Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate your invitation to comment on U.S. refugee policy. It is customary to look at refugee admissions as an expression of our nation's generosity, but in my view refugee policy is about more than serving our humanitarian interests. In very practical ways, America serves its own domestic and foreign policy interests by opening its doors to refugees fleeing oppression.

In that regard, I would argue that recent years' cuts in refugee admissions are a mistake. The Administration's proposed 1998 admissions level of 78,000 is the same as the 1997 level, and it represents a 39 percent cut from the 1990-1995 average of 127,000.

When compared to the growing global population of refugees and displaced persons, U.S. admissions show a falling percentage in the 1990's, from about eight-tenths of one percent, to about three-tenths of one percent. Resettlement is of course just one of the "durable solutions" that the international community seeks for refugees, but it is an important one for individuals who have no option to return home, and it is an important element of U.S. global leadership on refugee policy. The recent cuts come at a time when Congress has opposed reductions in refugee admissions, and when the need for refugee protection and resettlement are increasing. I would respectfully urge the Subcommittee to work to reverse these cuts.

Refugees benefit America by contributing to the flow of immigrants bringing new skills, knowledge, and energy to the American economy. This Subcommittee has drawn attention to the economic benefits of immigration, which range from the macroeconomic benefits documented by the recent National Academy of Sciences study, to the sectoral benefits that can be found in America's cities, small businesses, high-tech innovation industries, or housing markets.But more to the point of this hearing, refugee admissions are an integral part of a foreign policy that uses humanitarian action in combination with other instruments to alleviate suffering, and also to reduce and prevent conflict.

Since the Cold War ended, it may be that fewer refugees are coming from areas of the world such as Indochina and the former Soviet Union -- places where the U.S. has had large, ongoing admissions programs which are now winding down.

But it's equally clear that globally, the need for refugee relief is growing, not diminishing.

According to the UN, the number of persons in need of protection worldwide has grown from 17 million in 1991 to about 26 million today. The hopes that end of the Cold War would reduce the world's regional conflicts and brushfire wars have not panned out. Instead, regional and ethnic conflict have increased.

Moreover, as a new State Department report documents, the suppression of religious freedom continues in many parts of the world, and in places such as Russia, there is a resurgence of repression against Christians and other believers by the Russian Orthodox Church and the state. As Representative Frank Wolf has noted, "Religious persecution -- and especially the persecution of Christians -- did not dissipate with the Cold War. It has gotten worse while the world and the United States have turned their efforts elsewhere."

In many conflictive regions, refugees are both a symptom of instability and a potential cause of further instability. In these areas, U.S. support for international efforts to care for and resettle refugees is an investment in the resolution and prevention of conflict.

The key to securing humane treatment for the maximum number of refugees often lies in demonstrating that the burden will be shared among the international community.

In the 1970's, our acceptance of Indochinese refugees provided just such a demonstration, and helped save the lives of thousands of boat people. Without American leadership -- which brought the eventual resettlement of over 1.2 million Indochinese in the U.S. -- Australia and New Zealand might not have accepted boat people for resettlement, and Malaysia and the Philippines might not have established camps that provided temporary safe haven.

Today, the Clinton Administration's cuts diminish the leadership the U.S. could be exerting on refugee issues.

The Administration proposes to accept only 7,000 refugees from all of Africa next year. In Europe, efforts are underway to resettle thousands of refugees from the former Yugoslavia who cannot return home because their families are ethnically mixed, or because they would not be safe returning to home towns that have changed fundamentally in the post-Dayton political order.

The U.S. has admitted thousands of these refugees, and 18,000 more Bosnian refugee admissions were announced in March. Still, a higher U.S. admissions ceiling would surely help convince countries to accept some of the scores of thousands of Bosnians who have no prospect of returning home.

By cutting refugee admissions, the Clinton Administration is ignoring last year's Congressional votes explicitly opposing cuts in admissions. It is also ignoring bipartisan appeals from leaders such as you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Donald Payne and Congressman Chris Smith. In May, the co-chairs of my organization, Secretary Jack Kemp and Senator Joe Lieberman, were joined by Senator Robert Torricelli in a letter to Secretary Albright calling for a higher admissions ceiling.

