefits because of changes passed in the new welfare law last year. For most of these people, their hopes of survival are very dim. One disabled Hmong veteran who fought for the U.S. as a teenager states, ''At that point, I believe I became a citizen.'' A 63-year-old Hmong woman, Vang Lor, points out with despair, ''My husband and four children died for this country. Is there any worth to it?'' Another elderly Hmong veteran, Chong Neng Thao, and his wife also are very fearful of the future. He served with the U.S. armed forces for fifteen years in Laos, was wounded several times and lost a brother. The family then spent twelve years in a Thailand refugee camp waiting for permission to enter the U.S. Both he and his wife have ulcers and have had their gall bladders removed. Mr. Thao also has diabetes and has to take medication daily. All of these Hmong from my district, as well as others across the country, are illiterate, elderly and frail, and now they are afraid.
The Hmong sacrificed for our country during the Vietnam War and they deserve our respect and gratitude. The best way to secure the livelihood of our Hmong population is to encourage citizenship. H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997, does just that. It eases naturalization requirements for the Hmong by waiving the residency requirement and the English language test. It is important to note that current immigration law permits non-citizen nationals who served our country honorably in World Wars I and II, the Korean conflict, and the Vietnam War to achieve citizenship regardless of age, residency status, or physical presence in the U.S. This statute is critical to the Hmong cause, and this precedent is reflected in recent legislation granting naturalized status to those who served in the Filipino Scouts during World War II.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are over 38,000 Hmong refugees in my home state of Wisconsin alone, and over 30 percent of these are dependent on welfare. We should not abandon these people, but should continue to assist them in thanks for the sacrifices they made for our country. Citizenship is what the Hmong need and deserve; let's fulfill our obligation to them, and grant it.
43–143CC
1997
HMONG VETERANS' NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1997; AND CANADIAN BORDER BOAT LANDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 371
HMONG VETERANS' NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1997
AND
H.R. 2027
CANADIAN BORDER BOAT LANDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
JUNE 26, 1997
Serial No. 24
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
SONNY BONO, California
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
THOMAS E. MOONEY, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
SONNY BONO, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
CORDIA A. STROM, Chief Counsel
EDWARD R. GRANT, Counsel
GEORGE FISHMAN, Counsel
MARTINA HONE, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
HEARING DATE
June 26, 1997
TEXTS OF BILLS
H.R. 371
H.R. 2027
OPENING STATEMENT
Smith, Hon. Lamar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
WITNESSES
Barnes, Donna Kay, Chief Inspector, Division of Inspections, Immigration and Naturalization Service
Crocetti, Louis D., Jr., Associate Commissioner for Examinations, Immigration and Naturalization Service
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dickinson, Elaine, director of State affairs, Boat Owners Association of the United States, Boat/U.S.
Haigh, Susan, commissioner, Ramsey County, MN
Krikorian, Mark, executive director, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC
LaTourette, Hon. Steven C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio
Pratt, Mark S., Washington, DC
Tinge, Rolf R., Hiram, OH
Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Barnes, Donna Kay, Chief Inspector, Division of Inspections, Immigration and Naturalization Service:
Prepared statement
Questions and answers section
Crocetti, Louis D., Jr., Associate Commissioner for Examinations, Immigration and Naturalization Service: Prepared statement
Dickinson, Elaine, director of State affairs, Boat Owners Association of the United States, Boat/U.S.: Prepared statement
Dooley, Hon. Calvin M., a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Haigh, Susan, commissioner, Ramsey County, MN: Prepared statement
Krikorian, Mark, executive director, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC: Prepared statement
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LaTourette, Hon. Steven C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio: Prepared statement
Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii: Prepared statement
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium: Prepared statement
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Prepared statement
Pratt, Mark S., Washington, DC: Prepared statement
Shackley, Theodore G., Glen Echo, MD: Prepared statement
Tinge, Rolf R., Hiram, OH: Prepared statement
Vang, Lt. Col. Wangyee, national president, Lao Veterans of America, Inc.: Prepared statement
Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota: Prepared statement
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1.—Seven letters of support submitted by Rolf Tinge, president, Greater Cleveland Boating Association
Appendix 2.—Prepared statement of Hon. Patrick J. Kennedy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Rhode Island
Appendix 3.—Prepared statement of Hon. Ron Kind, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Appendix 4.—Prepared statement of Hon. Gary A. Condit, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Appendix 5.—Prepared statement of Hon. Scott Klug, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin
(Footnote 1 return)
Asian and Pacific Islander Center for Census Information and Services at the Asian and Pacific Islander American Health Forum; San Francisco from 1990 Census PUMS File (5% Sample).