SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    Tables

 Page 1       TOP OF DOC
58–270

1999
FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION ACT OF 1997

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS

OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 2431

MARCH 24, 1998

Serial No. 98
 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

THOMAS E. MOONEY, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Staff Director

Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chairman
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
JAMES E. ROGAN, California

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

CORDIA A. STROM, Chief Counsel
EDWARD R. GRANT, Counsel
GEORGE FISHMAN, Counsel
MARTINA HONE, Minority Counsel

C O N T E N T S

HEARING DATE
    March 24, 1998
TEXT OF BILL

    H.R. 2431

 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
OPENING STATEMENT

    Smith, Hon. Lamar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims

WITNESSES

    Franken, Mark, Executive Director, United States Catholic Conference, Migration and Refugee Services

    Kreczko, Alan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Department of State

    Krikorian, Mark, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies

    Robb, James, Coordinator, Evangelicals for Immigration Reform

    Sambaiew, Nancy, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Visa Services, Department of State

    Virtue, Paul W., General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

American Jewish Committee:
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Letter dated September 24, 1997 to Representative Gilman

    Fay, Reverend Monsignor William P., Associate General Secretary, U.S. Catholic Conference: Prepared statement

    Franken, Mark, Executive Director, United States Catholic Conference, Migration and Refugee Services: Prepared statement

    Kreczko, Alan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Department of State: Prepared statement

    Krikorian, Mark, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies: Prepared statement

National Association of Evangelicals:
Letter to Representative Gilman dated March 23, 1998

    Robb, James, Coordinator, Evangelicals for Immigration Reform: Prepared statement

    Sambaiew, Nancy, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Visa Services, Department of State: Prepared statement

    Stein, Dan, Executive Director, Federation for American Immigration Reform: Prepared statement
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    U.S. Catholic Conference Migration and Refugee Services (USCC/MRS)
Staff Analysis of Section 9 of H.R. 2431

    Virtue, Paul W., General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service: Prepared statement

FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION ACT OF 1997

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1998

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:38 a.m., in Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar S. Smith [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Lamar S. Smith, William L. Jenkins, Edward A. Pease, James E. Rogan and Melvin L. Watt.

    Staff Present: Jim Wilon, Counsel; Judy Knott, Staff Assistant; and Martina Hone, Minority Counsel.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SMITH

    Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims will come to order.

    We will start off with opening statements and then immediately get to our first panel.

    We appreciate all the witnesses coming today. This is an important subject. While we are not here to deal with the entire bill, but just with the immigration provisions, I think we will find that these provisions are crucial.

    Persecution is a universal affront to truths we believe to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. America has long said that we will treat all those facing likely or actual persecution equally. The legislation before us today raises the question of whether persecution is divisible. Is one form of persecution worse than other forms of persecution? Do individuals who face certain kinds of persecution deserve to be treated better than others?

    The Religious Persecution Act is a response to persecution of religious minorities abroad, particularly Christians in Communist and Islamic nations. The bill would create an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring within the State Department to enforce sanctions and grant benefits on behalf of certain religious groups.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Although Congress should strongly support religious tolerance and freedom, we must also ensure that those values are furthered in a manner which does not needlessly threaten the integrity, efficiency and fairness of our Nation's immigration system. We must ensure that H.R. 2431 achieves its admirable goals without causing severe and unintended collateral harm.

    Other than the immigration provisions, the rest of the bill is outside of the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction and will not be the subject of today's hearing.

    The greatest concern is that the Religious Persecution Act would create an asylum system that provides special treatment to illegal aliens who claim to be in certain religious groups. These changes are completely unnecessary and would encourage illegal immigration and fraudulent asylum claims.

    In recent years, the asylum system has made great strides in deterring false claims by illegal aliens and in efficiently approving legitimate claims. Although no one has shown any systemic weaknesses with the current system, H.R. 2431 would make significant changes that would weaken standards and invite abuse.

    Historically, the asylum system was much abused by illegal aliens who claimed asylum to avoid deportation. Illegal aliens would obtain work authorization by claiming asylum, then delay deportation through endless appeals until they had been in the United States for so long that they became eligible for permanent residence.

    Recent reforms included a number of measures designed to end this abuse of the asylum system, including a mechanism called expedited exclusion. Under this procedure, aliens attempting to enter the United States without valid documents can be denied entry. Those claiming asylum must demonstrate a credible fear of persecution. This credible-fear standard is much easier to meet than the well-founded fear standard required for permanent admission, and INS currently approves over 90 percent of all credible-fear claims.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Nevertheless, expedited exclusion and the credible-fear standard have proven to be a powerful tool in deterring or dismissing asylum claims that are clearly fraudulent or groundless. However, H.R. 2431 would get rid of the credible-fear test for illegal aliens claiming membership in certain religious groups, even though there is no evidence that the present standard is unduly harsh. This would create a strong incentive for illegal aliens to abuse the asylum system by claiming membership in a designated religious group.

    In addition, any immigration officer who denied one of these special asylum claims would have to compile an enormous written record that is not required in any other asylum cases. This record could be used by the illegal alien to challenge the INS's decision in endless appeals, but the illegal alien could also block the INS from using the very same record against him if he thought it was not helpful.

    Once again, no one has shown why these new requirements are necessary. The new requirements would add significantly to INS's workload by creating a two-track asylum system, thus slowing down the processing of all claims. They would encourage immigration officers to grant more asylum claims in order to avoid the paperwork requirements, and they would create a substantial record that illegal aliens could exploit through prolonged legal appeals.

    The Religious Persecution Act would also give members of certain religious groups first priority for admission as refugees to the United States, despite the fact there is no reason to treat such refugees better than others suffering from religious, racial or ethnic persecution.

 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Experience has shown that whenever certain groups are given privileged status within the refugee system, it results in many fraudulent claims of membership, and those claims are often facilitated by international alien smuggling organizations. Taken together, the new asylum provisions in H.R. 2431 would create a strong incentive and opportunity for fraudulent claims and illegal immigration.

    [The bill, H.R. 2431, follows:]

105TH CONGRESS
    1ST SESSION

H.R. 2431

To establish an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring, to provide for
the imposition of sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern of
religious persecution, and for other purposes.

     

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 8, 1997

Mr. WOLF (for himself, Mr. PORTER, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. MANTON, Mr. OLVER, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. KING, Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. COOKSEY, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. WAMP, Mrs. KELLY T1, AND MR. TOWNS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, the Judiciary, Banking and Financial Services, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

     

A BILL

To establish an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring, to provide for the imposition of sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern of religious persecution, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the 'Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress makes the following findings:

    (1) Governments have a primary responsibility to promote, encourage, and protect respect for the fundamental and internationally recognized right to freedom of religion.

    (2) The right to freedom of religion is recognized by numerous international agreements and covenants, including the following:
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (A) Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance'.

    (B) Article 18 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that 'Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion . . . ' and further delineates the privileges under this right.

    (3) Persecution of religious believers, particularly Roman Catholic and evangelical Protestant Christians, in Communist countries, such as Cuba, Laos, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, and Vietnam, persists and in some cases is increasing.

    (4) In many Islamic countries and regions thereof, governments persecute non-Muslims and religious converts from Islam using means such as 'blasphemy' and 'apostasy' laws, and militant movements seek to corrupt a historically tolerant Islamic faith and culture through the persecution of Baha'is, Christians, and other religious minorities.

    (5) The militant, Islamic Government of Sudan is waging a self-described religious war against Christian, non-Muslim, and moderate Muslim persons by using torture, starvation, enslavement, and murder.

    (6) In Tibet, where Tibetan Buddhism is inextricably linked to the Tibetan identity, the Government of the People's Republic of China has intensified its control over the Tibetan people by perverting the selection of the Panchen Lama, propagandizing against the religious authority of the Dalai Lama, restricting religious study and traditional religious practices, and increasing the persecution of monks and nuns.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (7) The United States Government is committed to the right to freedom of religion and its policies and relations with foreign governments should be consistent with the commitment to this principle.

    (8) The 104th Congress recognized the facts set forth in this section and stated clearly the sense of the Senate and the House of Representatives regarding these matters in approving—

    (A) House Resolution 515, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the persecution of Christians worldwide;

    (B) S. Con. Res. 71, expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to the persecution of Christians worldwide;

    (C) H. Con. Res. 102, concerning the emancipation of the Iranian Baha'i community; and

    (D) section 1303 of H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act:

 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    (1) DIRECTOR.—The term 'Director' means the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring established under section 5.

    (2) PERSECUTED COMMUNITY.—The term 'persecuted community' means any religious group or community identified in section 4.

    (3) PERSECUTION FACILITATING PRODUCTS, GOODS, AND SERVICES.—The term 'persecution facilitating products, goods, and services' means those products, goods, and services which are being used or determined to be intended for use directly and in significant measure to facilitate the carrying out of acts of religious persecution.

    (4) RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—

    (A) IN GENERAL.—The term 'religious persecution' means widespread and ongoing persecution of persons because of their membership in or affiliation with a religion or religious denomination, whether officially recognized or otherwise, when such persecution includes abduction, enslavement, killing, imprisonment, forced mass resettlement, rape, or crucifixion or other forms of torture.

    (B) CATEGORY 1 RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—Category 1 religious persecution is religious persecution that is conducted with the involvement or support of government officials or its agents, or as part of official government policy.

    (C) CATEGORY 2 RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—Category 2 religious persecution is religious persecution that is not conducted with the involvement or support of government officials or its agents, or as part of official government policy, but which the government fails to undertake serious and sustained efforts to eliminate.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (5) RESPONSIBLE ENTITIES.—The term 'responsible entities' means the specific government departments, agencies, or units which directly carry out acts of religious persecution.

    (6) SANCTIONED COUNTRY.—The term 'sanctioned country' means a country on which sanctions have been imposed under section 7.

    (7) UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE.—The term 'United States assistance' means—

    (A) any assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (including programs under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of that Act, relating to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation), other than—

    (i) assistance under chapter 8 of part I of that Act;

    (ii) any other narcotics-related assistance under part I of that Act, (including chapter 4 of part II of that Act), but any such assistance provided under this clause shall be subject to the prior notification procedures applicable to reprogrammings pursuant to section 634A of that Act;

    (iii) disaster relief assistance, including any assistance under chapter 9 of part I of that Act;

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    (iv) assistance which involves the provision of food (including monetization of food) or medicine; and

    (v) assistance for refugees;

    (B) sales, or financing on any terms, under the Arms Export Control Act;

    (C) the provision of agricultural commodities, other than food, under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954; and

    (D) financing under the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945.

    (8) UNITED STATES PERSON.—Except as provided in section 12(b)(1), the term 'United States person' means—

    (A) any United States citizen or alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence into the United States; and

    (B) any corporation, partnership, or other entity organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION AND SCOPE.

    (a) SCOPE.—The provisions of this Act shall apply to all persecuted religious groups and communities, and all countries and regions thereof, referred to in the resolutions and bill set forth in paragraph (8) of section 2 or referred to in paragraphs (3) through (6) of section 2, and to any community within any country or region thereof that the Director finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, is the target of religious persecution.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES AND REGIONS THEREOF.—The Congress may designate additional countries or regions to which this Act applies by enacting legislation specifically citing the authority of this section.

SEC. 5. OFFICE OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION MONITORING.

    (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the Executive Office of the President the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring (hereafter in this Act referred to as the 'Office').

    (b) APPOINTMENT.—The head of the Office shall be a Director who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall receive compensation at the rate of pay in effect for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

    (c) REMOVAL.—The Director shall serve at the pleasure of the President.

    (d) BARRED FROM OTHER FEDERAL POSITIONS.—No person shall serve as Director while serving in any other position in the Federal Government.

    (e) RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTOR.—The Director shall do the following:

 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    (1) Consider the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom presented in the annual reports of the Department of State on human rights under sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d) and 2304(b)).

    (2) Consider the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom presented by independent human rights groups and nongovernmental organizations.

    (3) In consultation with the Secretary of State, make policy recommendations to the President regarding the policies of the United States Government toward governments which are determined to be engaged in religious persecution.

    (4) Prepare and submit the annual report described in section 6, including the determination whether a particular country is engaged in category 1 or category 2 religious persecution, and identify the responsible entities within such countries. This information shall be published in the Federal Register.

    (5) Maintain the lists of persecution facilitating products, goods, and services, and the responsible entities within countries determined to be engaged in religious persecution, described in paragraph (4), adding to the list as information becomes available. This information shall be published in the Federal Register.

    (6) Coordinate with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that the provisions of this Act are fully and effectively implemented.

 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    (f) ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.—

    (1) PERSONNEL.—The Director may appoint such personnel as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Office.

    (2) SERVICES OF OTHER AGENCIES.—The Director may use the personnel, services, and facilities of any other department or agency, on a reimbursable basis, in carrying out the functions of the Office.

SEC. 6. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

    (a) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Not later than April 30 of each year, the Director shall submit to the Committees on Foreign Relations, Finance, the Judiciary, and Appropriations of the Senate and to the Committees on International Relations, Ways and Means, the Judiciary, and Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report described in subsection (b).

    (b) CONTENTS OF ANNUAL REPORT.—The annual report of the Director shall include the following:

    (1) DETERMINATION OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—With respect to each country or region thereof described in section 4, the Director shall include his or her determination, with respect to each persecuted community, whether there is category 1 religious persecution or category 2 religious persecution.

 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    (2) IDENTIFICATION OF PERSECUTION FACILITATING PRODUCTS, GOODS, AND SERVICES.—With respect to each country or region thereof which the Director determines is engaged in either category 1 or category 2 religious persecution, the Director, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, shall identify and list the persecution facilitating products, goods, and services.

    (3) IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONSIBLE ENTITIES.—With respect to each country determined by the Director to be engaged in category 1 religious persecution, the Director, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall identify and list the responsible entities within that country that are engaged in religious persecution. Such entities shall be defined as narrowly as possible.

    (4) OTHER REPORTS.—The Director shall include the reports submitted to the Director by the Attorney General under section 9 and by the Secretary of State under section 10.

    (c) INTERIM REPORTS.—The Director may submit interim reports to the Congress containing such matters as the Director considers necessary.

SEC. 7. SANCTIONS.

    (a) PROHIBITION ON EXPORTS RELATING TO RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—

    (1) ACTIONS BY RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.—With respect to any country in which—
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (A) the Director finds the occurrence of category 1 religious persecution, the Director shall so notify the relevant United States departments and agencies, and such departments and agencies shall—

    (i) prohibit all exports to the responsible entities listed under section 6(b)(3) or in any supplemental list of the Director; and

    (ii) prohibit the export to such country of the persecution facilitating products, goods, and services listed under section 6(b)(2) or in any supplemental list of the Director; or

    (B) the Director finds the occurrence of category 2 religious persecution, the Director shall so notify the relevant United States departments and agencies, and such departments and agencies shall prohibit the export to such country of the persecution facilitating products, goods, and services listed under section 6(b)(2) or in any supplemental list of the Director.

    (2) PROHIBITIONS ON U.S. PERSONS.—(A) With respect to any country or region thereof in which the Director finds the occurrence of category 1 religious persecution, no United States person may—

    (i) export any item to the responsible entities listed under section 6(b)(3) or in any supplemental list of the Director; and

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    (ii) export to that country any persecution facilitating products, goods, and services listed under section 6(b)(2) or in any supplemental list of the Director.

    (B) With respect to any country in which the Director finds the occurrence of category 2 religious persecution, no United States person may export to that country any persecution facilitating products, goods, and services listed under section 6(b)(2) or in any supplemental report of the Director.

    (3) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates the provisions of paragraph (2) shall be subject to the penalties set forth in subsections (a) and (b)(1) of section 16 of the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 16 (a) and (b)(1)) for violations under that Act.

    (4) EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROHIBITIONS.—The prohibitions on exports under paragraph (1) shall take effect with respect to a country 90 days after the finding of category 1 or category 2 religious persecution in that country or region thereof, except as provided in section 11.

    (b) UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE.—

    (1) CATEGORY 1 RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—No United States assistance may be provided to the government of any country which the Director determines is engaged in category 1 religious persecution, effective 90 days after the date on which the Director submits the report in which the determination is included.

 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    (2) CATEGORY 2 RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—No United States assistance may be provided to the government of any country which the Director determines is engaged in category 2 religious persecution, effective 1 year after the date on which the Director submits the report in which the determination is included, if the Director, in the next annual report of the Director under section 6, determines that the country is engaged in either category 1 or category 2 religious persecution.

    (c) MULTILATERAL ASSISTANCE.—

    (1) CATEGORY 1 RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—With respect to any country which the Director determines is engaged in category 1 religious persecution, the President shall instruct the United States Executive Director of each multilateral development bank and of the International Monetary Fund to vote against, and use his or her best efforts to deny, any loan or other utilization of the funds of their respective institutions (other than for humanitarian assistance) to that country, effective 90 days after the Director submits the report in which the determination is included.

    (2) CATEGORY 2 RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—With respect to any country which the Director determines is engaged in category 2 religious persecution, the President shall instruct the United States Executive Director of each multilateral development bank and of the International Monetary Fund to vote against, and use his or her best efforts to deny, any loan or other utilization of the funds of their respective institutions (other than for humanitarian assistance) to that country, effective 1 year after the date on which the Director submits the report in which the determination is included, if the Director, in the next annual report of the Director under section 6, determines that the country is engaged in either category 1 or category 2 religious persecution.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (3) REPORTS TO DIRECTOR.—If a country described in paragraph (1) or (2) is granted a loan or other utilization of funds notwithstanding the objection of the United States under this subsection, the Executive Director of the institution that made the grant shall report to the President and the Congress on the efforts made to deny loans or other utilization of funds to that country, and shall include in the report specific and explicit recommendations designed to ensure that such loans or other utilization of funds are denied to that country in the future.

    (4) DEFINITION.—As used in this subsection, the term 'multilateral development bank' means any of the multilateral development banks as defined in section 1701(c)(4) of the International Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(4)).

    (d) DENIAL OF VISAS.—No consular officer shall issue a visa to, and the Attorney General shall exclude from the United States, any alien who the Director determines carried out or directed the carrying out of category 1 or category 2 religious persecution.

SEC. 8. WAIVER OF SANCTIONS.

    (a) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—Subject to subsection (b), the President may waive the imposition of any sanction against a country under section 7 for periods of not more than 12 months each, if the President, for each waiver—

    (1) determines that national security interests justify such a waiver; and
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (2) provides to the Committees on Foreign Relations, Finance, the Judiciary, and Appropriations of the Senate and to the Committees on International Relations, the Judiciary, and Appropriations of the House of Representatives a written notification of the President's intention to waive any such sanction.

The justification shall contain an explanation of the reasons why the President considers the waiver to be necessary, the type and amount of goods, services, or assistance to be provided pursuant to the waiver, and the period of time during which such a waiver will be effective.

    (b) TAKING EFFECT OF WAIVER.—

    (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), a waiver under subsection (a) shall take effect 45 days after its submission to the Congress.

    (2) IN EMERGENCY CONDITIONS.—The President may waive the imposition of sanctions against a country under subsection (b) or (c) of section 7 to take effect immediately if the President, in the written notification of intention to waive the sanctions, certifies that emergency conditions exist that make an immediate waiver necessary.

    (3) COMPUTATION OF 45-DAY PERIOD.—The 45-day period referred to in this subsection shall be computed by excluding—

    (A) the days on which either House of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain or an adjournment of the Congress sine die; and
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (B) any Saturday and Sunday, not excluded under paragraph (1), when either House is not in session.

SEC. 9. MODIFICATION OF IMMIGRATION POLICY.

