CENTRAL AMERICAN STUDIES AND WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1987 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES OF THE HOUSE, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m. in room H-313, the Capitol, Hon. Joe Moakley (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Moakley, Beilenson, Lott, and Taylor. Also present: Representative Frost. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MOAKLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES OF THE HOUSE Mr. MOAKLEY. The subcommittee will now come to order. The Chair would like to make an announcement with respect to our schedule. This meeting was noticed to conclude our hearings on H.R. 618 and H.R. 1409, and to report the matter to the full committee. Yesterday, I was contacted by Ambassador Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, who asked that the State Department's testimony be deferred. I agreed to the request and we will have an additional meeting on or about June 10. I am aware of amendments proposed by Mr. Hall and Mr. Taylor, and would request that any other members who have amendments to contact me before the meeting, to see if we can accommodate them. This morning's Subcommittee on Rules of the House will consider H.R. 618 and H.R. 1409, legislation which would temporarily suspend the deportation of Salvadoran and Nicaraguan refugees currently in this country, while the General Accounting Office conducts an investigation of conditions in these two countries. Since 1983, various committees in the House and Senate have held countless hearings on what has become known as the Moakley-DeConcini bill. I believe that this bill will be on the floor in both Houses for a vote in the near future. I feel that the bill is necessary today, more than ever. It's an appropriate and humane response to the refugees from El Salvador and Nicaragua. I am tired of the double talk, I am tired of the politics, I am tired of the games, because the bottom line on this issue is really the protection of human lives. And quite frankly, I think (115) it is unconscionable that this administration and this Congress has yet to offer protection for these refugees. There are violent wars ensuing in both El Salvador and Nicaragua. And there can be no denying that basic fact. People are targeted for death, they are caught in crossfire and are literally blown apart by landmines. In El Salvador, despite genuine attempts by President Duarte to better the situation, even the most barbaric murderers associated with the military have yet to be prosecuted. There appears to be no working judicial system and torture continues to be widespread. On the other side, the Salvadoran guerrillas have stepped up the use of landmines and sadly, the victims have been innocent women and children in many cases. The war in El Salvador has also stifled the prospects of true democracy. In a dramatic appeal to President Reagan, President Duarte recently asked for extended voluntary departure for his people currently in the United States. He realizes that if significant numbers of refugees are forced home to El Salvador, the situation will become more tense and his efforts to improve human rights and foster democracy will probably fail. Although I disagree with the economic rationale behind President Duarte's letter, I believe the administration's denial of his request seriously undermines Duarte's credibility at this very sensitive moment in time. In Nicaragua, actions by both Contra and Government forces continue to be of great concern. Having read through the testimony the State Department delivered last week before the Immigration Subcommitee on this bill, I find it somewhat puzzling that they could accuse the Sandinista Government of such horrible abuses on the one hand, and refuse to protect Nicaraguan refugees, on the other. It simply does not make any sense. Let me again stress, the issue we are dealing with today is not a referendum on U.S. policies in Central America. It is not a move to embarrass President Duarte or President Reagan, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the recently passed Immigration Reform and Control Act. The issue, simply stated, is lives. We are privileged to have, this morning, as part of the first panel to address the committee, the Honorable Morris K. Udall of Arizona, and the Honorable Ralph Regula of Ohio. We will hear from the Honorable Morris K. Udall. STATEMENT OF HON. MORRIS K. UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill has outstanding sponsorship from one of the great legislators of our time, Mr. Moakley of Massachusetts. It must be a good day. Mr. MOAKLEY. I did not know I had to sign anything for Arizona. Mr. UDALL. Did you have a cactus there? This Bill, as you have just said in your statement, extends to Salvadorans and some other Central American countries, the refugees, the kind of treatment that has been given historically to refugees over the years. I thought we had agreement on this after they extended the date of immigration last year, but time is slipping by and they have done nothing on this important aspect of immigration reform. I think the case has already been made for the bill, and I hope that we can grant a rule, and be down on the floor and do justice to a lot of the people that need help. I have a prepared statement, I will just leave it here. Mr. MOAKLEY. Without objection, the entire statement of the Honorable Congressman from Arizona will be made part of the record. [Mr. Udall's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MORRIS K. UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving us this opportunity today to testify about the need to grant extended voluntary departure status to Salvadoran refugees in this country. Many Members of Congress, myself included, hoped that this issue would be addressed when the House considered the immigration reform bill last year. In the past, extended voluntary departure provisions have been included in larger immigration reform measures. To my great disappointment, the provision to grant extended voluntary departure status to certain Central American refugees was not included in the final bill. But at the time, we were told that a bill granting extended voluntary departure status would be considered early in the 100th Congress. Despite those assurances, there has been no House action on this issue beyond hearings. Again, I am disappointed. We are nearly 6 months into this session of Congress. The legislative agenda is quickly being filled. It is my hope that this issue will not get lost in the legislative process. It has become a tradition for our country to provide safe harbor for victims of natural disasters and civil strife around the world. Countless times, we have allowed refugees to escape danger in their homeland. When Afghanistan was invaded in 1979, we extended voluntary departure status to Afgans in this country. When the Polish Government cracked down on the Solidarity movement, we granted temporary-departure status to Poles in this country. And we did the same for the Lebanese when their country was ravaged by civil war, and for the Ethiopians when their nation was devastated by civil war and famine. We should now extend that same protection to Salvadoran and Nicaraguan refugees in this country. Both countries are shattered by internal conflict. In both countries, thousands of civilians have been caught in the middle. In El Salvador, more than 50,000 civilian noncombatants have been killed. If the same level of carnage were inflicted upon the 240 million citizens of the United States, 2.5 million Americans would perish. Beyond the dead, thousands of Salvadorans have been tortured and imprisoned. Many have simply disappeared, and nearly half a million Salvadorans have been displaced by the war. Legislation is urgently needed, and the new immigration law adds to that urgency. Increased enforcement of our immigration laws will lead to more and more deportations. The threat of increased deportations is so great that even El Salvador's President Duarte reportedly favors temporary departure status for his countrymen. With a war-torn economy on his hands, he does not want the added responsibility of more refugees. If President Duarte recognizes the need for extended voluntary departure status, so should President Reagan. Humanitarian considerations dictate that we should stop the deportation of Salvadorans and Nicaraguans until peace is restored in Central America. For me, this is a matter of human rights. We do not know the fate of those that are being deported, but surely many will die and many will suffer hardship and physical abuse. I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue. You have done a great job. But the job is not finished. It is my hope that we can finish the job this session. Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify. Mr. MOAKLEY. The Chair will be more than happy to hear from the Honorable Congressman from Ohio, the Honorable Ralph Regula. STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH REGULA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. REGULA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you stated very eloquently in your opening remarks, the case for the Bill. It obviously relates to not just El Salvador, but to Nicaragua. I think it cuts across the political spectrum in many respects. There is precedent. The executive branch, in the past has given similar status to people from Poland, Afghanistan, Uganda, Ethiopia, and many other countries. Two points regarding this bill must be emphasized: No. 1, there is precedent; No. 2, it is temporary. This is not permanent policy, it is temporary protection for human life while the GAO studies the problem and while we wrestle with the question of what should be permanent policy for the United States. Given those restraints and perimeters for the impact of this legislation, it seems to me it is a very reasonable approach to the very serious problem which confronts Nicaraguan and Salvadoran refugees. And that is the fear that if they go back home under existing situations today that their lives would be in danger. And the United States, from the beginning of its time has had a long history of being a humanitarian country. It is the one country that has responded, year in year out, to crises. Earthquakes, you name it. We have that basic national characteristic of putting a great premium on human life and human rights. And it just seems to me it is very consistent with the long-term history of this Nation that we provide this kind of sanctuary for those who are threatened until such time as circumstances indicate that there is stability. And obviously, we are working on other fronts to develop an environment of security in both El Salvador and hopefully Nicaragua for the long term so that people can go home. But in the meantime, we should offer them a sense of security, which is what we propose to do in this legislation. [Mr. Regula's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH