[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      PROCESSING HAITIAN REFUGEES

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am compelled to express my serious 
reservations with regard to President Clinton's decision to change the 
procedures for processing Haitian refugees. I have supported the 
existing policy of intercepting at sea and returning would-be 
immigrants from Haiti, while encouraging true refugees to use the 
United States processing centers set up there. This process is a 
continuation of a policy implemented by President Bush in May 1992, 
when the flow of Haitians reached crisis proportions. I still think 
that this course is the proper one, and I worry that any change, 
however minor, will precipitate another crisis.
  President Clinton, even before his inauguration, made the very 
difficult decision to continue the repatriation of Haitians interdicted 
at sea. Although he had earlier criticized the policy, it became clear 
that a policy reversal would be interpreted as an invitation for 
Haitians to come to the United States and could trigger a massive 
exodus. In late 1992, estimates of the number of Haitians preparing to 
take to the seas ranged as high as 500,000. Most of these immigrants 
were about to set out in tiny, barely seaworthy craft with little hope 
of making it to the coast of Florida. President-elect Clinton did the 
right thing then and avoided a humanitarian disaster.
  The President's announcement over the past weekend that the United 
States would begin to conduct asylum interviews at sea, or on the 
territory of third countries if that can be arranged, returns U.S. 
policy to where it was in early 1992. President Bush was forced to 
abandon this practice when the Coast Guard intercepted 10,000 Haitians 
in May 1992 alone--a time when the temporary holding facility at 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was filled to overflowing with more than 12,000 
Haitians living in tents. He rightly decided that it was far better to 
return all Haitians than to encourage, deliberately or not, tens of 
thousands of people to take to the open ocean in unseaworthy, 
overcrowded boats.
  This was the right decision, not only to avoid the loss of life that 
would have resulted, but also because most of the would-be refugees in 
Haiti seek only what we all seek--prosperity and opportunity. 
Unfortunately, these are in short supply around the world, including 
here in the United States. We obviously have a higher average standard 
of living in this country than do the people of Haiti, but there are 
segments of our society that are no better off. There are many people 
here--many people here, too--too many people, who are struggling with 
long-term unemployment. There is not an excess of jobs. We face 
enormous problems, especially in our large cities where we are rapidly 
developing a permanent underclass.
  It would be nice if we were able to solve the economic problems of 
other countries and provide a higher standard of living for people 
around the world, but we cannot. It is tough enough to stretch ever 
shrinking resources--and I mean they are ever shrinking--ever shrinking 
resources far enough to help our own citizens. We are operating under a 
law now that freezes domestic discretionary. It freezes all 
discretionary spending over the next 5 years, which means that we 
cannot even take into account inflation. Our social services system is 
already strained to the breaking point. We cannot place an additional 
burden of tens of thousands of new immigrants, with no jobs skills and 
no ability to support themselves, onto the backs of the already overly 
burdened American taxpayers.
  The Governors of Florida and California recently filed lawsuits 
seeking Federal reimbursement for the cost of immigrants in their 
States. They have been driven to this point because of the Federal 
Government's inability, or unwillingness, to stem the tide of illegal 
immigration and to reform our legal immigration policies. Our 
immigration laws provide generous protection for refugees fleeing 
political persecution and the President has been making use of those 
provisions at the United States processing centers in Haiti. 
Individuals that have specific, well-founded fears for their safety 
have ample opportunity to receive that protection. The remaining 
thousands are simply looking for economic opportunity, and they do not 
qualify as refugees or asylees under U.S. law.
  The President said he is not changing the policy toward Haitian 
refugees and that he is not broadening the criteria for gaining refugee 
status. The administration hopes that the limited changes will not 
result in a renewed outflow of immigrants into the United States. I 
believe that this is wishful thinking, very wishful thinking. When the 
Haitians sense the door has been cracked open, they will once again 
prepare their rag-tag armada and set sail for the ``land of plenty:'' 
America.
  While we should continue to work for the restoration of democracy in 
Haiti, we cannot allow that political situation to become a cover for 
an influx of people looking for a better life in the United States. We 
should look for ways to help the Haitians improve their economic and 
political situation, but we cannot do that by encouraging them to 
abandon their homes. In the end, the only lasting solution to this 
difficult and heartwrenching problem lies in the resolution of Haiti's 
political dilemma. A legal, viable government must be reinstated and 
it, not the United States or any other outside force, can begin to meet 
the long-term needs of the Haitian population.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________