    (a) CREDIBLE FEAR OF PERSECUTION DEFINED.—Section 235(b)(1)(B)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(v)) (as amended by section 302 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-582) is amended by adding at the end the following:

'Any alien who can credibly claim membership in a persecuted community found to be subject to category 1 or category 2 religious persecution in the most recent annual report sent by the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring to the Congress under section 6 of the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997 shall be considered to have a credible fear of persecution within the meaning of the preceding sentence.'.

    (b) TRAINING FOR CERTAIN IMMIGRATION OFFICERS.—Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225) (as amended by section 302 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-579) is amended by adding at the end the following:

    '(d) TRAINING ON RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—The Attorney General shall establish and operate a program to provide to immigration officers performing functions under subsection (b), or section 207 or 208, training on religious persecution, including training on—
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    '(1) the fundamental components of the right to freedom of religion;

    '(2) the variation in beliefs of religious groups; and

    '(3) the governmental and nongovernmental methods used in violation of the right to freedom of religion.'.

    (c) ASYLUM.—Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158) (as amended by section 604 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; Public Law 104-208; 1110 Stat. 3009-690) is amended by adding at the end the following:

    '(e) SPECIAL RULES FOR RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION CLAIMS.—

    '(1) PROCEDURES UPON DENIAL.—

    '(A) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which the Service denies or refers to an immigration judge an asylum application filed by an alien described in the second sentence of section 235(b)(1)(B)(v), or any care in which an immigration judge denies such an application on the ground that the alien is not a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A), the Service shall provide the alien with the following:

    '(i) A written statement containing the reasons for the denial, which shall be supported by references to—
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    '(I) the most recent annual report sent by the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring to the Congress under section 6 of the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997; and

    '(II) either—

    '(aa) the most recent country report on human rights practices issued by the Secretary of State; or

    '(bb) any other report issued by the Secretary of State concerning conditions in the country of which the alien is a national (or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence).

    '(ii) A copy of any assessment sheet prepared by an asylum officer for a supervisory asylum officer with respect to the application.

    '(iii) A list of any publicly available materials relied upon by an asylum officer as a basis for denying the application.

    '(iv) A copy of any materials relied upon by an asylum officer as a basis for denying the application that are not available to the public, except Federal agency records that are exempt from disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.

    '(B) CREDIBILITY IN ISSUE.—In any case described in subparagraph (A) in which the denial is based, in whole or in part, on credibility grounds, the Service shall also provide the alien with the following:
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    '(i) The statements by the applicant, or other evidence, that were found not to be credible.

    '(ii) A statement certifying that the applicant was provided an opportunity to respond to the Service's position on the credibility issue.

    '(iii) A brief summary of such response, if any was made.

    '(iv) An explanation of how the negative determination on the credibility issue relates to the applicant's religious persecution claim.

    '(2) EFFECT IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS.—

    '(A) USE AT OPTION OF APPLICANT.—Any material provided to an alien under paragraph (1) shall be considered part of the official record pertaining to the alien's asylum application solely at the option of the alien.

    '(B) NO EFFECT ON REVIEW.—The provision of any material under paragraph (1) to an alien shall not be construed to alter any standard of review otherwise applicable in any administrative or judicial adjudication concerning the alien's asylum application.

    '(3) DUTY TO SUBMIT REPORT ON RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—In any judicial or administrative proceeding in which the Service opposes granting asylum to an alien described in the second sentence of section 235(b)(1)(B)(v), the Service shall submit to the court or administrative adjudicator a copy of the most recent annual report submitted to the Congress by the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring under section 6 of the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997, and any interim reports issued by such Director after such annual report.'.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (d) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than January 1 of each year, the Attorney General shall submit to the Director an annual report that includes the following:

    (1) With respect to the year that is the subject of the report, the number of applicants for asylum or refugee status whose applications were based, in whole or in part, on religious persecution.

    (2) In the case of such applications, the number that were proposed to be denied, and the number that were finally denied.

    (3) In the case of such applications, the number that were granted.

    (4) A description of developments with respect to the adjudication of applications for asylum or refugee status filed by an alien who claims to be a member of a persecuted community that the Director found to be subject to category 1 or category 2 religious persecution in the most recent annual report submitted to the Congress under section 6.

    (5) With respect to the year that is the subject of the report, a description of training on religious persecution provided under section 235(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by subsection (b)) to immigration officers performing functions under section 235(b) of such Act, or adjudicating applications under section 207 or 208 of such Act, including a list of speakers and materials used in such training and the number of officers who received such training.

 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    (e) ADMISSION PRIORITY.—For purposes of section 207(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an individual who is a member of a persecuted community that the Director found to be subject to category 1 or category 2 religious persecution in the most recent annual report submitted to the Congress under section 6, and is determined by the Attorney General to be a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, shall be considered a refugee of special humanitarian concern to the United States. In carrying out such section, such an individual shall be given priority status at least as high as that given to any member of any other specific group of refugees of special concern to the United States.

    (f) NO EFFECT ON OTHERS' RIGHTS.—Nothing in this section, or any amendment made by this section, shall be construed to deny any applicant for asylum or refugee status (including any applicant who is not a member of a persecuted community but whose claim is based on religious persecution) any right, privilege, protection, or eligibility otherwise provided by law.

    (g) NO DISPLACEMENT OF OTHER REFUGEES.—Refugees admitted to the United States as a result of the procedures set forth in this section shall not displace other refugees in need of resettlement who would otherwise have been admitted in accordance with existing law and procedures.

    (h) PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND REVIEW.—Section 207(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by adding at the end the following:

    '(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, prior to each annual determination regarding refugee admissions under this subsection, there shall be a period of public review and comment, particularly by appropriate nongovernmental organizations, churches, and other religious communities and organizations, and the general public.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    '(B) Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to apply subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, to the period of review and comment referred to in subparagraph (A).'.

SEC. 10. STATE DEPARTMENT HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTS.

    (a) ANNUAL HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT.—In preparing the annual reports of the State Department on human rights under sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d) and 2304(b)), the Secretary of State shall, in the section on religious freedom—

    (1) consider the facts and circumstances of the violation of the right to freedom of religion presented by independent human rights groups and nongovernmental organizations;

    (2) report on the extent of the violations of the right to freedom of religion, specifically including whether the violations arise from governmental or nongovernmental sources, and whether the violations are encouraged by the government or whether the government fails to exercise satisfactory efforts to control such violations;

    (3) report on whether freedom of religion violations occur on a nationwide, regional, or local level; and

    (4) identify whether the violations are focused on an entire religion or on certain denominations or sects.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (b) TRAINING.—The Secretary of State shall—

    (1) institute programs to provide training for chiefs of mission as well as Department of State officials—

    (A) having reporting responsibilities regarding the freedom of religion, which shall include training on the fundamental components of the right to freedom of religion, the variation in beliefs of religious groups, and the governmental and nongovernmental methods used in the violation of the right to freedom of religion; and

    (B) the identification of independent human rights groups and nongovernmental organizations with expertise in the matters described in subparagraph (A); and

    (2) submit to the Director, not later than January 1 of each year, a report describing all training provided to Department of State officials with respect to religious persecution during the preceding 1-year period, including a list of instructors and materials used in such training and the number and rank of individuals who received such training.

SEC. 11. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.

    (a) TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.—If the Director determines that a sanctioned country has substantially eliminated religious persecution in that country, the Director shall notify the Congress of that determination in writing. The sanctions described in section 7 shall cease to apply with respect to that country 45 days after the Congress receives the notification of such a determination. The 45-day period referred to in this section shall be computed by excluding—
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (1) the days on which either House of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain or an adjournment of the Congress sine die; and

    (2) any Saturday and Sunday, not excluded under paragraph (1), when either House is not in session.

    (b) WITHDRAWAL OF FINDING.—Any determination of the Director under section 6 may be withdrawn before taking effect if the Director makes a written determination, on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence, that the country substantially eliminated any category 1 or category 2 religious persecution that existed in that country. The Director shall submit to the Congress each determination under this subsection.

SEC. 12. SANCTIONS AGAINST SUDAN.

    (a) EXTENSION OF SANCTIONS UNDER EXISTING LAW.—Any sanction imposed on Sudan because of a determination that the government of that country has provided support for acts of international terrorism, including—

    (1) export controls imposed pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979;

    (2) prohibitions on transfers of munitions under section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act;
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (3) the prohibition on assistance under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;

    (4) section 2327(a) of title 10, United States Code;

    (5) section 6 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act Amendments, 1978 (22 U.S.C. 286e-11);

    (6) section 527 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in Public Law 104-208); and

    (7) section 901(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

shall continue in effect after the enactment of this Act until the Director determines that Sudan has substantially eliminated religious persecution in that country, or the determination that the government of that country has provided support for acts of international terrorism is no longer in effect, whichever occurs later.

    (b) ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS ON SUDAN.—Effective 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the following sanctions (to the extent not covered under subsection (a)) shall apply with respect to Sudan:

    (1) PROHIBITION ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN.—
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (A) OFFENSE.—Any United States person who knowingly engages in any financial transaction, including any loan or other extension of credit, directly or indirectly, with the Government of Sudan shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 10 years; or both.

    (B) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this paragraph:

    (i) FINANCIAL TRANSACTION.—The term 'financial transaction' has the meaning given that term in section 1956(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code.

    (ii) UNITED STATES PERSON.—The term 'United States person' means—

    (I) any United States citizen or national;

    (II) any permanent resident alien;

    (III) any juridical person organized under the laws of the United States; and

    (IV) any person in the United States.

    (2) PROHIBITION ON IMPORTS FROM SUDAN.—No article which is grown, produced, manufactured by, marketed, or otherwise exported by the Government of Sudan, may be imported into the United States.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (3) PROHIBITIONS ON UNITED STATES EXPORTS TO SUDAN.—

    (A) PROHIBITION ON COMPUTER EXPORTS.—No computers, computer software, or goods or technology intended to manufacture or service computers may be exported to or for use of the Government of Sudan.

    (B) REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE.—The Secretary of Commerce may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out subparagraph (A).

    (C) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates this paragraph shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 11 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2410) for violations under that Act.

    (4) PROHIBITION ON NEW INVESTMENT IN SUDAN.—

    (A) PROHIBITION.—No United States person may, directly or through another person, make any new investment in Sudan that is not prohibited by paragraph (1).

    (B) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Commerce may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out subparagraph (A).

    (C) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates this paragraph shall be subject to penalties provided in section 11 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2410) for violations under that Act.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (5) AVIATION RIGHTS.—

    (A) AIR TRANSPORTATION RIGHTS.—The Secretary of Transportation shall prohibit any aircraft of a foreign air carrier owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Government of Sudan or operating pursuant to a contract with the Government of Sudan from engaging in air transportation with respect to the United States, except that such aircraft shall be allowed to land in the event of an emergency for which the safety of an aircraft's crew or passengers is threatened.

    (B) TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS.—The Secretary of Transportation shall prohibit the takeoff and landing in Sudan of any aircraft by an air carrier owned, directly or indirectly, or controlled by a United States person, except that such aircraft shall be allowed to land in the event of an emergency for which the safety of an aircraft's crew or passengers is threatened, or for humanitarian purposes.

    (C) TERMINATION OF AIR SERVICE AGREEMENTS.—To carry out subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Secretary of State shall terminate any agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Government of the United States relating to air services between their respective territories.

    (D) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this paragraph, the terms 'aircraft', 'air transportation', and 'foreign air carrier' have the meanings given those terms in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code.

 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    (6) PROHIBITION ON PROMOTION OF UNITED STATES TOURISM.—None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any provision of law may be available to promote United States tourism in Sudan.

    (7) GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN BANK ACCOUNTS.—

    (A) PROHIBITION.—A United States depository institution may not accept, receive, or hold a deposit account from the Government of Sudan, except for such accounts which may be authorized by the President for diplomatic or consular purposes.

    (B) ANNUAL REPORTS.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit annual reports to the Congress on the nature and extent of assets held in the United States by the Government of Sudan.

    (C) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'depository institution' has the meaning given that term in section 19(b)(1) of the Act of December 23, 1913 (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(1)).

    (8) PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT FROM SUDAN.—

    (A) PROHIBITION.—No department, agency, or any other entity of the United States Government may enter into a contract for the procurement of goods or services from parastatal organizations of Sudan except for items necessary for diplomatic or consular purposes.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (B) DEFINITION.—As used in this paragraph, the term 'parastatal organization of Sudan' means a corporation, partnership, or entity owned, controlled, or subsidized by the Government of Sudan.

    (9) PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES APPROPRIATIONS FOR USE AS INVESTMENTS IN OR TRADE SUBSIDIES FOR SUDAN.—None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any provision of law may be available for any new investment in, or any subsidy for trade with, Sudan, including funding for trade missions in Sudan and for participation in exhibitions and trade fairs in Sudan.

    (10) PROHIBITION ON COOPERATION WITH ARMED FORCES OF SUDAN.—No agency or entity of the United States may engage in any form of cooperation, direct or indirect, with the armed forces of Sudan, except for activities which are reasonably necessary to facilitate the collection of necessary intelligence. Each such activity shall be considered as significant anticipated intelligence activity for purposes of section 501 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413).

    (11) PROHIBITION ON COOPERATION WITH INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OF SUDAN.—

    (A) SANCTION.—No agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may engage in any form of cooperation, direct or indirect, with the Government of Sudan, except for activities which are reasonably designed to facilitate the collection of necessary intelligence.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (B) POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States that no agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may provide any intelligence information to the Government of Sudan which pertains to any internal group within Sudan. Any change in such policy or any provision of intelligence information contrary to this policy shall be considered a significant anticipated intelligence activity for purposes of section 501 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413).

The sanctions described in this subsection shall apply until the Director determines that Sudan has substantially eliminated religious persecution in that country.

    (c) MULTILATERAL EFFORTS TO END RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN SUDAN.—

    (1) EFFORTS TO OBTAIN MULTILATERAL MEASURES AGAINST SUDAN.—It is the policy of the United States to seek an international agreement with the other industrialized democracies to bring about an end to religious persecution by the Government of Sudan. The net economic effect of such international agreement should be measurably greater than the net economic effect of the other measures imposed by this section.

    (2) COMMENCEMENT OF NEGOTIATIONS TO INITIATE MULTILATERAL SANCTIONS AGAINST SUDAN.—It is the sense of the Congress that the President or, at his direction, the Secretary of State should convene an international conference of the other industrialized democracies in order to reach an international agreement to bring about an end to religious persecution in Sudan. The international conference should begin promptly and should be concluded not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (3) PRESIDENTIAL REPORT.—Not less than 210 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the Congress a report containing—

    (A) a description of United States' efforts to negotiate multilateral measures to bring about an end to religious persecution in Sudan; and

    (B) a detailed description of economic and other measures adopted by the other industrialized countries to bring about an end to religious persecution in Sudan, including an assessment of the stringency with which such measures are enforced by those countries.

    (4) CONFORMITY OF UNITED STATES MEASURES TO INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT.—If the President successfully concludes an international agreement described in paragraph (2), the President may, after such agreement enters into force with respect to the United States, adjust, modify, or otherwise amend the measures imposed under any provision of this section to conform with such agreement.

    (5) PROCEDURES FOR AGREEMENT TO ENTER INTO FORCE.—Each agreement submitted to the Congress under this subsection shall enter into force with respect to the United States if—

    (A) the President, not less than 30 days before the day on which the President enters into such agreement, notifies the House of Representatives and the Senate of the President's intention to enter into such an agreement, and promptly thereafter publishes notice of such intention in the Federal Register;
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (B) after entering into the agreement, the President transmits to the House of Representatives and to the Senate a document containing a copy of the final text of such agreement, together with—

    (i) a description of any administrative action proposed to implement such agreement and an explanation as to how the proposed administrative action would change or affect existing law; and

    (ii) a statement of the President's reasons regarding—

    (I) how the agreement serves the interest of United States foreign policy; and

    (II) why the proposed administrative action is required or appropriate to carry out the agreement; and

    (C) a joint resolution approving such agreement has been enacted, in accordance with section 8066(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1985 (as contained in Public Law 98-473 (98 Stat. 1936)), within 30 days of transmittal of such document to the Congress.

For purposes of applying such section 8066(c), any reference in such section to 'joint resolution', 'resolution', or 'resolution described in paragraph (1)' shall be deemed to refer to a joint resolution described in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (6) UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL IMPOSITION OF SAME MEASURES AGAINST SUDAN.—It is the sense of the Congress that the President should instruct the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations to propose that the United Nations Security Council, pursuant to Article 41 of the United Nations Charter, impose measures against Sudan of the same type as are imposed by this section.

    (d) ADDITIONAL MEASURES AND REPORTS; RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT.—

    (1) UNITED STATES POLICY TO END RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.—It shall be the policy of the United States to impose additional measures against the Government of Sudan if its policy of religious persecution has not ended on or before December 25, 1997.

    (2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Director shall prepare and transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on or before February 1, 1998, and every 12 months thereafter, a report determining whether the policy of religious persecution by the Government of Sudan has ended.

    (3) RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL MEASURES.—If the Director determines that the policy of religious persecution by the Government of Sudan has not ended, the President shall prepare and transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on or before March 1, 1998, and every 12 months thereafter, a report setting forth recommendations for such additional measures and actions against the Government of Sudan as the Director determines will end the government's policy of religious persecution.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    (e) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—

    (1) GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN.—The term 'Government of Sudan' includes any agency or instrumentality of the Government of Sudan.

    (2) NEW INVESTMENT IN SUDAN.—The term 'new investment in Sudan'—

    (A) means—

    (i) a commitment or contribution of funds or other assets; or

    (ii) a loan or other extension of credit, that is made on or after the effective date of this subsection; and

    (B) does not include—

    (i) the reinvestment of profits generated by a controlled Sudanese entity into that same controlled Sudanese entity, or the investment of such profits in a Sudanese entity;

    (ii) contributions of money or other assets where such contributions are necessary to enable a controlled Sudanese entity to operate in an economically sound manner, without expanding its operations; or

 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    (iii) the ownership or control of a share or interest in a Sudanese entity or a controlled Sudanese entity or a debt or equity security issued by the Government of Sudan or a Sudanese entity before the date of the enactment of this Act, or the transfer or acquisition of such a share or interest, or debt or equity security, if any such transfer or acquisition does not result in a payment, contribution of funds or assets, or credit to a Sudanese entity, a controlled Sudanese entity, or the Government of Sudan.

    (3) CONTROLLED SUDANESE ENTITY.—The term 'controlled Sudanese entity' means—

    (A) a corporation, partnership, or other business association or entity organized in Sudan and owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a United States person; or

    (B) a branch, office, agency, or sole proprietorship in Sudan of a United States person.

    (4) SUDANESE ENTITY.—The term 'Sudanese entity' means—

    (A) a corporation, partnership, or other business association or entity organized in Sudan; or

    (B) a branch, office, agency, or sole proprietorship in Sudan of a person that resides or is organized outside Sudan.

 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c), and except as provided in section 12, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    (b) APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR.—The Director shall be appointed not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    (c) REGULATIONS.—Each Federal department or agency responsible for carrying out any of the sanctions under section 7 shall issue all necessary regulations to carry out such sanctions within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, for his opening remarks.

    Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I don't think that anybody will ever say that you can't get a fair hearing in the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee. Anytime you have a hearing on a bill that both the Chairman and the Ranking Member feel the same way about, and that is a negative feeling, you have to believe that the process is working its will. At least we listen to folks talk about those things, and I want to commend the Chairman on that.

 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees defines refugees as persons with ''well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.''

    H.R. 2431 responds to a perceived lack of attention given to refugees and asylum seekers who are victims of religious persecution only.

    Let me be clear, I believe religious persecution is an intolerable violation of human rights. However, I do not believe that we should be in the business of ranking these types of human rights violations. All forms of persecution are intolerable, whether based on race, ethnicity, political beliefs, membership in a particular social group or religion, all of those are the categories that are included in the definition of refugee. We must treat those fleeing any of these forms of persecution fairly and equitably.