REGULA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before you today in support of H.R. 618 and H.R. 1409. I have cosponsored similar legislation in the previous two Congresses. The passage of time has, unfortunately, not lessened the need for this measure. As you know, H.R. 618 and H.R. 1409 allows certain Salvadorans and Nicaraguans to remain in the United States until conditions in their home countries improve. The executive branch has, in the past, granted similar status to nationals of other countries, such as Poles, Afghans, Ugandans, and Ethiopians. During this temporary cessation of deportation of Salvadorans and Nicaraguans, a GAO study will be conducted to determine the situation of these refugees in the United States and other countries, the conditions they meet upon their return, and the prospects for their eventual repatriation. At the end of the 99th Congress, the language of the current bill was attached to the Immigration Reform and Control Act on the House floor proving that if H.R. 618 gets that far it is very likely to pass. Due to the lateness of the session and the need to get the immigration bill signed into law, the provisions relating to Salvadoran and Nicaraguan refugees were dropped by the Conference Committee. There have been increasing numbers of press accounts in the past year attesting to the continuation of political violence in both Nicaragua and El Salvador. Congress has been presented with volumes of evidence showing abuses by the Nicaraguan Government, including arbitrary arrests, forced relocations and the suspension of constitution rights and civil liberties. Human rights' organizations have laid similar accusations of human rights to the Contras. Regardless of whether or not one supports aid to the Contras, as I have in the past, it seems that agreement exists that Nicaraguan civilians are being caught in the middle of this political conflict. In regard to the situation in El Salvador, claims continue to be made that supporting this bill is in opposition to the administration's El Salvador policy and to the administration of President Duarte. Nothing is farther from the truth. In fact, a full two-thirds of the bill's cosponsors have voted for military aid to El Salvador. Furthermore, President Duarte himself sent a letter to President Reagan dated April 10, 1987, requesting that extended voluntary departure status be granted to nationals of his country who are currently in the United States. Because of continued guerrilla activity, deaths and displacement of civilians are still occuring with regularity. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador, Arturo Rivera Damas, noted on December 28, 1986, that nearly 2,000 people were killed due to political violence in that year alone. Press reports in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor have also documented Salvadoran guerrilla abuses and especially the use of landmines in predominately civilian areas. Salvadoran applications for political asylum have not met with many approvals from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Between June 1983 and September 1986, only 2.6 percent of asylum applications were granted-a much lower rate than for Nicaraguans. The Intergovernmental Committee for Migration study has often been cited by critics of H.R. 618 as showing that Salvadorans are able to return home without fear to their personal security. A GAO study issued May 12 disputes this study saying generalizations based on ICM statistics are questionable. Its survey cannot be construed as yielding scientifically valid results and it does not take into consideration the reluctance of many returnees to participate in the study. In sum, our current immigration laws relating to Salvadoran and Nicaraguan refugees need to be changed-to prevent the return of civilians into violent living conditions, and in the case of El Salvador, to support the Duarte government's attempt to bring political stability to that country. Mr. MOAKLEY. Thank you Ralph. As one who has been on this bill from almost day one, I would like to thank you for your help. You have probably received the same criticism that I have gotten. This is seen by some as an attempt to embarrass the administration and since you are a member of the other party, how do you answer that situation? Mr. REGULA. I do not think that it is an attempt to embarrass anybody. I think that it is an attempt to address a problem of human rights. And throughout our history we have had a national commitment to human rights. We have fought a lot of wars over that question. And it has transcended policy since the Continental American-a U.S. philosophic commitment. And I do not see this in any way at all of embarrassing the administration. Obviously, they have been supportive of the Nicaraguan in a different way in which they have been El Salvador. So it has been something in keeping with their concern, too, for human rights in Nicaragua. Mr. MOAKLEY. Well, Mo I want to thank you publically for all your help in getting this amendment attached to the Immigration Bill last year. And I share your concern that this may very well be the end of the issue after this year. A lot of the activism on this bill seems to come from your part of the Country. And I was wondering if you have something to say about that. Mr. UDALL. Well, the sanctuary movement which resulted in this whole problem we had about a year ago started in a lot of places, but Tucson was one of the underground railroad stations in helping out the Salvadoran refugees. They had a lot of them. |