[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11491-S11492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ASYLUM AND SUMMARY EXCLUSION PROVISIONS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on the 
asylum-related provisions of H.R. 2202, the Illegal Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The agreements we reached 
with the House in the conference report involved a number of 
compromises on provisions involving the asylum system. I worked very 
hard in conference to modify the House provisions, and I think we 
arrived at workable compromises that will be fair in practice.
  The conference report's provisions on summary exclusion, also 
referred to as expedited exclusion, significantly revise the summary 
exclusion provisions of the Terrorism Act, which apply to those 
excludable based on document fraud or the absence of documents. The 
provisions of the Terrorism Act would not have provided adequate 
protection to asylum claimants, who may arrive in the United States 
with no documents or with false documents that were needed to exit a 
country of persecution.
  Under the revised provisions, aliens coming into the United States 
without proper documentation who claim asylum would undergo a screening 
process to determine if they have a credible fear of persecution. If 
they do, they will be referred to the usual asylum process. While I 
supported the Leahy-DeWine amendment that was included in the Senate 
bill and that passed the Senate 51 to 49, the conference report 
represents a compromise.
  The conference report provisions apply to incoming aliens and to 
those who entered without inspection, so-called EWI's but have not been 
present in this country for 2 years. Although the Senate provisions 
applied only in extraordinary migration situations, House Members felt 
very strongly about applying these procedures across the board. I think 
that, with adequate safeguards, the screening procedures can be applied 
more broadly. If any problems with these provisions arise in their 
implementation, however, and they do not seem to offer adequate 
protections, I am willing to consider changes to them.
  The credible fear standard applied at the screening stage would be 
whether, taking into account the alien's credibility, there is a 
significant possibility that the alien would be eligible for asylum. 
The Senate bill had provided for a determination of whether the asylum 
claim was ``manifestly unfounded,'' while the House bill applied a 
``significant possibility'' standard coupled with an inquiry into 
whether there was a substantial likelihood that the alien's statements 
were true. The conference report struck a compromise by rejecting the 
higher standard of credibility included in the House bill. The standard 
adopted in the conference report is intended to be a low screening 
standard for admission into the usual full asylum process.
  Under the conference report, screening would be done by fully-trained 
asylum officers supervised by officers who have not only had comparable 
training but have also had substantial experience adjudicating asylum 
applications. This should prevent the potential that was in the 
terrorism bill provisions for erroneous decisions by lower level 
immigration officials at points of entry. I feel very strongly that the 
appropriate, fully trained asylum officers conduct the screening in the 
summary exclusion process.
  Under the new procedures, there would be a review of adverse 
decisions within 7 days by a telephonic, video or in-person hearing 
before an immigration judge. I believe the immigration judges will 
provide independent review that will serve as an important though 
expedited check on the initial decisions of asylum officers.
  Finally, under the conference report, there would be judicial review 
of the process of implementation, which would cover the 
constitutionality and statutory compliance of regulations and written 
policy directives and procedures. It was very important to me that 
there be judicial review of the implementation of these provisions. 
Although review should be expedited, the INS and the Department of 
Justice should not be insulated from review.
  With respect to the summary exclusion provisions, let me remind my 
colleagues that I supported the Leahy-DeWine amendment on the Senate 
floor, which passed by a vote of 51 to 49. The compromise included in 
the conference report is exactly that: a compromise. I support the 
compromise because I believe it will provide adequate protections to 
legitimate asylum claimants who arrive in the United States. If it does 
not, let me say that I will remain committed to revisiting this issue 
to ensure that we continue to provide adequate protection to those 
fleeing persecution.
  I would also like to comment briefly on one of the more significant 
changes to the full asylum process that are contained in the conference 
report. The Conference Report includes a 1-year time limit, from the 
time of entering the United States, on filing applications for asylum. 
There are exceptions for changed circumstances that materially effect 
an applicant's eligibility for asylum, and for extraordinary 
circumstances that relate to the delay in filing the application.
  Although I supported the Senate provisions, which had established a 
1-year time limit only on defensive claims of asylum and with a good-
cause exception, I believe that the way in which the time limit was 
rewritten in the conference report--with the two exceptions specified--
will provide adequate protections to those with legitimate claims of 
asylum.
  In fact, most of the circumstances covered by the Senate's good-cause 
exception will be covered either by the changed circumstances exception 
or the extraordinary circumstances exception. The first exception is 
intended to deal with circumstances that changed after the applicant 
entered the United States and that are relevant to the applicant's 
eligibility for asylum. For example, the changed circumstances 
provision will deal with situations like those in which an alien's home 
government may have stepped up its persecution of people of the 
applicant's religious faith or political beliefs, where the applicant 
may have become aware through reports from home or the news media just 
how dangerous it would be for the alien to return home, and that sort 
of situation.
  As for the second exception, that relates to bona fide reasons 
excusing the alien's failure to meet the 1-year deadline. Extraordinary 
circumstances excusing the delay could include, for instance, physical 
or mental disability,

[[Page S11492]]

efforts to seek asylum that were thwarted due to technical defects or 
errors for which the alien was not responsible, or other extenuating 
circumstances.
  Once again, if the time limit and its exceptions do not provide 
adequate protection to those with legitimate claims of asylum, I will 
remain committed to revisiting this issue in a later Congress.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________