    It appears that H.R. 2431 would place religious persecution above all others. The fact is that H.R. 2431 establishes procedures in our immigration laws which treat those who are victims of religious persecution more favorably than others. It does so in two ways: First, it adds new procedures and safeguards to the expedited removal provisions for those who claim religious persecution. Second, it changes the priority that refugees of religious persecution are given as compared to other refugees.

    While I am no fan of the so-called expedited removal procedures, which became part of our immigration law with passage of the immigration reform last year, I believe we have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. Just as we must vigilantly protect against fraudulent asylum claims, we must be equally vigilant in protecting the human rights of those who arrive on our shores seeking refuge and asylum from persecution.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I believe certain aspects of expedited removal process may invite erroneous decision making, including allowing untrained, low-level INS inspectors to decide whether someone has stated enough facts to justify referral to an asylum officer. Tragically, the consequences of such errors could include delivering a victim of persecution back to the hands of his or her persecutor.

    Because of my concerns with the expedited removal process, I support the goals of several provisions of H.R. 2431 in principle. For example, I believe it is appropriate to provide those who have been denied asylum with written records of the reasons for the denial. I believe it is not only appropriate but essential that the INS officers who make decisions about asylum applications be adequately trained. And I believe a new public comment period on refugee resettlement allocations could be quite valuable. However, I believe these provisions must be applicable to all forms of persecution, not just religious persecution.

    Unfortunately, I am advised that the political reality of the situation makes such an extension to all forms of persecution unlikely.

    I am also concerned the legislation will have the unintended consequence of allowing refugees who are fleeing religious persecution to displace other refugees.

    It is important to note that the U.S. does not admit an unlimited number of refugees. I have recently been deeply involved with our refugee resettlement program, particularly as it applies to African refugees. Because of my experiences dealing with the administration regarding African refugees, I must take issue with the contention that the administration pays inadequate attention to claims of religious persecution.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    There are more refugees in Africa than anywhere else in the world. Nevertheless, when the U.S. makes its allocation of admission slots for refugees, Africans receive the smallest share. On the other hand, Europeans who are victims of religious persecution or violence receive the lion's share of our refugee allocations.

    Of the 78,000 refugee allocations for fiscal year 1998, 25,000 funded slots are allocated to Bosnians who are Muslim and 21,000 funded slots are allocated to religious minorities from the former Soviet Union. That represents 59 percent of the total allocation. If H.R. 2431 passes, I am concerned that the statistics will become even more biased toward victims of religious persecution and against all others.

    Because of my interest in seeing African refugees treated fairly in our refugee resettlement program, I paid particular attention to the provisions of the bill imposing sanctions on Sudan. I noted that the bill specifically imposes sanctions only on Sudan. The Government of Sudan has engaged in systematic and widespread persecution of Sudanese Christians. I believe we should assist these victims of persecutions as much as possible.

    Again, I want to be clear, I believe we should help these people not because they are African and not because they are Christian but because they are being persecuted in one way or another for whatever reason. We should do something because they are human beings and are being victimized.

    Mr. Chairman, as you can see, I probably have some concerns about this bill, but I appreciate you being open-minded enough to have a hearing on it, and I will try to be open-minded and listen to all the witnesses as they express their views. Thank you.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Watt.

    Does the gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan, have an opening statement?

    Mr. ROGAN. I will waive an opening statement.

    Mr. SMITH. Without objection, we will make a part of the record a statement by Dan Stein, Executive Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stein follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN STEIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM

INTRODUCTION

    H.R. 2431, the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1997, introduced by Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA), has the commendable purpose of trying to halt the persecution of religious believers abroad. It does this primarily through the imposition of sanctions on foreign governments found to be engaged in such activities. While FAIR endorses the goal of the legislation, I would like to bring to the attention on the subcommittee, our serious concerns about the likely consequences of the proposed changes in U.S. asylum and refugee laws. We believe these changes, which are contained in Section 9, are not needed. Nor are they justified by any independent analysis of our asylum system. In fact, they would not prevent or deter the persecution of religious believers by foreign governments, but are likely to be harmful to the nation's overriding interest in maintaining consistent and orderly policies in the asylum and refugee areas. For these reasons, FAIR strongly supports the removal of Section 9 from this bill.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

ANALYSIS OF SECTION 9

    During the 104th Congress, after receiving testimony about the enormous and growing abuse of our asylum laws, Congress responded by enacting carefully crafted reforms of our asylum laws and procedures. These reforms have barely been in place for one full year, but they have already been shown to have a significant impact in reducing the volume of fraudulent and frivolous asylum claims. We believe it is ill advised for Congress to revise these procedures and risk undoing the benefits of the needed reforms.

    We believe our current asylum laws and procedures are fair and fully protect people who can show a credible fear of religious persecution as well as others who can show a credible fear of persecution on other grounds. The INS has bent over backwards and taken extraordinary steps to ensure fairness in the implementation of the expedited removal provisions with respect to people requesting asylum, by providing ample time for consideration, multiple levels of review, confidential interviews, and access to pro-bono counsel. See the section entitled ''Ensuring Fairness'' in the INS Update on Expedited Removals Fact Sheet dated July 9, 1997 (copy enclosed).

    The 1996 reforms, which have proven effective, would be undermined by H.R. 2431's immigration changes in Section 9. Specifically, the section's provisions would:

 Significantly weaken the standard to determine refugee/asylum status. The current refugee standard requires that an alien demonstrate ''a credible fear'' of persecution on account of religion, race, etc. to be eligible for asylum. Section 9 would revise this standard and require that an alien only claim affiliation with a religious group determined to be suffering persecution to meet the definition of ''credible fear''. This appears to be a major expansion from current law, which requires a credible claim that the alien himself is at risk. A claim of religious affiliation is a matter of conscience that is virtually unverifiable.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

  Once an entitlement to ''credible fear of persecution'' is put into law for any group in the asylum application process, there will be immediate demands and political pressure from other groups for co-equal treatment that will lead to a ''slippery slope'' whose ultimate result will be to seriously undermine the integrity of the entire asylum process. It also could have the perverse effect of encouraging foreign governments to rid themselves of unwanted religious minorities which would put additional strains on U.S. refugee capabilities.

  Experience with a similar provision in the past (the Lautenberg Amendment, PL 101-167) has shown that the government's inability to verify religious affiliation opens the door to the large-scale admission of persons who would not qualify under the normal standard, and has been abused as a vehicle for the entry of otherwise ineligible aliens. These individuals then become entitled to an array of welfare benefits at enormous taxpayer expense. In addition, the provision has been exploited by international criminal syndicates to get their members into the United States.

  The precedent set by the Lautenberg Amendment of identifying specific groups for special consideration under our refugee policy was very unwise and should not be extended. We believe such blanket designations encourage competition among different groups and will unduly politicize and corrupt the refugee system.

 Shift the burden of proof. H.R. 2431 would place an unrealistic and unfair burden of proof on INS inspectors and specially trained asylum officers to document and justify their decisions only with respect to those fleeing religious persecution. We believe the documentation requirements proposed in H.R. 2431 will unduly burden the asylum claims process and result in unequal treatment of asylum claims. This provision by itself will seriously weaken the effective asylum screening process that recently has been put in place and give a significant advantage to fraudulent applicants.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

 Create excessive documentation and process requirements for the INS. H.R. 2431 would require the INS and immigration judges to provide an alien denied an asylum claim detailed written documentation that could enhance a fraudulent claimant's ability to abuse and manipulate the system. These new documentation requirements would significantly slow down the asylum processing system and lead inevitably to more grants of work authorization, long recognized to the be magnet for many fraudulent asylum claims in the past. The detailed reports would also provide every denied applicant a substantial record to attack through a long and drawn out appellate process.

CONCLUSION

    Persecution of people because of their religious faith is something that is of historic concern to the American people. FAIR's members fully support the principle that those fleeing religious persecution should be given full and fair consideration for all claims made under our asylum and refugee screening systems. However, the changes made by Section 9 would not further that goal and would in fact significantly hamper the screening process due to increased fraud and abuse. Section 9 would undermine important asylum reforms Congress made in 1996 and re-open the door to massive fraud. For these reasons, I strongly recommend that Section 9 be eliminated from H.R. 2431.

FACT SHEET: 7/9/97

UPDATE ON EXPEDITED REMOVALS

 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Background

    The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began implementing new expedited removal provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 on April 1, 1997.

    The new law provides an expedited process to formally remove individuals who arrive at ports of entry and attempt to gain admission to the United States without valid travel documents or with fraudulent documents. Under the new law, these individuals can be removed in a period of days or weeks.

    Most people who are subject to expedited removal are not asylum-seekers. But the INS provides a process to ensure that an individual in expedited removal who has a fear of returning to his or her country is provided with an opportunity to have a credible fear interview with a specially trained asylum officer. If asylum or a fear of persecution is not claimed, the individual may be ordered removed and barred from reentry for specific time periods.

    INS has collected preliminary data to provide an overview of the first three months of that implementation. These preliminary numbers appear below.

Preliminary Data

    INS is currently designing automated data systems for tracking the number of individuals subject to expedited removal. In order to monitor the program's effectiveness during the first three months of implementation, INS gathered and compiled statistics from 2 of the largest ports of entry and INS' eight asylum offices.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    According to this preliminary information, approximately 1,200 cases a week have been subject to expedited removal from April 1 through June 30. Of these cases, 80 percent are from ports of entry on the Southwest border.

Q04
 Of the reported cases arriving at the 25 largest land, sea and air ports involving aliens subject to expedited removal, approximately 5 percent have been referred by INS inspectors for a credible fear interview with a specially trained asylum officer.

 Of the cases involving airport arrivals only from the 25 ports of entry, about 20 percent of the arriving passengers who are subject to expedited removal have been referred to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview.

 Approximately 35 percent of those persons inadmissible under expedited removal have been permitted to withdraw their applications for admission. The INS may permit an arriving alien to withdraw an application for admission and avoid the penalties associated with a removal order. Withdrawal is appropriate, for example, if the arriving alien lacks proper documents innocently rather than through an effort to circumvent the immigration laws.

 About 80 percent of the total number of cases referred and interviewed have met the credible fear standard. They were provided the opportunity to have their asylum claims heard by an immigration judge.

Ensuring Fairness
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In its implementation of the expedited removal provision of the new law, the Department of Justice is taking steps beyond what is required in the statute and ensuring that aliens affected by expedited removal are treated fairly and that their rights are protected in the following ways:

 INS is conducting credible fear interviews in detention centers rather than in airports, and generally allowing people 48 hours before the credible fear interview to rest and consult with persons of their choosing.

 INS relies exclusively on its specially trained asylum officer corps to conduct asylum interviews, thus ensuring that interviews are conducted by the officers who are the most thoroughly prepared and experienced in asylum law, in country conditions abroad, and in proper asylum interviewing procedures and techniques.

 INS ensures that all people subject to expedited removal are asked whether they have a fear of returning to their home country and are given notice of the opportunity to speak confidentially with another officer about their fear.

 INS ensures supervisory review of the decisions of both secondary inspectors and asylum officers before those decisions take effect.

 When applicants for asylum leave secondary inspection and are referred for a credible fear interview, INS provides them with further information about the credible fear process and a list, updated quarterly, of local pro bono service providers and their telephone numbers.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

 Persons found to meet the credible fear standard are placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge, to whom they may apply not only for asylum, but for other forms of relief as well.

Nationality Breakdown

    The vast majority of aliens placed in expedited removal have been Mexican nationals. Of the case referred for credible fear, the two larger nationalities were Chinese (17 percent) and Sri Lankan (15 percent). Nationals of a total of 60 countries have been referred for a credible fear interview.

Training

    All INS immigration officers who conduct expedited removal proceedings have been trained to understand and to implement new statutory provisions and the regulations promulgated in accordance with the law. All asylum officers undergo a three-week basic training course in preparation for adjudicating asylum applications. In addition, all asylum officers handling expedited removal cases receive specialized training in credible fear and expedited removal procedures. Asylum officers also receive specialized training, at headquarters and in the field, in country and human rights conditions worldwide.

Monitoring

    INS is committed to ensuring that all districts are implementing the appropriate expedited removal procedures at all ports of entry in full compliance with the statute and accompanying regulations. INS officials at headquarters are conducting weekly quality assurance reviews and staying in close contact with the field in order to identify and correct any problems found in the inspections, detention and asylum process.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Prepared by the Office of Public Affairs (202) 514-2543

    Mr. SMITH. We welcome the first panel today. Let me introduce you in the order in which you will be testifying: Mr. Paul Virtue, General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service; Mr. Alan Kreczko, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Department of State; and Ms. Nancy Sambaiew, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State.

    Again, thank you for being here.

    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Virtue, if you will begin.

STATEMENT OF PAUL VIRTUE, GENERAL COUNSEL, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

    Mr. VIRTUE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the Immigration and Naturalization Service concerning the immigration measures in H.R. 2431.

    Today, I would like to outline our principal objections to Sections 3 and 9 of the bill and explain why those provisions are unnecessary to achieving the goals of focusing attention on the tragedy of religious persecution and ensuring that the United States system for identifying and offering protection to the victims of religious persecution is fair and effective.

 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I assure the committee that the INS is committed to ensuring that it carefully and fairly analyzes and adjudicates the asylum requests of persons who have suffered or fear persecution on account of religion. We don't believe the bill in its current form would improve the current process for identifying and protecting those persons. The proposed changes to the asylum and refugee procedures would create troubling disparities between certain victims of religious persecution and others who would constitute refugees under the definition. The changes would also threaten to unravel many recent reforms to our domestic asylum process. Finally, we oppose the immigration measures because we found the current system, in fact, is fair and effective.

    Specifically, we believe that the provisions relating to the credible fear standard in expedited removal, the expanded procedures for denying or referring a claim based on Category 1 or 2 religious persecution, and the additional training and reporting requirements imposed on the Department of Justice are both unnecessary and unduly burdensome.

    In addition, the bill appears to establish a rigid definition of religious persecution that is inconsistent with the flexible case-by-case interpretation of persecution used in determining asylum and refugee eligibility.

    Section 3 of the bill establishes a definition for religious persecution and provides examples including abduction, enslavement, killing, imprisonment, forced mass resettlement, rape, crucifixion and other forms of torture. The rigid definition is inconsistent, as I mentioned, with the flexible one we use in adjudication. In these contexts, whether certain events constitute persecution is resolved on a case-by-case basis. We are concerned that the proposed definition of religious persecution will create confusion about how to analyze this issue of persecution in the minds of refugee and asylum adjudicators.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Section 9(a) of the bill would modify the expedited removal process created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That section would require any alien who can credibly claim membership in a persecuted religious group shall be considered to have a credible fear of persecution. We believe there is no need to create a presumption of credible fear eligibility for specific groups of people who are subject to expedited removal proceedings.

    Under existing law, the INS inspectors read a statement to all persons subject to expedited removal explaining the process and we ask three specific questions to learn whether the person subject to expedited removal has a fear or concern of return to his country for any reason.

    The INS inspectors who determine admissibility refer to an asylum officer all persons who indicate any fear or concern about returning to their home country or who indicate an intention to apply for asylum. An asylum officer interviews those applicants to evaluate their credibility and eligibility under the standard. Asylum officers are instructed and trained that the credible fear threshold contained in 1996 is a low-threshold screening tool.

    Since its implementation on April 1st, a great majority of the relatively small number of persons who have asserted a fear of return have met the great credible fear standard and have been permitted to present their asylum claims before an immigration judge. In our view, therefore, any person who appears credible and could establish membership in a religious group under Category 1 or 2, would be found to have met the credible fear standard without enactment of this section.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Section 9(b) of the bill would require the Attorney General to establish a training program for immigration officers. The INS already provides significant training to its asylum officers on all issues relating to adjudication of asylum claims.

    The asylum program has developed a new curriculum for the asylum core under the auspices of the INS training program. It is an extensive program and covers a wide range of topics, including all aspects of the refugee definition including religious persecution.

    In addition, all eight asylum offices have conducted separate training sessions on the topic of religious persecution during this past year. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, asylum officers will receive additional training on interviewing victims of torture. We believe the INS has appropriately focused on the need for training on this issue, and we don't believe there is a need for statutory language to require it.

    Section 9 would also create special rules for Category 1 or 2 claims which the INS either does not grant or which an immigration judge denies. Those procedures, as I mentioned earlier, would imitate the pre-reform system the Justice Department improved and streamlined in 1995.

    The INS consciously abandoned the procedure for giving asylum applicants a letter detailing in great specificity deficiencies in the application. Rather, after consulting with many interested groups within and outside the government, the INS reasoned it should focus its efforts on expeditiously granting asylum to those people who have manifestly founded cases and to do so promptly, preferring to refer the remaining cases for a de novo adjudication by an immigration judge.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The streamlining procedures that the INS adopted in January 1995 have been widely praised. This reform has been effective because the agency considered how to adjudicate fairly and expeditiously the large number of claims it receives and how to reduce the number of frivolous applications. We did that by also eliminating the promise of employment authorization for anyone who applied for asylum, as well as dramatically increasing the number of asylum officers and immigration judges who were available to adjudicate these claims.

    We believe that the rules under this bill would slow down the adjudication of asylum cases, which would then, in turn, result most probably in employment authorization simply being granted by the passage of time. Since the special rules would burden the INS asylum officers and could increase the potential for false claims, the INS strongly opposes this provision.

    Finally, sections 9(e), (g), and (h) would affect the refugee resettlement priorities and the annual consultation process. The Department of Justice shares the view of the State Department that those provisions are unnecessary.

    Because the bill as introduced would undermine the success we have had in our affirmative asylum process, would create blanket eligibility for presumptions for certain asylum applicants and create confusion regarding the definition of religious persecution, the Justice Department is opposed to the enactment of this measure.

    Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address the immigration measures contained in H.R. 2431. I would be pleased to answer any questions after the other witnesses have testified.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Virtue follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL W. VIRTUE, GENERAL COUNSEL, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) concerning the immigration measures in H.R. 2431, The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1997. The INS' views on the bill were reflected in Secretary Albright's October 7th letter to the House International Relations Committee. That letter noted a number of serious defects in the bill, which if unchanged would result in the President's senior advisors recommending that the President veto the bill.

    Today, I would like to outline our principal objections to Sections 3 and 9 of the bill and explain why those provisions are unnecessary to achieving the goals of the bill's supporters—ensuring that the US government appropriately focuses on the tragedy of religious persecution and ensures that its system for identifying and offering protection to the victims of religious persecution is fair and effective. I will also discuss some of the steps the INS has taken to focus its asylum officer corps on the issue.

    As a fundamental principle, the INS is committed to ensuring that it carefully and fairly analyzes and adjudicates the asylum requests of persons who have suffered or fear persecution on account of religion. We do not believe the bill in its current form would improve the current process for identifying and protecting those persons. The proposed changes to the asylum and refugee procedures would create troubling disparities between certain victims of religious persecution and others who are refugees under the definition. The changes also threaten to unravel many recent reforms to our domestic asylum system. Finally, we oppose the immigration measures because we have found that the current system is fair and effective. In the open dialogue that the INS strives to maintain with members of the private bar and non-governmental representatives, no one has indicated to us the need for additional and different procedures for this category of asylum and refugee claimants.
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Please allow me to discuss in greater detail the immigration provisions of the bill. We believe that the following provisions are unnecessary and unduly burdensome: (1) the credible fear standard in expedited removal; (2) the expanded procedures for denying or referring a claim based on Category 1 or Category 2 religious persecution; and (3) the additional training and reporting requirements imposed on the Department of Justice. In addition, the bill appears to establish a

    rigid definition of religious persecution that is inconsistent with the flexible case-by-case interpretation of persecution used in determining asylum and refugee eligibility.

