[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 200 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S18734]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Lautenberg 
responded to a statement I made yesterday regarding the so-called 
Lautenberg amendment.
  In defending this abused program, which has made a farce of the 
Refugee Act, my friend and colleague claimed that the beneficiaries 
``have to prove a credible fear'' of persecution before they qualify.
  Yet, in fact, these people do not have to prove a credible fear of 
persecution; rather all they have to do is assert a fear of 
discrimination. Discrimination, Mr. President, is not persecution; and 
asserting a fear is not proving it. All other refugees in the world who 
are coming to this country are required to prove a ``well-founded fear 
of persecution.''
  Senator Lautenberg responded to the reports of criminals using this 
program to enter the United States by saying it wasn't designed to 
``allow criminals to enter.'' He said it is the responsibility of the 
INS and the State Department to prevent criminals from using the 
program.
  I would remind my good friend that when the INS tried its level best 
to effectively screen these people, representatives of ``the groups'' 
went directly to Moscow to insist upon lower standards. Do not blame 
the Justice and the State Departments alone for this fiasco. ``The 
groups'' and their skilled lobbyists created this one from whole cloth.
  Senator Lautenberg said he was surprised to hear me refer to Russia 
as our ``best friend.'' Perhaps best friend was a bit of an 
overstatement, but they are certainly among our friends, and certainly 
this administration and this President as well as the previous 
administration have gone out of their way to cultivate friendly 
relations with that country. Whether it is a best friend or a good 
friend, there is certainly no justification whatever--at this present 
day--for some blanket ``presumption'' of ``refugeeness'' for any of 
their citizens who happen to belong to one of several religious groups, 
some of whose members have been subject to discrimination or even 
persecution in the past.

  However, the most astounding thing the Senator from New Jersey said 
was that the program ought to be extended for another year. Even if we 
cut this off today, there are 100,000 of these beneficiaries of the 
Lautenberg amendment already ``in the pipeline.'' That means that even 
without an extension we will have 35,000 entering every year for the 
next 3 years.
  I can only reply to my friend that he should read again the article I 
placed into the Congressional Record yesterday, and I respectfully 
recommend that he should talk to the Immigration Service about the 
current traffic from Moscow regarding this program.
  How can any of us support a program where only one-half of 1 percent 
of those applying now could qualify as a ``refugee'' under the American 
and the international law definition of ``refugee''? We make a mockery 
of the law if we do so.
  Why should the American taxpayer provide our severely limited refugee 
aid for these persons, who are actually regular ``immigrants,'' not 
``refugees.''
  These ``asserters'' are not even required to prove a well-founded 
fear of persecution, so we have absolutely no assurance that they are, 
in fact, refugees. And more importantly please recall that when they do 
receive permission to enter the United States, they take months, even 
sometimes more than a year, to decide whether or not they really want 
to come here.
  About 40,000 of them who are authorized to come here are lingering in 
the former Soviet Union, weighing their options. They are clearly in no 
hurry. That is what an immigrant ordinarily does--to calmly, and 
without urging, weigh all the pluses and minuses of staying or going to 
the United States. A true refugee does not have any possible luxury of 
such a lengthy, deliberative process. After all they are required to be 
``fleeing'' or have a ``well founded fear'' of persecution.
  Again, I urge the conferees on the State Department reauthorization 
bill to insist upon the Senate provisions and not continue this misused 
program any longer.

                          ____________________