Now I will turn to a specific foreign policy issue that illustrates the impact refugee issues can have on a regional crisis: the conflict in the Congo (formerly Zaire) and the Great Lakes region of Africa.

I'll start with a quote: "This has gone on for too long and if it is not completed, we will do it ourselves."

That was Zairean rebel leader Laurent Kabila expressing impatience with the presence of Rwandan refugees in eastern Zaire. He spoke April 27 in Kisangani; two days later, news reports revealed that his warning was a hoax. His forces were already attacking refugees with machineguns and machetes, and survivors were emerging from the jungle to tell the story.

Kabila is now President of the Congo. Journalists and relief agencies continue to gather reports of atrocities and mass graves. Kabila consistently assures visitors in Kinshasa of full access to refugee areas. But 1200 kilometers to the east, his forces have blocked access with equal consistency. On June 7, Kabila assured UN Ambassador Bill Richardson that a UN investigation could proceed -- but not until July 7. And since then, the press has reported that Kabila has ordered his forces actively to obstruct international investigators.

What happened is clear: Kabila and his forces were fighting to end the Mobutu dictatorship and at the same time opposing the Hutus who had carried out massacres of Tutsis in neighboring Rwanda in 1994. Kabila's army, which included troops and officers from the armed forces of Rwanda and perhaps other African countries, viewed the Hutus in Zaire as belligerents that might return to battle. Hence the attacks, against combatants and civilians alike.

Even before investigations are done, there are several lessons to be drawn.

First, security is sometimes a requirement for effective refugee relief.

In most cases, refugees face no special danger once they reach a place of asylum. But the Rwanda/Congo case may be more typical of refugee crises arising from today's ethnic conflicts.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Sadako Ogata saw the danger. Long before Kabila began his ascent to power, she appealed for help to disarm the Hutu combatants ("many of whom were probably guilty of genocide" in Rwanda, she said) and remove them from the camps. The UN Security Council never approved such a force; instead, it authorized a force to carry out the politically unobjectionable task of facilitating the refugees' journey home, whenever that was to be agreed. But even that mission was canceled before it began.

This dilemma is not unique to the Congo. As Bill Frelick documents in the World Refugee Survey (U.S. Committee for Refugees, Washington, 1997), security issues have arisen in different forms in refugee crises in Somalia, Liberia, Chechnya, Bosnia and elsewhere.

Second, a practical, politically acceptable way to provide refugee protection is needed.

A standing UN military force is out of the realm of political possibility. So is reliance on U.S. forces, given Congressional sentiments about the UN and its funding, and very legitimate concerns about the costs of using downsized U.S. military forces in nonmilitary missions. The best option may be to create ad hoc multinational forces when urgently needed, tailored to the requirements of individual crises, with costs shared equitably. Regardless of the mechanism, security needs must be met -- otherwise, expensive relief operations are doomed to fail.

Third, the international community cannot let Mr. Kabila off the hook.

UN Ambassador Bill Richardson's June 7 meeting with Kabila seems to have reiterated the message that international aid will be linked to the Congo's performance on refugee issues. That message needs to be strengthened, and European and African voices need to join in urging Kabila to act. Ambassador Richardson called his meeting a "major breakthrough," but Kabila continues to deny that mass killings have occurred, and his insistence on a one-month delay in the UN investigation is a bad portent.

The situation in the Congo and the broader crisis in Africa's Great Lakes region illustrates the need for effective, coordinated international action to address refugee crises.

It also illustrates how refugee policy involves more than caring for the dispossessed. It is a fundamental part of the political equation of a region in conflict. If handled correctly, it can contribute to a political solution. Strict conditions should be attached to international aid to the Kabila government -- not just for the sake of saving desperate refugees, but to hasten the day when we, the Congo and its neighbors can work in peace to further the economic and democratic development of all of southern Africa.

Achieving that result, in Africa and elsewhere, is about more than humanitarianism. It's about serving America's interest in a stable and peaceful world.