    Section 3 of the bill establishes a definition for ''religious persecution'' and provides examples including ''abduction, enslavement, killing, imprisonment, forced mass resettlement, rape, or crucifixion or other forms of torture.'' This rigid definition is inconsistent with the flexible one that is used in the adjudication of individual refugee and asylum cases. In these contexts, whether certain events constitute persecution is resolved on a case-by-case basis. We are concerned that the new definition of religious persecution included in this legislation will create confusion about how to analyze the issue of persecution in the minds of refugee and asylum adjudicators and applicants.

    Section 9 (a) of the bill would modify the expedited removal process created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (section 235 (b) of the INA). Section 9 (a) would require that any alien who can credibly claim membership in a persecuted religious group which the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring has found to be subject to Category 1 or Category 2 persecution, shall be considered to have a credible fear of persecution. We believe there is no need to create a blanket presumption of credible fear eligibility for specified groups of people who are placed in expedited removal proceedings. Under existing law, the INS inspectors read a statement to all persons subject to expedited removal explaining the process and ask three specific questions in each inspection to learn whether the person subject to expedited removal has a fear or concern of return to his home country. The INS inspectors who determine admissibility refer to an asylum officer all persons who indicate any fear or concern about returning to their home country or who indicate an intention to apply for asylum. An asylum officer interviews applicants to evaluate the credibility of the applicant and eligibility under the standard. Asylum officers are instructed that the credible fear standard is a low-threshold screening tool. Since its implementation on April 1, 1997, the great majority of the relatively small number of persons who assert a fear of return have met the credible fear standard and have been permitted to present their asylum claims before an immigration judge. In our view, therefore, any person who appears credible and could establish membership in a religious group in a Category 1 or Category 2 country would certainly be found to have met the credible fear standard without the enactment of this section. Accordingly, we believe that the provision is unnecessary.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Section 9 (b) of the bill would require the Attorney General to establish a training program for immigration officers. The INS already provides significant training to its asylum officers on all issues relating to the adjudication of asylum claims. Specialized training of the asylum corps has been a linchpin of the asylum program since its inception in 1991. The asylum program has developed a new curriculum for the asylum officer corps under the auspices of the INS training program. The training program is extensive and covers a wide-range of topics, including: international human rights and international refugee law; US asylum law, regulations, and policies; conditions in countries of origin; interviewing techniques; and cross-cultural interviewing and sensitivity. The legal training covers all aspects of the refugee definition, including religious persecution. In addition, all eight asylum offices have conducted separate training sessions on the topic of religious persecution during the past year. Beginning in Fiscal Year 1998, Asylum Officers will receive additional training on interviewing victims of torture. This training is beneficial in assisting officers to recognize victims of torture and to elicit asylum claims from these individuals. We believe the INS has appropriately focused on the need for training on this issue and there is no need to include statutory language to require it.

    Section 9 (c) of the bill would create ''special rules'' for Category 1 or 2 claims which the INS denies or refers to an immigration judge or which an immigration judge denies. These procedures to some degree imitate the pre-reform system the Justice Department improved and streamlined in 1994. The INS consciously abandoned the procedure for giving asylum applicants a letter detailing in great specificity the deficiencies in the application. The INS, after consulting with many interested parties within and outside of the government, reasoned that it should focus its efforts on expeditiously granting cases of clearly eligible applicants and referring the remaining cases for a de novo adjudication by an immigration judge. The streamlining measures the INS adopted in January 1995 have been widely praised. Asylum reform has been effective because the agency considered how to adjudicate fairly and expeditiously the large number of claims it receives and how to reduce the number of frivolous applications. The INS eliminated the immediate promise of employment authorization to persons who apply for asylum; authorizing it only for those who are granted asylum or whose claims remain undecided after 180 days.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The special rules mandated by the bill would greatly slow down the adjudication of the asylum officer cases it covers. In most cases that would result in employment authorization being required by the passage of time which could lead to an increase in false claims. Timeliness in adjudication and eliminating the incentive to file a false claim to gain work authorization were major problems successfully addressed in 1995 asylum reform. Since the special rules would significantly burden the INS asylum officers and could increase the potential for false claims, the INS strongly opposes the provision.

    In addition, this portion of the bill would require that, in cases denied by an immigration judge, the INS would provide materials and explanations to the alien to support the immigration judge's decision. INS specifically opposes the burden that would be imposed on the agency in this provision since the provision fails to recognize the distinction between cases adjudicated by INS and those adjudicated by an immigration judge. Any supporting materials and explanations should come from the responsible adjudicator.

    Sections 9 (e), (g), and (h) of the bill would affect the refugee resettlement priorities and the annual consultation process relative to refugee admissions. The Department of Justice shares the view of the Department of State that these provisions are unnecessary.

    Because the bill as introduced would undermine the success we have had in our affirmative asylum process; create blanket eligibility presumptions for certain asylum claimants; and create confusion regarding the definition of religious persecution, the Justice Department is opposed to enactment of this measure.
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Thank you for the opportunity to address the immigration measures contained in the Wolf-Specter bill. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Kreczko.

STATEMENT OF ALAN KRECZKO, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Mr. KRECZKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    As you know, the administration opposes H.R. 2431 for reasons set out in a letter from Secretary Albright to the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee. My testimony today is limited to the refugee section of the bill, and I would like to briefly summarize our objections to that part of the bill.

    We are, of course, sensitive to the need to provide protection to individuals fleeing religious and other forms of persecution. Of the 70,000 refugees resettled in the United States last year, over half were people fleeing some form of religious or ethnic persecution. But the United States cannot, of course, accept all of the refugees in the world; and, for most refugees, resettlement in the United States is not necessarily the only solution.

    The way we determine which refugees the United States will accept is, therefore, extremely important. Currently, we make those determinations in consultation with Congress and outside interest groups. In doing so, we consider a variety of factors, such as the situation faced by the refugee population in the country of first asylum, the urgency of the need for resettlement, the possibilities for voluntary repatriation or resettlement in other countries, and the capacity of the United States to receive the group.
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The fundamental problem with the refugee provisions of H.R. 2431 is that it would replace this consultative, deliberative process with an automatic designation based on a single factor and made by a person without overall responsibility for refugee policy. The bill would appear to require us to accord priority refugee processing to any group designated as subject to religious persecution by the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring. That designation would be made solely on the basis of religious incidents in the country of origin and would not take into account issues such as whether refugees are currently in countries offering temporary safe haven or whether the United States can take on the burden of resettling the entire group. This automaticity serves neither U.S. Government nor international refugee policy.

    I might note, for similar reasons, the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees has written to you, Mr. Chairman, indicating its concerns with the refugee provisions of this bill.

    We have several other problems with the refugee section of the bill, which are elaborated on in my written statement and which I might mention briefly here.

    First, as you and as Representative Watt mentioned, it creates a hierarchy of human rights in U.S. Government law which could diminish protection of persons claiming persecution on other nonreligious grounds.

    Second, the bill gives decision-making authority over an issue with profound implications for our refugee program to an individual not responsible to the President or to the Congress for our refugee program.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Third, the bill adds an unnecessary period of public comment, given our current extensive consultative process with outside groups and the Congress.

    And, fourth, the bill is confusing on how it will impact the current procedures for determining refugee admissions. Either it will displace refugees currently determined in consultation with Congress to be in need of resettlement or it could result in an increase in refugee admissions beyond agreed-upon ceilings and appropriations. In either event, the result seems contrary to longstanding, bipartisan refugee policies.

    In sum, Mr. Chairman, we fully support the intent of the bill to protect and offer durable solutions to refugees fleeing religious persecution. But those solutions are not found solely in the United States and are not needed solely by individuals fleeing religious persecution. Our refugee admissions program needs to focus on individuals for whom resettlement in the United States is the best option. In our view, Mr. Chairman, this bill does not promote that outcome.

    I thank you, and I would also be happy to answer questions.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Kreczko.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kreczko follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN KRECZKO, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us here today to discuss with you the Administration's views on certain aspects of H.R. 2431 the ''the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act''. As you know, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2431, for the reasons set out in an October 7, 1997 letter from Secretary Albright to the House International Relations Committee. That letter noted a number of serious defects in the bill, which if unchanged would result in the President's Senior Advisors recommending that the President veto the bill.

    This hearing will focus on the immigration aspects of the bill. My colleagues will address the visa and INS-related provisions of the bill. I will concentrate briefly on those parts of Section 9 which deal specifically with refugee admissions.

    Let me start by saying that the Administration shares many of the same concerns that prompted the authors of the bill to introduce this legislation. Religious tolerance and respect for human rights in general are at the very core of our national identity, and they are central to our foreign policy. It is impossible not to be outraged when governments act against people because of their beliefs, or fail to protect them from others who would do the same. Our commitment and our concern is clearly reflected in the refugee admissions program. Last year, we welcomed more than 70,000 refugees into the United States. We expect to admit up to 75,000 this year. More than half of these are people fleeing some form of religious or ethnic persecution. Muslims from Bosnia; religious minorities in Iran, Cuba, and Vietnam; Jews and evangelical Christians from the former Soviet Union, all of these are identified as persons of special humanitarian concern to the United States, and all of them have access to the admissions program.

 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In addition to these specific groups, the United States also takes more than half of all the resettlement referrals worldwide from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those referred by the UNHCR may be from any nationality or background and frequently are victims of ethnic and religious strife in their homelands. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the United States remains the world's leader in helping refugees build new lives for themselves. We also are the catalyst for the international community's willingness to accept a share of the responsibility for caring for refugees.

    But the United States cannot accept all of the refugees in the world. Nor should we create the expectation with the refugees themselves or with other countries that the U.S. can do so. Most refugees have found a temporary safehaven in their country of first asylum, and will ultimately be able to repatriate to their own country. Others will resettle in their country of first asylum, with financial assistance from the U.S. and other countries provided through the UNHCR and other international organizations. Still other need resettlement in a third country. The international community, with U.S. leadership, should be responsive to this need.

    With the U.S. admissions program reaching less than one percent of the worldwide refugee population, the way we determine which refugees the U.S. will accept is extremely important. Currently, the annual ceiling and composition of refugee admissions is established through dialogue between the Administration and Congress, with substantial input from public interest groups, private voluntary organizations, mutual assistance associations, and other organizations concerned with the welfare of refugees. These discussions focus on the protection needs of refugee populations; conditions in source countries, and on the types of solutions that may be best for particular groups and individuals.

 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In managing the admissions program, we rely on processing ''priorities''. Priority One includes refugees who are facing compelling security concerns in their countries of first asylum and who cannot return to their home countries because of the fear of persecution. This priority is available globally; we are actively seeking to make better use of it. Its availability should mean that refugees from religious persecution from anywhere in the world, who are truly in desperate situations have access to the United States refugee admissions program.

    Priority Two designates groups or nationalities eligible for refugee processing because the United States has identified them as being of special humanitarian concern. In deciding which groups to accord this preference, we, in consultations with Congress and public interest groups, look at the situation faced by the group in the country of first asylum, the urgency of its need for resettlement, the possibilities for resettlement in other countries, and our capacity to receive the group. Taking these considerations into account, we have in the past designated certain religious minorities, such as Iranian Bahais or Evangelical Christians in Cuba, as a P–2 category. We are willing to consider additional groups for inclusion in P–2 in appropriate circumstances.

    One fundamental problem with H.R. 2431 is that it would replace this consultative, deliberative process with an automatic designation based on a single factor, divorced from overall refugee policy. Section 9(e) of the bill grants automatic access to the admissions program at the highest priority for certain victims of religious persecution—i.e., those identified by the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring. Sections 9(f) and (g) declare that no other refugees will be disadvantaged by the automatic inclusion of these special groups; and section 9(h) establishes a period for public comment and review prior to the annual determination of the refugee admissions ceiling. Taken together, these provisions appear likely to: First, circumvent the consultative process by which refugees are identified as eligible for resettlement; Second, increase the overall number of refugees admitted into the U.S. without regard to other foreign and humanitarian policy considerations; and Third, create a de facto hierarchy of human rights in which victims of religious persecution take precedence over other victims of persecution, including those persecuted because of their political opinion, race, ethnicity, or membership in a particular social group. We cannot support such results.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Specifically, the bill would appear to require us to accord P–2 status to any group designated by the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring. That designation would be made solely on the basis of religious conditions in the country of origin; it would not take into account issues such as whether the refugees are currently in countries offering temporary safehaven, or whether the USG can take on the burden of resettling the entire group. As a result, any member of the designated class—even an individual living in a safe location—would be eligible for refugee processing. The P–2 category would also be created without regard to the size of the population. While it is true that the number of refugees ultimately to be accepted into the United States would be determined in consultations with Congress, the eligibility of the individuals in the P–2 category for processing would certainly create the expectation within the group that they would be admitted to the United States. Thus, under this bill, a person without overall responsibility for the administration of the U.S. refugee program would make a determination which would create a category of individuals eligible for processing, even if the individuals are not in need of resettlement in the U.S. or exceed in numbers what the USG is prepared to accept. This automaticity serves neither USG nor international refugee policy.

    The U.S. refugee admissions program needs to focus on those refugees for whom resettlement in the United States is the best option. This requires considered judgments of individual refugees or categories of refugees, not automatic designations that flow from decisions made by someone without refugee responsibilities, on the basis of a single consideration. The U.S. refugee admissions program also needs to be part of an international burdensharing program, which takes into account the contributions made by countries of first asylum and the possibilities of resettlement in other countries. We should not launch a program which creates the impression that the United States can or should take in all religious refugees.
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    While this automaticity is one of the major flaws we see in the bill, we have several other problems with it. First, the bill creates a hierarchy of human rights in U.S. law in which victims of religious persecution take precedence over victims of all other types of persecution, such as victims of ethnic-cleansing, political dissidents, etc. Again, our refugee admissions program should focus on individuals in need of rescue, for whom other options are not available, whether the cause of their persecution is their religious belief, their race, their ethnicity, or the political opinion. Second, the bill gives decision-making authority over an issue with profound implications for our refugee program to an individual who is not responsible to the President and the Congress for the administration of that program. Third, it is not clear how the allocation of refugee numbers to victims of refugee persecution under this bill would be integrated with the existing Congressional procedures for determining the funding for our refugee program or the numbers in our refugee admissions program. Fourth, Section 9(h) makes each determination regarding refugee admission numbers subject to a period of public review and comment. As required by the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administration currently consults with the Congress on the President's proposed refugee admissions levels for each fiscal year. We also hold regularly scheduled meetings with the non-governmental organizations that carry our refugee resettlement all across the United States. Finally, Section 9(g) would require that ''refugees admitted to the United States as a result of the bill shall not displace other refugees in need of resettlement who would otherwise have been admitted in accordance with existing law and procedures.'' The intent and possible effect of this provision is unclear. In fact, more than half of the refugees the United States resettles are nationals of countries where religious or ethnically-inspired violence and/or human rights abuses are primarily responsible for the need for resettlement.

 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    To the extent the provision would require the President to disregard refugees admitted under the bill when counting the number of refugees admitted for purposes of our annual refugee ceilings, then the provision could result in a significant and costly increase in refugee admissions above agreed upon ceilings and appropriations. If the provision alternatively, is intended to be implemented within existing refugee admission ceilings and appropriations, then as a practical matter those fleeing religious persecution would in fact displace other refugees in need of resettlement once a relevant refugee ceiling is met. In either event, the results seems contrary to our long-standing bipartisan refugee policies.

    In sum, we fully support the intent of the bill, to protect and offer durable solutions to refugees fleeing religious persecution. But those solutions are not found solely in the United States, and are not needed just by individuals fleeing religious persecution. Our refugee admission program needs to focus on individuals for whom resettlement in the United States is the best option. We are open to suggestions from the Congress on how better to accomplish that. However, we do not believe that we need new legislative authority or mandates to do so.

    Mr. SMITH. Ms. Sambaiew.

STATEMENT OF NANCY SAMBAIEW, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, VISA SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Ms. SAMBAIEW. Thank you. I have a longer statement for the record I would like to submit. However, I have some oral comments today, if that is all right.

 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. Without objection, we will make your complete statement a part of the record.

    Ms. SAMBAIEW. Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, I am pleased to comment on the visa-related aspects of the proposed Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1997. In the written testimony submitted to the committee, we have addressed our concern with several visa-related aspects of this bill comprehensively. I would like to now identify these four concerns.

    Currently, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, administration and enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws, including the visa function, are reserved either to consular and immigration officers, who actually adjudicate applications for visas and for admission to the United States, or to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and, in one limited instance, the President. The proposed bill would, for the first time, create authority for administration of immigration laws outside of the established structure of the INA. It appears the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring has authority to act independently of the responsible immigration agencies. We recommend that all visa-related decisions be rendered within the framework of the INA.

    Secondly, Mr. Chairman, sanctions levied under this bill are directed toward countries, rather than individuals. The proposed legislation provides no indication as to how a decision with respect to an individual is to be made or what standard of proof is to be employed. We would suggest a more appropriate method of rendering inadmissible to the United States individuals or classes of individuals would be to create a ground of ineligibility within the established structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to be administered by the Secretary of State or consular officers. Such ground of ineligibility must contain clear standards of denial of visas.
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Our third concern involves visa denial based on Category 2 persecution, that is for failing to take action to prevent acts of persecution. The bill provides no standards by which such visa denial can be determined. Absent such standards, this aspect of the bill would be extraordinarily difficult to administer.

    Lastly, while the bill provides for the granting of waiver of sanctions for countries, it does not directly address waivers for individuals in the visa context. If, as we suggest in our written testimony, the sanction is cast in the form of a ground of ineligibility in the INA, the waiver provisions available to nonimmigrants would be available to aliens found to be ineligible under this new ground of ineligibility as well.

    I want to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I will also gladly take any questions.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Sambaiew.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sambaiew follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY SAMBAIEW, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, VISA SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, I am pleased to comment on the visa-related aspects of HR 2431, the ''Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997''. While we support the intent of this legislation, as a policy matter, we are very concerned about several aspects of the visa-related provisions of HR 2431.
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Specifically, we are concerned that the bill may create unwanted precedents in terms of failing to keep decisions on immigration matters within the jurisdiction and authority of the agencies and officials charged with the administration of such matters pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Further, in certain instances, we believe the bill creates unnecessary obstructions to the Secretary of State's ability to conduct foreign policy. We are equally concerned with other technical problems such as the fact that the standards for determining individual visa ineligibility and waivers of that ineligibility, as drafted, may not be sufficiently clear.

    Currently, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the INA, administration and enforcement of the nation's immigration laws, including the visa function, are reserved either to consular and immigration officers, who actually adjudicate applications for visas and for admission to the United States, or to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and in one limited instance, the President. This bill for the first time would create authority in the administration of our immigration laws outside of the two agencies, the Departments of State and Justice, to whom such authority has been specifically reserved in the INA. For the first time, binding determinations with respect to visa ineligibility would be vested in an official, the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring (the Director), other than the Secretary of State, the Attorney General or the President.

    Further, the Director would appear to have authority to act independently of these officials, and to act in matters of foreign policy that are constitutionally vested in the President and normally the province of the Secretary of State. While most visa cases do not involve significant disputes over facts, law, or policy, it is important that, in the event of such disputes, authority rests with the most senior official of the agency charged with responsibility. In this case, in our view, that means the President or the Secretary of State.
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We believe that authority for the administration and enforcement of the immigration laws should continue to be vested in the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, and exceptionally in the President, within the framework of the INA. Setting the precedent of vesting any such authority in other officials and outside of that framework is unwise and could lead to a patchwork immigration policy, administered by disparate agencies, perhaps working at cross purposes. Rather, we ask the Subcommittee to consider seeking to amend the bill to vest decision-making authority with respect to visa denials in the Secretary of State or a consular officer. Doing so, especially by placing visa denial provisions within the context of the INA, will help insure consistent and effective administration of our immigration laws and policies. It will also ensure that legal challenges that might undermine the authority of the government to conduct this aspect of foreign policy as the Congress intends are governed by the same rules that apply to challenges under existing provisions of the INA.

    Mr. Chairman, the technical problems, to which I alluded previously relate, in the first instance, to the determination by the Director, for the purpose of visa denial, that an individual has carried out or directed the carrying out of an act of religious persecution. This is awkward because the duties of the Director as described in section 5(e) relate to determinations with respect to governments, not individuals. There is no indication in the bill as to how a decision with respect to an individual is to be made or what standard of proof is to be employed. Further the magnitude of the effort required to effectively monitor for visa purposes the specific acts of innumerable high and low level officials and render determinations regarding their level of involvement in acts of persecution is quite a different task from that required to make judgments about governments as entities. We would suggest that a more appropriate method of making such determinations, and one consistent with our argument that decision-making authority in visa cases be vested in the Secretary of State or a consular officer, preferably within the legal framework of the INA, would be to permit such decisions to be made using the resources and personnel already making similar determinations in cases such as those involving terrorists, drug traffickers, persons involved in organized crime, or persons of foreign policy concern. In essence, once a determination is made by an appropriate official, in our view the Secretary of State, that a government had engaged in persecution, the actions of individuals could be reviewed by the existing immigration agencies for the applicability of visa sanctions. The new exclusion for representatives and members of designated terrorist organizations might serve as an appropriate model. This is in sections 212 and 219 of the INA.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Further Mr. Chairman, section 7(d) would permit visa denial in instances involving category 2 persecution, that is, for failing to take action to prevent acts of persecution. We believe the Subcommittee should consider whether such a provision is appropriate or can be fairly enforced. There is no precedent for it in existing immigration law. In fact, the circumstances in which persons are penalized for inaction generally are rare. At the very least, the legislation should provide a specific description of the circumstances that would lead to a determination that an individual was culpable for failure to to prevent persecution.

    Another technical question regarding the visa sanction and a determination that a country is engaged in persecution is whether, if the Director determines that a country is no longer so engaged, the visa sanction is still applicable to individuals who had been the perpetrators or who had refused to act? The bill is unclear on whether the visa sanction would remain applicable to individuals who had failed to prevent persecution once the Director determines that the country in question is no longer engaged in persecution. Generally, visa ineligibilities with respect to specific acts are permanent in nature. For example, criminal acts, drug trafficking and perpetration of visa fraud all result in permanent visa ineligibility. However, arguably, it is the intent of this bill that once the Director determines a country is no longer engaged in religious persecution and sanctions have ended, the visa ineligibility also should lapse. This would be anomalous given the nature of most of the acts listed in the bill and the way other visa ineligibilities are treated. On the other hand, visa ineligibility for someone whose failure to act has been remedied, may be too harsh, except perhaps if the person's inaction caused severe hardship and distress previously. These ambiguities point to the need for further consideration of the conditions under which the visa sanction should be imposed.

 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We have questions, too, about the waiver provisions of section 8. In view of the fact that section 8 speaks of the waiver of the sanctions against a ''country'' and not against individuals, while section 7(d) imposes visa sanctions on individuals, the intent of section 8 is unclear. However, assuming that section 8 is intended to cover the visa sanction, the ''all or nothing'' approach to a sanction taken by the drafters is not suitable for visa issuance purposes. We request that the Subcommittee consider recommending that a more flexible approach be taken with respect to waivers for visa purposes. Our principal reason for seeking flexibility is that it is absolutely essential to the conduct of our foreign policy that the Secretary of State be permitted to receive diplomatic agents from all governments, irrespective of differences we may have with those governments, and that we keep our legal commitment to the United Nations regarding access to the U.N. headquarters. Often, there is short notice of the anticipated visit by a diplomat or emergent circumstances at the U.N. dictate rapid action to issue a visa for travel. Assuming that section 8 would require an individual notification in each such case and given the focus of the category 1 and category 2 definitions on government officials, it appears that there would be a continual burden on the President to make emergency reports to Congress in order to carry out ordinary foreign policy functions. We doubt if this is the intent of section 8, and it certainly is not an appropriate way of handling such issues.

    Our concern in this regard would be remedied were the visa sanction to be placed within the framework of the INA, as we have suggested. Provisions for waivers of visa ineligibilities for non-immigrants upon the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General already exist in INA section 212(d)(3)(A) as a part of the overall structure of the INA. Indeed, such authority even extends to waivers of visa ineligibility resulting from terrorism. There is no apparent reason why waivers of visa ineligibility resulting from the acts sanctioned under the proposed bill could not also be determined in this manner. Alternatively, pursuant to INA section 102, the visa sanctions of this bill might be made inapplicable to foreign diplomats and representatives to international organizations, as are nearly all other visa ineligibilities.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we request your consideration of our concerns and we are ready to work with the Subcommittee to address them.

    Mr. SMITH. Let me direct my first question toward Mr. Virtue.

    Mr. Virtue, would you describe for us some of the abuses in the asylum process that led the INS and Congress to implement the reforms we have had in the last couple of years? And would you tell us, in more detail, how this bill would undermine those reforms and would lead back to the abuses that we feared?

    Mr. VIRTUE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, we were dealing with a significant number of applications being filed with the Immigration Service, upwards of 150,000 applications being filed on an annual basis for asylum in the years leading up to 1995.

    One of the problems that we saw in terms of—first of all, just simply dealing with those numbers created a substantial backlog in applications that the Immigration Service had on hand; and, as a result, we were not able to make timely adjudications of those applications. In fact, some people would wait years for an opportunity to have an asylum hearing.

    We also discovered that there was a substantial percentage, in fact a majority, that were not in fact appearing for their interviews for the asylum applications, and information that we had that many people were applying for asylum in order to get work authorization, which was provided as a consequence, simply, of applying for asylum prior to 1995.
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SMITH. If I could interrupt you for a minute. I recollect testimony by the administration that up until we implemented the reforms, when individuals were asked to return for asylum hearings, that something on the order of only 6 percent ever returned. The other 94 percent, of course, remained in the country illegally. Is that roughly the figure that you recall as well?

    Mr. VIRTUE. I know it was very high, and that is why I said it was at least the majority, but I didn't know the exact number. It was very, very high; and I believe those numbers are fairly accurate in terms of the number of people who would appear.

    So we saw that the asylum program, the way it was being conducted, was being seen as an opportunity for abuse among people who were immigrating to the United States unlawfully and who were looking to the asylum process itself for gaining employment authorization in the United States. So we undertook a number of changes in the process. Probably the most significant for us was decoupling the grant of employment authorization from the application for asylum itself. We basically provided in our regulations that those people who were granted asylum would be granted work authorization and not otherwise.

    There was an exception to that; and that is, if we couldn't adjudicate the case within 180 days, then a person is entitled to employment authorization if we can't get to the case in a timely manner.

    The other thing we did was to double the asylum corps and to add dramatically to the number of immigration judges we had. So we increased the resources we had available. So what we were able to do was timely adjudicate the applications. And from the affirmative asylum process, our asylum officers are dealing with manifestly founded cases. So the cases that are readily grantable, we do that at the asylum officers stage.
 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We eliminated the requirement an asylum officer write up a detailed analysis of a denial, rather preferring to have that case referred to an immigration judge for de novo proceeding; and those really are the components of the asylum reform.

    Then we had some other provisions in the 1996 Act that further both codified some of those provisions as well as went further, particularly in the context of expedited removal and limitations on applications for asylum.

    What this bill would do would be, particularly in the procedural areas, roll back to a situation where we would have to write up a detailed denial at the asylum officers stage. We think that would increase the time for adjudicating applications, thus requiring the grant of employment authorization in probably the majority of cases. So we would be back in a situation where the asylum program again could be subject to abuse.

    Mr. SMITH. I have heard that over 90 percent meet the credible-fear standard.

    Mr. VIRTUE. Ninety percent of the applicants who are subject to expedited removal and who express a fear of return are meeting the credible-fear standard.

    Mr. SMITH. Are you aware of any systematic denial of meritorious asylum claims? And if you are not, is there any way that you would be aware of it, or is it a process where, if meritorious claims were denied, you would never know about it?

 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. VIRTUE. I think I mentioned, in the testimony, we adjudicate cases on a case-by-case basis. There is provision for de novo review by an immigration judge where the Immigration Service can't grant the case. There is also an opportunity for review at the Board of Immigration Appeals in the affirmative asylum process as well as those people who are in deportation or removal proceedings.

    So we are not aware of any trend or concerted effort in terms of denying. In fact, we look at every case on a case-by-case basis.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Virtue.

    The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.

    Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.

    Mr. Kreczko, in Section 5, the bill establishes something in the Executive Office of the President something called the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring. I am wondering whether there is currently in the State Department some identifiable person, entity or group that already has responsibility for identifying groups that are subject to persecution.

    Mr. KRECZKO. Well, sir, on the particular situation of religious persecution, the Secretary has indicated she is going to designate a senior person to have responsibility for that issue. But more broadly, of course, Assistant Secretary Shattuck is responsible for human rights; and the annual Country Human Rights Reports address all types of persecution, including religious persecution.
 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. WATT. So everything currently falls under my former law school classmate, Mr. Shattuck.

    Mr. KRECZKO. Yes.

    Mr. WATT. The Chairman didn't know that I went to law school with Mr. Shattuck. The Department is in very capable hands because of his background.

    But he is responsible for all forms of persecution. Does he have under him somebody that has been designated to deal exclusively with religious persecution or how is that handled currently at the State Department?

    Mr. KRECZKO. There are a couple officers within his bureau that are particularly responsible for religious persecution; and I think, in fact, his senior deputy takes a particular interest in religious persecution issues as well.

    Mr. WATT. The plan going forward is to designate a person who has responsibility for that.

    Mr. KRECZKO. Yes, sir.

    Mr. WATT. How would that be preferable to setting up something called the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring?

 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. KRECZKO. Well, I think in two respects it would be preferable, sir.

    The first one has to do with parts of the bill not directly before the committee right now but similar; that is, consequences flow from the determinations made by this special director. One of the consequences has to do with the imposition of sanctions. The second of the consequences, though, is the prioritization that individuals get for refugee processing. Our view, with respect to the refugee processing, is that while the conditions in a particular country are, of course, relevant to that issue, that is not the only issue that needs to be looked at; and, therefore, it ought to be folded into the existing process for determining refugee priorities.

    Mr. WATT. I think that is all I have, Mr. Chairman. I will yield the Chairman the balance of my time, if you would like to have it.

    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Kreczko, a quick question. Mr. Watt mentioned the Executive Office of the President, which would contain the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring. Is there any equivalent office for monitoring racial persecution or any other forms of persecution?

    Mr. KRECZKO. I don't believe there is a specific designated office for that, no, sir.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins, is recognized.

    Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions.

    Mr. SMITH. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.

    Mr. ROGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First, as I listened to the presentations, all three of you have done a very good job in taking a bill, which I think at first blush seemed to be reasonable and would merit support, and pick it apart to a point I think it raises bipartisan concerns. I am especially troubled by the concept, as presented by the witnesses, which would take an immigration case-by-case policy and turn it into a blanket policy. Have any of you discussed that potential with the author or any of the cosponsors of the bill? And, if you have, is it their position that that is exactly what they intended to do?

    Mr. VIRTUE. Well, I think the administration provided testimony last October, I believe, before the Senate committee, on this bill, where some of those issues were raised. I don't know what other discussions with staff have been conducted on this.

    I do know that the letters that have come up to the committees have mentioned this issue, and that is that, first of all, it does create specified categories and creates a blanket presumption on one particular area of persecution, which is obviously of concern, particularly where the definition for persecution in the bill seems to be much higher than anyone would have to prove in order to meet the refugee definition, which, from our perspective, could create some confusion among our adjudicators in terms of what assessment they are making. So there is the potential there for a higher standard being applied to these cases.
 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But even existing INS regulations would permit someone to meet the refugee definition, without showing they would be singled out for persecution, if they can show a pattern or practice of persecution against a particular group for one of the reasons in the statute and that they are a member of that particular group. But that is not specific for religious persecution. That covers all the five grounds of the refugee definition, and we believe that affords the protection under current provisions.

    Mr. ROGAN. In fact, the bill itself lists specific countries and specific faiths within those countries. In your collective experience, do you find that, for instance, there may be other faiths within an enumerated country that have suffered religious persecution which have been left off of this list?

    Mr. KRECZKO. Sir, I have not reviewed it from that standpoint. I can get back to you with an answer on that.

    Mr. ROGAN. Is it conceivable that, by actually enumerating faiths within a country and enumerating certain countries within the map of the world, that this list could be quite transient as time goes by? Would it have to be continually updated with countries added and deleted, and faiths added and deleted? I am assuming the answer to that is yes.

    Mr. KRECZKO. Yes. I think the bill does create authority in the office to designate areas of persecution even if they are not listed in the bill. But I agree, with respect to those that are listed, it may not be exhausted.
 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ROGAN. Would that then give the person that you identified on Page 4 of your written statement, Mr. Kreczko——

    Mr. KRECZKO. Yes, sir.

    Mr. ROGAN [continuing]. You identified the person that would have decision-making authority with no responsibility to the President and the Congress. In your interpretation of the bill, would it give this individual who heads this office carte blanche to simply make additions or deletions to this list, without any review in Congress or any review from the executive branch?

    Mr. KRECZKO. That is my understanding of how the bill operates, sir.

    Mr. ROGAN. Do we have any other major immigration policies on the books that give such authority to a single individual without any review from either the executive or legislative branch?

    Mr. KRECZKO. In the refugee area, which is my area of expertise, not to my knowledge, sir.

    Mr. ROGAN. Are any of the other witnesses aware of any other major immigration policies that would give carte blanche authority in that fashion?

 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. SAMBAIEW. I am not.

    Mr. VIRTUE. No, I am not.

    Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Virtue, let me follow up on a point Mr. Rogan made and make sure I am clear about how this bill would be implemented.

    Tell me if this is an exaggeration. As I understand it—and this is a fairly reasonable guess—if you had 100 million Christians in China and you had 10 members of the group who were able to prove religious persecution, would this bill mean that the other 99,999,990 individuals would be able to claim asylum on the basis of a standard lower than credible fear?

    Mr. VIRTUE. Well, it could mean that if, in fact, either the situation was designated by the office that is created under the bill or if it meets one of the categories, you know, to have met one of the Category 1 or Category 2 provisions, then there would be essentially a presumption any member of the group, by virtue of membership, meets the credible fear of persecution. Then, in addition to that, it imposes fairly substantial administrative requirements on the adjudication of asylum claims for those individuals as well. So, yes, I think it is fair to say that if, in fact, that situation were designated, then members of that particular religion would have, I guess, an easier opportunity to apply for asylum.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Virtue.
 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. Sambaiew, as far as the consular officials who might hear asylum cases, to what extent are they trained? To what extent do they need to have experience in order to make such a crucial determination? And is there a consular review? And, if so, would you describe that to us as well?

    Ms. SAMBAIEW. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

    Consular offices in the field wouldn't actually hear an asylum claim. That would be made strictly in the United States, and that would rest with our colleagues in the immigration service.

    You have asked about the question of consular review. We have something known as the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which basically means the decisions consuls make overseas regarding eligibility and admissibility are not to be reviewed in courts in the United States.

    As we read through the bill, it was difficult to say whether this doctrine of consular nonreviewability might not be eroded. We think perhaps by vesting so many of the decisions in this new director we might, in fact, find situations where the consul's decision would not be reviewed, but the director's decisions made in the United States would be. Therefore, it would result in, perhaps, lengthy litigation in the United States, actually thwarting the entire efforts of this bill.

    So it is difficult to say, as it is written now; but, yes, we do have some concerns that consular nonreviewability would be eroded.
 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

    I don't have any other questions, and I will see if the Ranking Member has any questions.

    Mr. WATT. No, Mr. Chairman, I pass.

    Mr. SMITH. Does the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease, have any questions?

    Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to you and the panel for being late. I appreciate your statements. After I review them, I may want to submit questions in writing, but not at this point.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you all. We appreciate your testifying before us today.

    We welcome our second panel: Mr. Mark Krikorian, Executive Director for the Center for Immigration Studies; Mr. James Robb, Coordinator for Evangelicals For Immigration Reform; and Mark Franken, Executive Director, U.S. Catholic Conference Migration and Refugee Services.

    Again, we thank you for your presence; and we will start with Mr. Krikorian.
 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

STATEMENT OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES

    Mr. KRIKORIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the immigration-related sections on the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act.

    Deliberations concerning religious persecution are bound to be emotionally charged. What we are discussing, after all, relates to the arrest, torture, even martyrdom of people who simply wish to be left alone to worship our Creator as they see fit. Human history, in some sense, is the bloody history of religion intolerance; and one of our Nation's greatest achievements has been the establishment of religious toleration, not only on paper but in the hearts and minds of our people.

    Though I have never been persecuted for my faith, the ugliness of such persecution is not unfamiliar to me.

    I grew up in the shadow of the genocide of the Christian Armenians in 1915, including many of my own ancestors, by the Ottoman Muslims, an event which will be commemorated 1 month from today.

    What is more, I have spent a good deal of time in communist countries, in Islamic countries and Islamic communist countries, and seen persecution up close, churches turned into barns, people arrested for singing songs. Seminaries, a seminary I took classes at which was forced to teach atheism to the seminarians because that was a requirement under communism.
 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But precisely because the issue is so profound, legislative measures which seek to combat religious persecution must be scrutinized carefully, less our sympathy cloud our judgment. Unfortunately, section 9 of H.R. 2431 appears likely to have negative consequences, both in principle and practically.

    Regarding principle, these changes would represented a further departure from the concept of equal treatment under the law regardless of race, religion or ethnicity, and thus reinforce a group rights ethic that has been widely criticized in recent years. In practical terms, it would needlessly complicate asylum adjudication, facilitate illegal immigration, and roll back some of the important achievements of the past few years in ensuring integrity to asylum law, as some of the witnesses on the previous panel suggested.

    The implicit assumption behind section 9 is that there is a systemic bias against Christians and others claiming persecution on account of their religion in the administration of our immigration law, and that this bias is so deeply rooted that only special rights spelled out in statute can ensure equal treatment of those claiming religious persecution.

    Now, I will concede that claims of religious persecution may well sometimes be taken less seriously than other kinds of persecution claims. Likewise, it is plausible that claims by Christians of persecution may well be taken less seriously than similar claims by members of the other, trendier religions. Although there are no rigorous studies of this issue, the antireligious and, I would submit, specifically anti-Christian prejudice which is widespread in the elite in our country justifies some degree of concern about these issues.

 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Section 9 of the bill, however, doesn't seek to ensure equal treatment. On the contrary, its provisions extend special rights to those claiming religious persecution, at the expense of people alleging other forms of persecution, and it establishes a parallel asylum adjudication process for such claimants.

    In a sense, it is a parody of affirmative action, introducing preferential treatment and special rights in immigration law for yet another politically sympathetic group of people. Perhaps such a system of special privileges for certain asylum seekers at the expense of others is what Congress intends. If so, the legislation should make that explicit.

    I briefly wanted to mention the two asylum-related provisions of section 9 which I think are probably the most important. They have been discussed. I will just touch on them.

    The change in expedited exclusion, essentially allowing people to be considered to have a credible fear of persecution if they can credibly claim to be a member of an officially approved religious group.

    This would carve out an exception in the expedited exclusion procedure and would essentially void expedited exclusion for an ever-growing list of groups, a list which certainly is certain to grow, as one of the previous witnesses testified, which would again send the message that the United States' immigration law is not to be taken seriously and that the greater discipline introduced into asylum adjudication over the past several years will not be maintained. It is likely that our airports would again be on the way to becoming magnets for illegal aliens fraudulently claiming asylum, as portrayed in the famous 60 Minutes report in 1993 that contributed to the changes which have taken place.
 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The other major change which again has been discussed are the additional paperwork requirements, the process changes which would create, in effect, an institutional incentive to approve claims of religious asylum regardless of their merit.

    These extra steps, the written requirements, the documentation to back up rejections of asylum claims, may well be advisable. That is a political question, I think. It is clearly important that asylum seekers not be subjected to arbitrary and capricious decision-making. But if Congress deems such steps to be desirable, the enormous increase in workload would have to be compensated for through significant increases in spending on asylum adjudication.

    Since such increases are unlikely, it seems to me two problems would result: One, asylum officers and immigration judges would simply approve religious asylum claims more frequently than others to avoid the paperwork nightmare; and, two, asylum cases will take longer and longer to adjudicated, in effect negating this 6-month window during which asylum applicants do not get automatic work authorization.

    As problematic as these provisions are, their importance would be more theoretical than real if the number of people affected were not large. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The groups singled out in the legislation for special rights total perhaps 50, 75, maybe as many as 100 million people. It is hard to say. That in itself would be the largest grant of special rights in U.S. immigration law.

    But it is important to keep in mind that asylum provisions apply both to Category 1 religious persecution as well as Category 2, both people persecuted by governments as well as those persecuted by nongovernmental groups, but ''which the government fails to undertake serious and sustained efforts to eliminate.'' Given this expansive definition, I just wanted to touch on a few countries where this might be a problem.
 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SMITH. I have to tell you, our light system is not working, so when the green light goes out, the red light is not coming on. If you could finish quickly.

    Mr. KRIKORIAN. I will not go over the countries, it is in my written testimony, but suffice it to say there are hundreds of millions of people in India and Nigeria, in Indonesia, even Latin America, to whom this might apply.

    The final point is that religion and ethnicity overlap in much of the world. That is to say, most ethnic, national and even political conflicts involve groups of different religions or at least different denominations of the same religion. So these changes almost certainly increase at least the proportion of people claiming religious persecution, even if there were no numerical increase in the overall number of applicants, and because of that, result in an increase in the percentage of people getting asylum for reasons that I claimed earlier.

    I would strongly suggest the subcommittee take a second and closer look at this legislation. I will be happy to answer any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Krikorian follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES

    Good morning Mr. Chairman. My name is Mark Krikorian and I am Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit, non-partisan research organization which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center does not receive any federal funds.
 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the immigration-related sections of H.R. 2431, the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, which are principally contained in Section 9 of the bill.

    Deliberations concerning religious persecution are bound to be emotionally charged—what we are discussing, after all, relates to the arrest, torture, even martyrdom of people who simply wish to be left alone to worship our Creator after their own fashion. Human history is, in some sense, the bloody history of religious intolerance, and one of our nation's greatest achievements has been the establishment of religious toleration, not merely on paper but in the hearts and minds of our people.

    Though I have never been persecuted for my faith, the ugliness of such persecution is not unfamiliar to me. I grew up in the shadow of the genocide of the Christian Armenians, including many of my ancestors, by the Ottoman Muslims in 1915 (whose anniversary will be commemorated one month from today), an event which capped centuries of carnage at the hands of those who would force the world's first Christian nation to forsake its faith. What's more, I have spent a good deal of time in Communist countries, Islamic countries, and communist Islamic countries, where I saw churches turned into barns, people arrested simply for singing together, and seminaries which were forced to teach classes in atheism.

    But precisely because the issue is so profound, legislative measures which seek to combat religious persecution must be scrutinized very carefully, lest our sympathy for those who suffer for their faith overwhelm our judgment about the national interest. Lawmaking is not an exercise in psychotherapy or emotional catharsis, and embracing a proposal simply because of its supporters' commendable motives can lead to unexpected complications in the future.
 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Section 9 of H.R. 2431 appears likely to have such negative consequences, both principled and practical. Regarding principle, it would represent a further departure from the concept of equal treatment under the law regardless of race, religion, and ethnicity, thus reinforcing a group-rights ethic that has been widely criticized in recent years. And in practical terms, it would needlessly complicate asylum adjudication, facilitate illegal immigration and roll back some of the important achievements of the past few years in restoring integrity to asylum law.

    The implicit assumption behind Section 9 is that there is a systemic bias against Christians and others claiming persecution on account of their religion in the administration of U.S. immigration law, and that this bias is so deeply rooted that only special rights spelled out in statute can ensure equal treatment of those claiming to be persecuted because of their religious beliefs.

    That claims of religious persecution are sometimes taken less seriously than claims of political or racial persecution is not unimaginable; it is also plausible that claims of religious persecution by Christians have been taken less seriously than similar claims by members of other, trendier, religions. Although there are no rigorous studies of the issue, the anti-religious, and specifically anti-Christian, prejudice so evident among the elite in our country justifies some concern about equal treatment for religious claimants for asylum and refugee status.

    Section 9 of this bill, however, does not seek to ensure such equal treatment; on the contrary, its provisions extend special rights to those claiming religious persecution, at the expense of those alleging other forms of persecution, and establishes a parallel asylum adjudication process for such claimants. In a sense, it is a parody of affirmative action, introducing preferential treatment and special rights in immigration law for yet another politically sympathetic group of people. Perhaps such a system of special privileges for certain asylum seekers at the expense of others is what Congress intends; if so, the legislation should make that explicit.
 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Let me examine in particular the two major changes in asylum law which are perhaps the most important immigration-related elements of the bill.

''Credible Fear of Persecution''

    The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) included a variety of provisions to ensure the efficient administration of our asylum system, including the creation of a process called ''expedited exclusion.'' Under this practice, an alien who arrives at a port of entry with no documents or with fraudulent documents, and who requests asylum, is not permitted to pursue his claim until he demonstrates a ''credible fear of persecution,'' defined as ''a significant possibility . . . that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum.'' The ''credible fear'' determination is, to put it colloquially, the ''first cut'' in the search for asylum; a determination that a claimant has a credible fear of persecution means merely that the claim is not an obviously absurd attempt by an illegal alien to gain entry into the United States. Expedited exclusion is an important part of the bipartisan effort undertaken by Congress and the Administration to improve the functioning of the asylum system. What's more, it appears to be having the desired deterrent effect on potential illegal immigrants, since almost all those considered for expedited exclusion are admitted and allowed to continue their asylum claims.

    Section 9 (a) of H.R. 2431 would carve out a special exception in the expedited exclusion procedure for those claiming religious persecution. It provides for an automatic determination of a ''credible fear of persecution'' to any person who can ''credibly claim membership'' in any community included on an official list of persecuted religious groups. Although the legislation lists specific groups that are to be included on such a list—Christians in Communist countries, non-Muslims in Islamic countries, and Tibetan Buddhists—it also provides for the inclusion of ''any community within any country or region thereof that the Director [of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring] finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, is the target of religious persecution.'' By thus voiding expedited exclusion for members of an ever-growing list of groups, the United States would again send the message that its immigration law is not to be taken seriously and that the greater discipline introduced into the asylum adjudication system over the past several years will not be maintained. Our airports would again be on the way to becoming magnets for illegal aliens fraudulently claiming asylum, as portrayed in the famous 1993 60 Minutes report which contributed to enacting the reforms in the first place.
 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Hurdles to Denial of Asylum Claims

    It has been said voiding expedited exclusion for members of preferred groups would not mean they would get asylum—it would merely enable them to pursue their asylum claims. This is true. But just as the modification of expedited exclusion would facilitate the initiation of fraudulent asylum claims, Section 9 (c) of the bill introduces a wholly novel procedure which, like the proverbial thumb on the scales, would create an institutional incentive to approve claims of religious asylum regardless of their merit.

    Section 9 (c) requires any referral of a religious claim to an immigration judge, or any denial of a religious claim by a such a judge, be accompanied by a written statement containing the reasons for the denial, to be supported by extensive written documentation; the asylum officer's written assessment of the case; a list of publicly available materials the officer used as a basis for denial [or, presumably, referral]; and copies of materials used as a basis for denial which are not available to the public, with some exceptions.

    What's more, if the credibility of the applicant was a basis for denial, then the INS must provide the applicant with the statements or other evidence that were found not to be credible; a statement certifying that the applicant had an opportunity to respond to the credibility question; a summary of that response, if any; and an explanation of how that credibility finding relates to the religious persecution claim.

    These extra steps in the asylum adjudication process may well be advisable—it is clearly important that asylum-seekers not be subjected to arbitrary and capricious decision-making. But if Congress deems such steps to be desirable, the enormous increase in workload would have to be compensated for through significant increases in spending on asylum adjudication. Since such spending increases are unlikely, two problems would result: a) asylum officers and immigration judges will approve religious asylum claims more frequently, and with less scrutiny, than other kinds of claims, simply to avoid the paperwork nightmare; and b) asylum cases will take longer and longer to adjudicate, resulting in an increased number of cases held over for more than the six-month period during which work authorization is withheld. This important 1995 reform, which helped prevent the asylum system from spinning out of control, would thus be undone, setting the stage for future crises.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Numbers

    As problematic as these provisions are, their importance would be more theoretical than real if they did not affect a large number of people. Unfortunately, that would not be the case. The groups singled out the legislation for special rights total perhaps 50 or 75 million people. That in itself would be the largest grant of special immigration rights in U.S. law, but it is important to keep in mind that asylum provisions apply both to ''Category 1'' and ''Category 2'' religious persecution, as defined in Section 3 of the bill; i.e., both to people persecuted in the conventional sense, by their governments, and to those suffering ''religious persecution that is not conducted with the involvement or support of government officials or its agents,or as part of official government policy, but which the government fails to undertake serious and sustained efforts to eliminate.''

    Given this expansive definition, it is certain that the list of groups receiving special consideration would grow rapidly. While there is no way to definitively determine the number of people overseas who might benefit, we can get a feel for the situation by looking informally at a few large countries and regions:

    India: About 14 percent of India's population is Muslim—135 million people. This fact is perhaps more salient now than it has been for some time, given that the government of India is now led by a Hindu nationalist party, one which arose specifically in reaction to Islam. Even though formal government policies persecuting Muslims are unlikely, Category 2 persecution is so broad and imprecise that India would almost certainly have to be included in any list of persecuting countries.
 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Nigeria: More than 40 million of Nigeria's 100 million-plus people are Christian, though no one really knows since the government has avoided taking a census in years so as not to inflame Muslim passions for an Islamic state. The Biafran War of the late 1960s and early 1970s started as a result of Muslim pogroms against southern Christians working in the North,and one of the most contentious political issues today pits the mainly Muslim army against the mainly Christian inhabitants of the southern oil-producing regions. It would take little imagination to fashion this as a religiously tinged conflict.

    Kazakhstan: Perhaps 7 million of Kazakhstan's 17 million people are Russian or Ukrainian, i.e., not Muslim. Though many profess no religion, they may well have to be included as victims of Category 2 persecution based, at the least, on ''forced mass resettlement'' as the Muslim majority incorporates a religious dimension to its developing sense of nationhood.

    Indonesia: There are perhaps 10 million Christians in Muslim Indonesia. Although Southeast Asian Islam is far less intolerant than elsewhere, the country's hottest and most violent ethnic dispute—the claims of East Timorese for independence—has a religious aspect, since East Timor was Portuguese for centuries and its people are Roman Catholics.

    Latin America: In discussing religious persecution in Latin America, discussion focuses on Cuba, the sole communist state in the region, and one of the five communist nations mentioned in the legislation. But since Category 2 persecution is so broad a concept, it's important to keep in mind that Protestantism in varying forms is sweeping across the region, especially Central America. This process has resulted in much friction, including the expulsion of people from their homes and villages; I have no doubt that Protestants from many Latin American countries would have to be added to the list of those suffering Category 2 persecution.
 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Russia: Russia has already passed legislation restricting the rights of minority religions. In other words, a plausible case could be made for special asylum rights for Catholics, Pentecostals, and other non-Russian Orthodox Christians (Pentecostals already have preferred status for refugee resettlement purposes); Jews; Muslims; and others, such as Hare Krishnas.

    Several of these examples illustrate a further point, one alluded to in the legislation, Section 2 (6) of which refers to Tibetan Buddhism as ''inextricably linked to the Tibetan identity.'' In trying to assess the reach of Section 9, it is important to keep in mind that religion and ethnicity overlap in much of the world. That is to say, most ethnic and national and even political conflicts involve groups of different religions, or at least different denominations of the same religion. Thus, by placing a greater value on a claim of religious persecution than on claims of other forms of persecution, and making refusal of a religious claim more difficult than refusal of a different sort of claim, more asylum seekers, guided by their attorneys, will claim religious persecution, vastly increasing the proportion of asylum claimants covered by these special provisions. This won't necessarily increase the number of people applying for asylum, though it might, but it will certainly increase the proportion of asylum seekers using religion as the grounds for their claim, especially if the non-religious claim is weak to begin with. And this, in turn, will increase the total proportion of asylum claimants who receive asylum, now running around 20 percent.

    In conclusion, I would urge the members of the subcommittee to take a second look at the immigration provisions of the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act and weigh their moral and practical consequences. I will be happy to take any questions.
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

    Mr. Robb.

STATEMENT OF JAMES ROBB, COORDINATOR, EVANGELICALS FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES

    Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for providing me with the opportunity to testify this morning.

    My name is Jim Robb. I have been involved in the struggle for religious freedom for 17 years, since I became the first staff member of the Institute on Religion and Democracy here in Washington. At that time, I worked with organizations such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Freedom House, and with leaders such as Michael Novak and Father Richard John Neuhaus to promote religious liberty.

    Later in the 1980's I edited an evangelical magazine for Methodists and founded an evangelical publishing House, Bristol Books.

    For the past several months I have been organizing a loose coalition called Evangelicals for Immigration Reform. The purpose of this group is to examine the religious and moral aspects of the immigration debate and recommend changes where needed.

    H.R. 2431 covers all religious minorities, yet the truth is this bill is before Congress because America's large Christian majority has recognized that Christians have become one of the most persecuted groups on Earth. The 20th century has been a disaster for Christians living in non-Christian lands. The statistics are shocking.
 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    To note just one case from my written testimony, Saudi Arabia, while taking full advantage of America's extraordinary religious freedom to found a large Islamic school in Loudoun County, Virginia, shows no compunction in imprisoning and occasionally even executing Christian converts back home. In fact, the Saudis have outlawed Christianity altogether, enforcing this outrageous policy with their infamous religious police.

    A consensus has developed amongst most American Christians, and is held nearly unanimously by the evangelical Christians I know best, that these atrocities have too often been downplayed or ignored by our government in favor of military, geopolitical or commercial considerations. Representative Wolf's bill is an earnest attempt to address this problem. But do the immigration portions of H.R. 2431, which this committee is considering, amount to wise policy?

    By now everyone in Congress knows that a large group of evangelical leaders is backing this bill. But a number of leaders have told me privately that they are unhappy with the bill's actual language. In particular they said that they felt section 9 had been hastily crafted. They backed the bill, however, because it is the only bill available for them to support at present.

    It is not enough to simply show one's good intentions by passing H.R. 2431. To be a success, the bill must actually reduce religious persecution. Will it? I fear that a number of the provisions of section 9 might create a very different outcome from that which the backers intend.

    The asylum portion of section 9 could cause a major shift in immigration patterns to the U.S. Today, people arriving at one of our airports without visas and seeking asylum only on religious grounds must, one, convincingly argue they are members of a persecuted Christian minority, such as Chinese house churches; and, two, make a credible claim that they have a well-founded fear of persecution.
 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    This seems fair enough. Many claimants are granted asylum on the spot, while a large majority of the remainder is allowed to present claims at a later hearing.

    The director of an organization representing Middle Eastern Christian refugees told me last week that although he did have major problems with our refugee admittance procedures, he felt our present asylum system was fair ''98 percent'' of the time.

    But in the first paragraph of section 9 concerning asylum, the definition of ''credible fear'' is completely redrawn. No longer would asylum seekers have to even claim they were personally afraid of persecution.

    If they belong to a group that the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring has determined is persecuted, merely belonging is enough reason to allow claimants into the country automatically. As the bill states, membership in itself shall be considered ''a credible fear of persecution.'' It is true that in many cases the applicant will have to ultimately demonstrate in a hearing that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution, but even then the rules have been altered.

    I will not repeat what others have said about the paperwork burden on the government.

    At the very minimum, a strong signal will be sent. That is, if you are a Chinese Catholic or Egyptian Coptic, emigrate to America now. No papers are necessary.

 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I realize some evangelicals believe such an exodus would not occur as a result of this law. Others would not object to, and even would welcome, the sort of mass influx I fear. My belief, however, is that as a result of the asylum provisions of section 9, just such an unplanned inflow would take place and lead to many unfortunate consequences.

    First, I believe that many Middle Eastern nations will be effectively emptied of Christians within one or two decades if this measure passes. Why? In Iran and Iraq, the majority of Christians have already fled. These despotic regimes would like nothing better than to rid themselves of the rest of their unwanted Christian citizens.

    I will move to my summation. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, first I urge the committee to strike the bill's changes in asylum procedures. The changes are not needed and would likely be counterproductive.

    Second, adopt the bill's provisions on improved training. Finally, add provisions to require improvement in the country reports by which asylum cases are first examined.

    Again, I urge that this bill not be passed as it is. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Robb follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES ROBB, COORDINATOR, EVANGELICALS FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM

CHANGES NEEDED IN WOLF-SPECTER
    Testimony delivered to the House Immigration Subcommittee, March 24, 1998.
 Page 112       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Thank you, Chairman Smith, for providing me with the opportunity to testify this morning.

    My name is Jim Robb. I have been involved in the struggle for religious freedom for 17 years since I became the first staff member of the Institute on Religion and Democracy here in Washington. At that time I worked with organizations such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Freedom House, and with leaders such as Michael Novak and Father Richard John Neuhaus to promote religious liberty.

    Later in the 1980s I edited an evangelical magazine for United Methodists and founded an evangelical publishing house, Bristol Books.

    Today one of my interests is the need for the U.S. to reform our Byzantine immigration laws. For the past several months, I have been organizing a loose coalition called Evangelicals for Immigration Reform. The purpose of this group is to examine the religious and moral aspects of the immigration debate and recommend changes where needed.

A Century of Disasters

    The ''Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1997'' (H.R. 2431) covers all religious minorities. Yet the truth is that this bill is before Congress because America's large Christian majority has recognized that Christians have become one of the most persecuted groups on earth.

 Page 113       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The 20th century has been a disaster for Christians living in non-Christian lands. The statistics are shocking. To note just a few cases:

 More than 1 million Armenian Christians were massacred by Turks in the 20 years from 1898 to 1918.

 Russian government archives show that in 1937 alone, Stalin arrested 136,900 Orthodox clergy and shot 85,300 of them. During his purges he shuttered virtually all Russia's churches.

 Today China shows no conscience in its brutalization of home church leaders and Catholics loyal to Rome, with hundreds of both groups imprisoned.

 Saudi Arabia, while taking full advantage of America's extraordinary religious freedom to found a large Islamic school in Loudoun County, Virginia shows no compunction in imprisoning and occasionally executing Christian converts back home. In fact the Saudis have outlawed Christianity altogether, enforcing this outrageous policy with their infamous religious police.

 In the Sudan the Islamic fundamentalist government does not consider murder harsh enough treatment for Christians, but adds a policy of enslavement of children, starvation for non-conformists, and the kidnapping and ''re-education'' of Christian boys as tools of state.

    It is not an exaggeration to state that our time has been virtually drenched in the blood of Christian martyrs.

    A consensus has developed among most American Christians, and is held nearly unanimously by the evangelical Christians I know best, that these atrocities have too often been downplayed or ignored by our government, in favor of military, geopolitical, or commercial considerations.
 Page 114       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Unplanned Consequences

    Representative Wolf's bill is an earnest attempt to address this problem. But do the immigration portions of H.R. 2431—which this committee is considering—amount to wise policy?

    By now everyone in Congress knows that a large group of evangelical leaders is backing this bill. But a number of leaders have told me privately that they are unhappy with the bill's actual language. In particular several said they felt Section 9 had been hastily crafted. They back the bill, however, because it is the only bill available for them to support at present.

    When I began working in defense of persecuted Christians, one of the first things I learned was that individuals—and governments—are responsible not only for their intentions but also for the results of their actions. And so, in this case it is not enough to simply show ones good intentions by passing H.R. 2431. To be a success, the bill must actually reduce religious persecution.

    Will it?

    I fear that a number of the provisions of Section 9 might create a very different outcome from that which the backers intend.

Is It Broken?
 Page 115       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The asylum portion of Section 9 could cause a major shift in immigration patterns to the U.S.

    Today people arriving at one of our airports without visas and seeking asylum on religious grounds must:

(1) convincingly argue that they are a member of a recognized persecuted minority (such as Chinese house churches) and (2) also make a credible claim that they have a credible fear of persecution.

    This seems fair enough. Many claimants are granted asylum on the spot, while a large, large majority of the remainder is allowed to present claims at a later hearing.

    The director of an organization representing Middle Eastern Christian refugees told me last week that, although he did have major problems with our refugee admittance procedures, he felt our present asylum system was fair ''98 percent of the time.''

    But in the first paragraph of Section 9 concerning asylum, the definition of ''credible fear'' is completely redrawn. No longer would asylum-seekers have to even claim they were personally afraid of persecution.

    If they belong to a group that the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring has determined is persecuted, merely belonging is enough reason to allow claimants into the country automatically. As the bill states, membership in itself shall be considered ''a credible fear of persecution.''
 Page 116       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    It is true that in many cases the applicant will have to ultimately demonstrate in a hearing that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution. But even for that, the rules have been altered. In Para. (c), Section 9, ''Special Rules'' are laid out that amount to new rules of evidence.

    The U.S. government, in rejecting any claimant who belongs to a covered faith, must produce a good deal of paper to in effect prove its case. The net effect is that it may become very difficult for the government to prevent even very unlikely claims from going through. In other words the onus would be on the U.S. government to prove why an individual should not be admitted.

    At the very minimum, a strong signal will be sent. That is, if you are a Chinese Catholic or an Egyptian Coptic, emigrate to America now. No papers are necessary.

What's So Wrong With That?

    I realize some evangelicals are convinced such an exodus would not occur as a result of this law. Others would not object to, and would even welcome, the sort of mass influx I fear might happen.

    My belief, however, is that—as a result of the asylum provisions of Section 9—just such an unplanned inflow would take place and lead to many unfortunate consequences.

 Page 117       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
1) I predict many Middle Eastern nations will be effectively emptied of Christians within one or two decades if this measure passes. Why? Examine what has already occurred to Christian populations in that region. Vatican archives state that the Christian population of Iraq, for example, has already decreased from 35 percent a century ago to just 5 percent today. In Iran, it has gone from 15 percent to 2 percent. These despotic regimes would like nothing better than to rid themselves of the rest of their unwanted Christians citizens.

2) Which leads me to paint this scenario—does it seem impossible that a tyrant like Saddam Hussein would see in this law an opportunity? Might he actually turn up the heat on Christians there? In effect, might he pronounce a pogrom? That strategy would work if another nation were standing by to absorb the people he pushed out. Let's not play that role for him. We should concentrate our efforts on making Iraq and other trouble spots places where Christians can once more feel at home.

3) In many of the difficult places of the world for Christians, the truly persecuted should be given refuge. But if others, not themselves persecuted, flood in, the Congress would have unwittingly worked to undo the labor of Christian missionaries and martyrs over the centuries. We do not want to pull all Christians to the West.

    As stated earlier, many evangelical leaders who indicated support for this bill have done so because, as more than one has told me, ''it's the only game in town.''

    There are things in Section 9 that are needed and should be passed. The training for immigration officers is an excellent idea. Identifying a persecuted believer is not a simple matter, and the INS has not always been wise in dealing with persons claiming religious persecution.
 Page 118       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Also, the State Department country reports need to be sharpened and made more consistent, better reflecting the religion-state struggle of each nation.

In Conclusion

    First, I urge the committee to strike the bill's changes in asylum procedures. The changes are not needed and would likely be counterproductive.

    Second, adopt the bill's provisions on improved training.

    Third, add provisions to require improvement in the country reports by which asylum cases are first examined.

    Finally, Congress needs to re-examine our entire refugee policy, which is now lopsidedly weighted in favor of persons who are mere family members of U.S. residents or who belong to certain ethnic or national groups. The priority must be to admit persons who are truly afraid for their lives, and this includes many Christians who today find themselves excluded.

    Again, I urge that this bill not be passed as is.

    Thank you.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Robb.
 Page 119       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Franken.

STATEMENT OF MARK FRANKEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, MIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICES

    Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to express the views of the United States Catholic Conference. The United States Catholic Conference is the national public policy arm of the Catholic bishops in the United States.

    The United States Catholic Conference supports the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1998, H.R. 2431. We do so because it is quite appropriate. In fact, it is imperative for the U.S. Government to respond to serious human rights abuses by bringing pressure for change on governments that persecute their citizens and providing refuge to the victims of that persecution.

    We believe this legislation, and the wider campaign of which it is a part, is a welcome effort to raise the consciousness of the American public about persecution of Christians and other members of religious communities around the world.

    We believe it is important to make religious freedom a priority of United States foreign policy. After all, religious freedom is a fundamental principle upon which our own Nation was formed. This principle is just as relevant today as it was 200 years ago.
 Page 120       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In the interests of time, my testimony today will focus on the asylum-related provisions contained in section 9 of the bill, and in order for the record to contain the bishops' views on the broader aspects of the legislation, I ask that the statement made at the Religious Leaders Summit on Religious Persecution on February 4, 1998, by Reverend Monsignor William Fay, our associate general secretary of the USCC, be included in the record of this hearing.

    Mr. SMITH. Without objection, we will do so.

    [The information referred to follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. FAY, REVEREND MONSIGNOR, ASSOCIATE GENERAL SECRETARY, U.S. CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

    1. As Associate General Secretary of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference, I am honored to represent Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, Chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on International Policy and the Roman Catholic Bishops themselves at this important meeting, which I hope will lead to broad, effective support for the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act. For too long our nation has neglected or ignored issues of religious persecution. This bill, and the wider campaign of which it is a part, is a welcome and necessary effort to raise the consciousness of the American public about persecution of Christians and members of other religious communities in many countries, and to make religious freedom a top priority of the United States Government.

 Page 121       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    2. While there is new public attention to religious liberty, this is not a new issue for the U.S. Catholic Bishops. From the Soviet bloc and Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s to China and Sudan today, we have worked against religious persecution and discrimination, which Pope John Paul II has called ''intolerable and unjustifiable violation[s] ... of the most fundamental human freedom, that of practicing one's faith openly, which for human beings is their reason for living.'' The Holy Father demonstrated this conviction two weeks ago by speaking unambiguously for the restoration of basic religious freedom for all religious believers in Cuba. A number of our Bishops were privileged to be part of that historic visit and to experience first-hand the incredible and heartfelt response of the Cuban people.

    3. When the Wolf-Specter bill was introduced, we offered our general support for the bill and for the wider campaign of which it is a part. Since then, we have worked closely with Congressman Wolf, other sponsors, and other supporters to improve the bill. This fruitful collaboration has resulted in a stronger bill that we believe will be more effective in helping those who are persecuted around the world and will more likely garner the consensus necessary to move forward.

    4. The new version of this bill, as we understand it, is important for several reasons:

 The bill covers all victims of persecution of all religious groups in all countries. It is not limited to the persecution of Christians.

 The bill rightly links U.S. aid to a country's performance on religious liberty, a linkage that the U.S. Bishops have long urged for the full range of fundamental human rights. The fact that it singles out only egregious acts of religious persecution does not create a hierarchy of human rights any more than it creates a hierarchy of religious freedoms. It simply offers a practical corrective to U.S. policy in one area where that is much needed. While the bill focuses on religious freedom, its practical benefit would be to end U.S. aid given directly to governments that, in most cases, are abusing not just religious rights but a whole range of basic human rights.
 Page 122       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

 The bill restores some vital procedural safeguards for those seeking asylum from persecution on account of their religion, safeguards that we urge also be restored for those claiming persecution on the grounds of race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The bill represents a modest first step toward stronger action to protect asylum seekers in all these categories. Retaining the asylum provision is essential for our support of this bill, and we hope that this provision can be expanded to include other categories of persons who are being persecuted.

 The bill will end U.S. military aid, military financing and military sales to some of the world's most brutal regimes.

 The bill improves reporting on religious liberty by the State Department and strengthens training of foreign service and immigration officers, which, given our experience in these areas, seem well justified.

 The bill's humanitarian exemption has been broadened to include development and related kinds of aid; this broadened exemption will ensure that we do not indirectly hurt the very people we are trying to help or the most vulnerable members of these countries.

 Responding to concerns that the bill could be counterproductive in some situations, there is now a presidential waiver that would cover those situations where a waiver would be necessary to avoid increased persecution.

 The new bill has expanded opportunities for public comment, which should ease some of the concerns about the automatic nature of the bill's sanctions.
 Page 123       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    5. In urging support for this bill I want to mention that Archbishop McCarrick, along with some others here, is a member of the Secretary of State's Advisory Commission on Religious Freedom Abroad. He has found this to be a useful initiative which, in many ways, complements what we are trying to accomplish through this legislation. The Interim Report of the Advisory Committee, which was presented to Madeleine Albright on January 23, contains many recommendations—for example, on training and asylum—that correspond to provisions of this bill. The U.S. Catholic Bishops hope that we all could support the work of the Advisory Committee and urge the U.S. government to implement the many worthwhile recommendations in the Interim Report.

    6. Finally, it is regrettable that to date so much of the public debate and media coverage of religious persecution and this bill has been more about political partisanship and personalities than the serious problem we are trying to address and the actual provisions of the legislation. If our efforts are to succeed, we have to encourage a civil dialogue with those who have raised concerns about this bill and we have to reach out to a wide spectrum of groups and individuals. We seek not only to pass a piece of legislation, but to move a nation. Religious liberty is a cause which must cross partisan divisions, ideological lines, and religious differences, because every human being has the right to pursue the inborn call to holiness. Our cause is best advanced by principled persuasion, candid and civil dialogue, and respect for the concerns of others. Our goal cannot be just a legislative victory, but must be a broad, bipartisan and permanent commitment to place concerns for religious persecution at the center of the American international agenda and religious liberty at the heart of U.S. foreign policy.

 Page 124       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The U.S. Bishops are committed to continuing work to see that a focused and effective bill will emerge from the Congress. The religious persecution bill is not, nor does it purport to be, a solution to all violations of religious liberty around the world. It does, however, offer a serious, important, and modest tool for raising the curtain on a too-often ignored problem, combating the most blatant forms of religious persecution, and helping to improve the situation of millions who suffer simply because of their faith.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you. And also the written analysis of the immigration provision of the bill by our staff be included in the record as well.

    Mr. SMITH. Without objection.

    [The information referred to follows:]

U.S. CATHOLIC CONFERENCE MIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICES: STAFF ANALYSIS OF SECTION 9 OF H.R. 2431

    United States Catholic Conference Migration and Refugee Services (USCC/MRS) staff analysis of Section 9, the immigration section of H.R. 2431, to establish an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring

SUMMARY

    Section 9, ''Modification of Immigration Policy'', H.R. 2431, to establish an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring, provides for the restoration of certain vital procedural safeguards previously available to applicants for asylum but withdrawn by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). Migration and Refugee Services very much appreciates the concern for those suffering religious persecution, expressed in H.R. 2431. We, too, are greatly concerned by growing levels of religious persecution and we share the widespread perception that this issue has not been given adequate attention by either the Department of State or the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and that claims of religious persecution have not been treated with adequate sensitivity by the Departments of State and Justice. The bill provides measures which attempt to respond and correct these deficiencies.
 Page 125       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Of particular importance are those portions of the bill which will impact the recently enacted immigration legislation. For the past few years, the issue of asylum reform has been an active one. While acknowledging the need to address growing asylum adjudication backlogs and perceived abuses of our asylum system, USCC/MRS has felt that IIRIRA went too far in unnecessarily restricting the procedural safeguards previously accorded the asylum seeker. We believe that each part of Section 9 which restores certain procedural safeguards to those claiming religious persecution is entirely justified and very much needed. We would note, however, that in certain instances the bill may not be strong enough to achieve its intended effect with respect to the impact of the summary exclusion provisions of IIRIRA on such claimants. Thus, we suggest a strengthening of the protections provided by the bill in this area.

    The bill clearly recognizes that legislation that sets forth certain procedural safeguards is only as effective as its implementers. In light of the apparent lack of understanding or inadequate attention to the issue of religious persecution on the part of the bureaucracies of the Departments of State and Justice, the special training and reporting requirements for those dealing with persons claiming religious persecution are an important ingredient of the bill. In addition, USCC/MRS would strongly recommend a sharp expansion of the use of INS Asylum Corps officers in conducting refugee status adjudications abroad, especially in caseloads from countries designated as either committing or permitting religious persecution.

    It is important to note that the bill restores these important procedural safeguards only to persons claiming religious persecution, leaving IIRIRA untouched with respect to the other four categories specified in the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the related 1968 Protocol: race, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Over the past two years, the American Catholic bishops have fought hard against the withdrawal of these and other critical protections previously accorded those seeking asylum in our country. We continue to believe that these safeguards should be restored for all. We would urge that the bill be broadened to this effect. Regardless of the outcome of this legislation, the Conference will continue pledge itself to a major effort to see these safeguards extended to all those claiming persecution on the basis of all five categories protected under the 1951 Geneva Convention.
 Page 126       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

SUMMARY EXCLUSION ISSUES

a) Credible fear of persecution

    The bill recognizes that there are individuals suffering persecution that are being denied access to our system of protection and that this is contradictory to our proud heritage. This was true before IIRIRA and is even more so now. Steps need to be taken to ensure that a proper adjudication is afforded to individuals who claim religious persecution, especially in countries which our government has officially recognized and designated as subject to category 1 or category 2 persecution. This certification would recognize that refugees fleeing these countries are at ''high risk'' of religious persecution and the Attorney General should be directed to proceed forward to a full asylum adjudication in accordance with section 236 of Immigration and Naturalization Act.

    Under IIRIRA, a system of summary exclusion is established which requires a finding of a ''credible fear of persecution'' on the part of an applicant arriving at our borders without proper documentation. Failing such a finding, the applicant can be returned without a full asylum adjudication. Section 9(a) of the bill deals with the summary exclusion process and the issue of the ''credible fear'' test set out in IIRIRA. It attempts to do so by setting up a presumption of ''credible fear'' if the applicant ''can credibly claim membership in a persecuted community found to be subject to category 1 or category 2 persecution in the most recent annual report of the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring''.

 Page 127       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    It is clear that the legislation is intended to ensure that those suffering from religious persecution are not returned into the hands of their persecutors because they are too traumatized upon arrival to provide the details of their persecution; are frightened when confronted by someone in a uniform, appearing not unlike those responsible for their persecution; are unaware of the need to claim persecution; or that a system for the categorization of religious persecution exists. USCC/MRS shares that goal but believes that the bill falls short in this respect.

    Under current law, the changes provided in the bill would still not prevent the return to their persecutors of persons too fearful, confused or untutored to make a claim of religious persecution. While we understand that guidance has been provided to INS inspectors at ports of entry which could lead the inspector to question the individual on the issue of persecution at the initial interview, this is mandated neither by law nor regulation and we understand that such guidance is often not followed. Regardless of individual practices, we believe that such a requirement should be made specific and should be mandated by law. If the applicant's documents are not in order and no claim of persecution is made, he or she could be returned without ever reaching even the ''credible fear'' test, much less a full asylum adjudication. Thus, we recommend that the bill mandate that the INS examining officer offer to the applicant for entry, whose documents are not in order, the opportunity to make a claim of persecution. Under current law, once such an affirmative claim is made, the issue of ''credible fear'' then arises.

    Further, with respect to Section 9(a) of the bill, we have concerns that the language as drafted replaces the ''credible fear'' test in IIRIRA with another credibility test: ''Any alien who can credibly claim membership in a persecuted community found to be subject to category 1 or category 2 religious persecution . . . '' will be presumed to have established a credible fear of persecution. But, the credibility of such a claim of membership in a persecuted community must be established before the applicant is given access to a full asylum adjudication. Since section 235 of the INA is primarily a gatekeeper provision to a full asylum adjudication, we would recommend that the bill's goals would be better achieved by removing the issue of credibility from 9(a): ''Any alien who claims membership in a persecuted community. . . . '', as designated in the report of the Director, should be determined to satisfy the definition of ''credible fear'' of persecution and moved forward to a full asylum adjudication of their claim.
 Page 128       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    To summarize, when an individual first arrives in the United States with incomplete documentation, the inspecting officer should be required to seek a response to a question of whether he or she has suffered persecution. If the applicant is from a category 1 or category 2 country certified on the list in the Director's report or notification of such designation, a positive response and a claim of membership in a persecuted religious community would require that the applicant be forwarded to a full asylum adjudication. This would guard against those claiming religious persecution who arrive from category 1 or category 2 countries, as designated by the Director, from being returned into the hands of their persecutors until there has been a careful review of their claim. This is entirely warranted in light of the fact that the designation of a country as a category 1 or category 2 religious persecutor recognizes that refugees fleeing such countries are indeed ''high risk'' refugees and warrant the maximum opportunity for consideration of their claim.

    Of course, the fact that a claimant of religious persecution is not from a country covered explicitly by this bill and not yet designated as subject to category 1 or 2 religious persecution by the Director should not bar such individuals from establishing a ''credible fear'' on the basis of religious persecution, but they would not benefit from the presumption extended to those fleeing category countries.

b) 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

    Our bishops strongly advocated last year that refugees who flee to our shores, many times with nothing more than the clothes on their back and suffering from physical and emotional torture at the hands of their persecutors, should not be subjected to the processes known as summary exclusion or expedited removal mandated in IIRIRA. These concerns arise from a position that those who have fled persecution have a special moral standing and great care should be taken in our treatment of them. The bill addresses this question with respect to those who have suffered religious persecution. While this is an important step in the right direction, it falls far short of what is needed.
 Page 129       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    USCC/MRS strongly urges that similar protection be established for those who seek relief from persecution on the basis of race, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion: the other grounds protected under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This might be done by requiring the INS examining officer, conducting a ''credible fear'' determination, to consult the most current Department of State Human Rights Report for the country in question. If the report indicates that country from which the alien has come practices or permits persecution of the sort claimed by the applicant, this should be sufficient to establish ''credible fear,'' and the case can be moved forward to a full asylum adjudication. Caution would still be required to assure that identification in the Department of State Human Rights Report is not the only way in which a ''credible fear'' could be established.

    Based on insufficient sensitivity in the past to these issues, both by INS examining officers and Department of State refugee officers, the provisions for special training of immigration and asylum officers on issues of religious freedom seem well justified to us. Such training for immigration officers is specified in Section 9(b) of the bill. Section 10(b) provides for training for Department of State officers. Similarly, we believe that special reporting requirements are warranted on the handling of cases where fear of persecution on religious grounds is alleged. Such reporting by the Director is mandated by Section 9(d) of the Act and greater attention to religious persecution factors in the Department of State Human Rights Reports is required in Section 10(a). Such reporting would permit an evaluation of whether this problem is being properly addressed in the future, as is the intent of the proposed legislation.

ASYLUM ADJUDICATIONS
 Page 130       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Section 9(c)(1) of the bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for ''Special Rules For Religious Persecution Claims.'' Paragraph (1), ''Procedures Upon Denial,'' restores to the full asylum adjudications several critical procedural safeguards which are basic to a fair hearing for any claimant to asylum or refugee status. For example, any asylum applicant whose claim is denied on the basis of credibility should have the right to know what part of that claim has been found not to be credible and to respond to that doubt. The right to know the basis for that or other grounds for a denial in a quasi-judicial proceeding of such central significance to the applicant and the opportunity to respond formally to such a denial should be made available to any applicant seeking our country's protection on the basis of a ''well founded fear of being persecuted for reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.'' USCC/MRS strongly believes that those claiming religious persecution should be granted these rights but we also believe that those claiming other forms of persecution should not be denied them. USCC/MRS fought the withdrawal of those rights by IIRIRA and continues to urge strongly that they be restored to all of those claiming asylum on the basis of a fear of persecution. Regardless of the outcome of this legislation, it should be a very high Conference priority to achieve the restoration of these procedural safeguards to all categories of persons protected under the Geneva Convention as soon as possible.

    There are additional provisions of IIRIRA, not addressed in the bill which also impede access to an asylum adjudication for those seeking asylum, including those claiming religious persecution. These include provisions which require applicants to be returned to a ''safe third country'' rather than affording them meaningful protection in the United States. Also included are time deadlines for filing for asylum. USCC/MRS believes that these provisions should also be rolled back for those seeking asylum in our country.
 Page 131       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

REFUGEE ADJUDICATIONS

    For those persons found to be qualified as a refugee under section 101(a)42(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on the basis of religious persecution, it is of course proper that such persons be considered refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States and be given priority consideration at least as high as that given to members of any other specific group of refugees of special humanitarian concern. This has not always appeared to be the case and it is appropriate that such equality of priority consideration be given to those claiming religious persecution as mandated in Section 9(e) of the bill. It should be noted, however, that within such groups there will be gradations of priorities relating to the threat that the individual may be facing. Thus, a person facing the threat of torture or death on account of political reasons may enjoy a more urgent priority for acceptance into the U.S. Refugee Program than a person facing religious persecution in a situation in which that threat is of a lesser magnitude such as discrimination.

EXPANSION OF THE INS ASYLUM CORPS

    With respect to refugee adjudications abroad, it should be noted that there has begun to be some use of Asylum Corps officers for refugee status adjudications. In general, this has been seen as a very positive development but, given the demands placed on the Asylum Corps for domestic asylum adjudications, their use abroad has been necessarily limited. Typically, INS officers assigned to refugee status adjudications abroad are drawn from many parts of the Service. They are often without prior experience with such adjudications, without any serious depth of knowledge on country conditions and frequently are assigned on short term temporary duty assignments. The Asylum Corps officers, to the contrary, are career specialists in conducting such adjudications, often have substantial country conditions information available to them and are given at least some training in the country caseload concerned before going abroad on such an assignment. The Asylum Corps has already developed a substantial data center on refugee law and country conditions and is continuing to expand the information and assistance provided to the asylum officers.
 Page 132       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    USCC/MRS urges that the Asylum Corps be further expanded to the end that more and more refugee status adjudications can be carried out by Asylum Corps officers. The initial expansion of Asylum Corps activities abroad might concentrate on caseloads from countries designated as category 1 and 2 religious persecutors. The Asylum Corps refugee data center should work closely with the Director to assure that adequate, up-to-date and accurate information on religious persecution in category countries is included in country conditions information available to Asylum Corps officers and others responsible for refugee adjudications.

    Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you.

    It should be noted at the start that were it not for the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the asylum provisions of 2431 would simply not be necessary. However, that 1996 law has had the effect of undermining our Nation's rich and proud tradition of welcoming the oppressed by stripping away procedural safeguards previously afforded asylum seekers.

    Our effort to deter religious persecution and to protect those who are its victims would be grossly incomplete without our taking steps to ensure that those arriving to our shores after having fled persecution are not returned to their persecutors. Present law does not provide such assurances.

    The bishops in the United States deplored the 1996 law that diminished these protections, and for this reason applaud the sponsors of 2431 for including section 9 in the bill. It is also why our support for the Freedom From Religious Persecution bill has been conditioned on acceptable asylum and refugee provisions. We hope the Congress will take advantage of the opportunities provided by this legislation to restore essential protection to those deserving refuge in the United States.
 Page 133       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Section 9 is designed to restore safeguards for those seeking asylum from persecution on account of their religion, safeguards that we urge also be restored for those claiming persecution on grounds of race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, and political opinion. This bill, therefore, represents a modest first step toward stronger action to protect asylum seekers in all these categories.

    There are those, Mr. Chairman, who contend that section 9 of the bill is unnecessary because expedited removal is working fine. Those advocating this position cite an INS statistic that 80 percent or more of the arriving aliens that get as far as the ''credible fear'' interviews in fact are found ultimately to have credible fear.

    What this statistic does not tell us, and this is important, is how many asylum seekers were summarily denied access to the ''credible fear'' interview. We simply do not know. In other words, from this statistic we do not know how many people who had a legitimate claim to asylum and deserved our protection have been returned to their persecutors.

    The INS has denied access to the secondary inspection procedures to outside organizations. Thus, there is no independent monitoring of this process and no way of knowing with any degree of certainty that persons who have been persecuted or fear persecution are being referred for asylum consideration.

    Mr. Chairman, if we stop to consider for a moment what it must be like to leave everything that is familiar to us, including our families, in order to flee persecution, we begin to understand why current laws and procedures governing the asylum process are inadequate to the task of protecting asylum seekers.
 Page 134       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    To begin with, it is understandable that a person who has faced persecution, particularly if that persecution was manifested in physical abuse, would likely be traumatized and bewildered upon their arrival. It is unrealistic, therefore, to expect these persons to be able to adequately articulate their claim to asylum to the satisfaction the INS officer, especially under the circumstances of an airport interview within minutes of arrival and with inadequate means of communicating.

    The green light has gone off, so let me go to my conclusion.

    There are a number of provisions in section 9 that the bishops feel strongly in support of, and there are some other improvements that we recommend which would serve to strengthen our country's response to legitimate asylum seekers. I would be happy to go into further detail on those if time is available in the question-answer period.

    I would finish by saying that who we are as a people is largely manifested in the principles embodied in our laws and public policies. When it comes to how we as a Nation have historically welcomed the oppressed, we have much of which to be proud. However, the recent changes in the laws governing how one applies for asylum in the United States send the wrong message, one that serves to erode our Nation's commitment to the ideals that have made ours a country known throughout the world as a beacon of freedom.

    During his most recent visit to the United States, our Holy Father, John Paul II, asked a relevant question: ''Today, as before, the United States is called to be a hospitable society, a welcoming culture. If America were to turn in on itself,'' John Paul said, ''would this not be the beginning of the end of what constitutes the very essence of the American experience?''
 Page 135       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and the other members of the subcommittee and other Members of Congress to secure the protections we feel refugees fleeing from religious and other forms of persecution so badly need and so richly deserve. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Franken follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK FRANKEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, MIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICES

    Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Watt, and members of the Subcommittee for extending the opportunity to testify and express the views of the United States Catholic Conference with respect to the asylum and refugee provisions of H.R. 2431, the Wolf/Specter Freedom from Religious Persecution Act.

    My name is Mark Franken. I am the Executive Director of the United States Catholic Conference Migration and Refugee Services (USCC/MRS). The United States Catholic Conference is the public policy arm of the U.S. Catholic bishops. MRS, an office within USCC, provides public policy support to the Catholic bishops on migration and refugee issues. In addition, we are the largest refugee resettlement agency in the United States.

USCC'S SUPPORT FOR THE BROAD PROVISIONS OF H.R. 2431

    H.R. 2431 has undergone a number of revisions since its introduction on September 8, 1997. USCC has expressed its support for the revised version of H.R. 2431 on numerous occasions in letters, statements, lobbying, and testimony that we gave during the last session of this Congress before the House International Relations Committee. We believe this legislation, and the wider campaign of which it is a part, is a welcome effort to raise the consciousness of the American public about persecution of Christians and members of other religious communities in many countries and to make religious freedom a top priority of United States foreign policy.
 Page 136       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Much of the attention surrounding H.R. 2431 has focused on its provisions relating to reporting on religious liberty by the State Department, training of foreign service officers, and sanctions that might be imposed on countries that engage in egregious acts of religious persecution. As noted earlier, we testified extensively on those provisions last year. Accordingly, in order to make the best use of this Subcommittee's valuable time, I would like to ask that the statement of by Reverend Monsignor William P. Fay, Associate General Secretary of the U.S. Catholic Conference, at the Religious Leaders Summit on Religious Persecution on February 4, 1998 be included in the record of this hearing while I concentrate my remarks today on the asylum and refugee provisions. I would also ask that the staff analysis of the immigration provisions of the Act by the Conference's Office of Migration and Refugee Affairs, included in the record at the September, 1997 hearing on this bill before the House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, be included in the record.

AN EFFECTIVE EFFORT AGAINST RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION MUST ALSO PROTECT ASYLUM SEEKERS

    Economic sanctions, reporting on countries' practices with respect to religious liberty, and training of state department personnel are all important tools in our arsenal against religious persecution. But our efforts to deter religious persecution and protect those who are its victims would be grossly incomplete without our also taking steps to ensure that persecutees who present themselves at our ports of entry or within our borders are protected from their persecutors. That is why we are pleased that the bill's sponsors included section 9 in H.R. 2431, and it is why our support for this important measure has been conditioned on acceptable asylum and refugee provisions.

 Page 137       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    There are those, Mr. Chairman, who contend that Section 9, in general, and section 9(a), in particular, is unnecessary because expedited removal is working fine. Those advocating this position cite an INS statistic that 80 percent or more of arriving aliens who are referred for credible fear interviews under expedited removal are found to have a credible fear. This, they contend, is proof that expedited removal should not be tinkered with in this legislation. We strongly disagree with that contention.

    One of the principal purposes of Section 9 is to protect religious persecutees from some of the potentially harsh consequences of the expedited removal provisions of the 104th Congress's Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Those provisions stripped refugees and asylum seekers of a number of vital procedural safeguards previously available to applicants for asylum.

    Calling the summary exclusion provisions of IIRIRA ''shameful'', Bishop George Murray, S.J. of Chicago cautioned that , ''in the absence of these safeguards, some persons fleeing persecution and seeking asylum in the United States could well be returned to the hands of the very persecutors from which they fled.'' The bishops recognize that refugees and asylum seekers, particularly those fleeing persecution and possible threat to their lives who are in search of safe haven, have a special moral standing and thus require special consideration. Therefore, if the Freedom from Religious Persecution bill is to have the desired effect of protecting persons fleeing religious persecution, it must , at a minimum, maintain the provisions contained in Section 9. In addition the American Catholic bishops feel that the asylum provisions of H.R. 2431 can and should be strengthened. The United States Catholic Conference calls on members of Congress to extend the asylum provisions, provided in this bill to those seeking asylum from religious persecution, to all categories of persons, protected under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
 Page 138       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

THE EXPEDITED REMOVAL PROCESS

    Congress enacted expedited removal as a severe response to the problem INS had experienced in the early 1990s of arriving aliens who appeared at U.S. ports of entry without travel documents or with false documents who, upon indicating a fear of persecution, would apply for asylum and receive work authorization. The cause of the problems INS was experiencing was purely administrative—not legislative—and by 1996, changes in INS detention and work authorization policies effectively eliminated the problems. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the problems had been substantially solved administratively, Congress enacted expedited removal in 1996's IIRIRA.

    Under expedited removal, individuals suspected of being in violation of Immigration and Nationality Act Sections 212(a)(6)(C) or 212 (a)(7) (false travel documents, no travel documents, or fraudulent use of travel documents) are referred to a secondary inspection process that can result in their immediate deportation.

    This secondary inspection process takes place in an airport within hours of arrival. The arriving aliens in secondary inspection are not allowed to call family, friends, or assistance agencies. Reports indicate some are denied food and water, others are shackled and still others subjected to strip search while waiting. A decision by the secondary inspector—a low level INS officer with little specialized training in asylum issues—to deport someone is effective immediately and is subject to no review except a supervisor's approval.

    In the secondary inspection process, an arriving alien who expressed a fear of persecution or an intention to apply for asylum is supposed to be referred to an asylum officer for a credible fear determination, which is supposed to take place within days of arrival. While representation or assistance is allowed, counsel is often permitted little access to clients before the interview. The asylum seeker must persuade the INS asylum officer that she has a ''credible fear of persecution'' or she is not permitted to even apply for asylum. An asylum seeker can request a review by an immigration judge of a negative credible fear determination. But no additional review of an Immigration Judge's determination is possible.
 Page 139       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

DEFICIENCIES OF EXPEDITED REMOVAL

    At the time Congress was considering expedited removal, USCC expressed great concern that its enactment could result in an abusive process that might cause the return of bona fide refugees to their country of persecution. Those fears have not been relieved by the first year of the implementation of expedited removal.

    Much has been made of the contention by the INS that the rate of those interviewed for a credible fear determination who have been found to have a credible fear is in excess of 80 percent. While we do not challenge the veracity of this claim, we do note that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has only made detailed data available to us of the first few months of the implementation of expedited removal, and we have not been able to examine any detail for the period from July, 1997 and beyond.

    We note, as well, that the 80 percent statistic, itself, may mislead observers into concluding that expedited removal is successful in preventing the return of bona fide refugees to their persecutors. Not included in the denominator of this statistic are the many arriving aliens who were never referred to a credible fear interview. We understand Justice Department figures indicate that the INS referred approximately 5,700 persons to secondary inspection, of which 4,000 were removed. This occurred during the time period of April through May 13, 1997. Without detailed, person-by-person information, we may never know how many rape or torture victims or religious persecutees were not counted in INS's statistics because fear, intimation, the bewildering process, and the presence of uniformed government agents in the early stages of the expedited removal process resulted in their not being referred for a credible fear interview.
 Page 140       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The INS has been resolute in denying any outside organizations access to secondary inspection for the purpose of monitoring the expedited removal process, and they have not provided detailed, person-by-person information about the people who have not been referred for credible fear interviews. Without this detailed information and without access to the secondary inspection process, Mr. Chairman, it will be difficult for us to properly evaluate the 80 percent statistic that has been touted about expedited removal. But in the meantime, advocates who have interviewed clients in the credible fear stage of the process have learned from them what has gone on in the secondary inspection process.

    Clients report that they were shackled to benches in airport holding rooms for up to 18 hours during the secondary inspection process before being transferred to local jails or INS detention centers. During this time they were denied food, were separated from traveling companions or family members, and were denied the right to make phone calls. Many arriving aliens are provided the ''free legal services list'' in English, only, resulting in many not fully understanding the significance of the process. The lists are largely unhelpful, anyway, since they are often comprised of agencies that do not provide representation to person in detention. With treatment like this, it is no wonder that many don't make it to the credible fear stage of expedited removal and are therefore not counted in the 80 percent statistic that has been heralded by the INS and others.

    There is much evidence of grave deficiencies in the credible fear interview process itself, Mr. Chairman, that I would be happy to share with you and the Subcommittee at a later time. These problems include the confiscation of the arriving alien's personal property, including address books and other materials that might permit her to contact someone or to present evidence supporting her claim of fear of persecution. Other problems include poor access to interpreters, inadequate time to consult with counsel or family members, and irregular access to asylum officers' notes of the interview. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to provide the Subcommittee with details on these observations at a later time.
 Page 141       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

SECTION 9 OF H.R. 2431 RECOGNIZES THE DEFICIENCIES OF EXPEDITED REMOVAL

    We are greatly pleased that the authors of H.R. 2431 determined that it was important to include provisions which would mitigate the negative consequences of IIRIRA for asylum seekers. As we testified earlier, while acknowledging the need to address growing asylum adjudication backlogs and perceived abuses of our asylum system, the United States Catholic Conference has felt that IIRIRA went too far in unnecessarily restricting the procedural safeguards previously accorded the asylum seeker.

    The bill clearly recognizes that legislation that sets forth certain procedural safeguards is only as effective as its implementers. In light of the apparent lack of understanding or inadequate attention to the issue of religious persecution on the part of the bureaucracies of the Departments of State and Justice, the special training and reporting requirements for those dealing with persons claiming religious persecution are an important ingredient of the bill.

    We believe that each part of Section 9 which restores certain procedural safeguards to those claiming religious persecution is entirely justified and very much needed. In fact, we believe that in certain instances the section could be strengthened to achieve its intended effect with respect to the impact of the expedited removal provisions of IIRIRA on such claimants. We certainly would strongly oppose weakening or eliminating the provisions of this section.

PROTECTIONS IN SECTION 9 OF H.R. 2431 SHOULD BE BROADENED SO THAT ALL PERSECUTEES ARE PROTECTED
 Page 142       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    It is important to note that the bill restores these important procedural safeguards only to persons claiming religious persecution, leaving IIRIRA untouched with respect to the other four categories specified in the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the related 1968 Protocol: race, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Over the past three years, the American Catholic bishops have strongly resisted the withdrawal of these and other critical protections previously accorded those seeking asylum in our country. We continue to believe that these safeguards should be restored for all. We would urge that the bill be broadened to this effect. But the fact that the bill does not contain comprehensive changes across all categories of persecution should not be used as an excuse for ignoring the deficiencies of our current asylum law and taking action with regard to religious persecutees. Regardless of the outcome of this legislation, the Conference will continue to pledge itself to a major effort to see these safeguards extended to all those claiming persecution on the basis of all five categories protected under the 1951 Geneva Convention.

EXPEDITED REMOVAL ISSUES IN SECTION 9

    Section 9 addresses a number of specific problems in our current law. It recognizes that there is a severe danger that individuals suffering persecution are being denied access to our system of protection and that this is contradictory to our proud heritage. This was true before enactment of IIRIRA and is even more so now.

    Steps need to be taken to ensure that a proper adjudication is afforded to individuals who claim religious persecution, especially in countries which our government has officially recognized and designated as subject to category 1 or category 2 persecution. This certification would recognize that refugees fleeing these countries are at ''high risk'' of religious persecution and the Attorney General should be directed to proceed forward to a full asylum adjudication in accordance with section 236 of Immigration and Naturalization Act.
 Page 143       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Section 9(a) of H.R. 2431 deals with the expedited removal process and the issue of the ''credible fear'' test set out in IIRIRA. It attempts to do so by setting up a presumption of ''credible fear'' if the applicant ''can credibly claim membership in a persecuted community found to be subject to category 1 or category 2 persecution in the most recent annual report of the Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring''.

    The legislation is intended to ensure that those suffering from religious persecution are not returned into the hands of their persecutors because they are too traumatized upon arrival to provide the details of their persecution; are frightened when confronted by someone in a uniform, appearing not unlike those responsible for their persecution; are unaware of the need to claim persecution; or that a system for the categorization of religious persecution exists. The United States Catholic Conference shares that goal.

    We are aware that some have suggested eliminating or severely weakening section 9(a). We strongly urge against this course. It would have a serious, negative affect on the bill. In fact, we think bona fide refugees would be better protected if section 9(a) were strengthened so as to provide greater protection to persons too fearful, confused or untutored to make a claim of religious persecution and to people who are not from category 1 or category 2 countries but who nonetheless face religious persecution in their home countries..

    The American Catholic bishops strongly advocated in the last Congress that refugees who flee to our shores, many times with nothing more than the clothes on their back and suffering from physical and emotional torture at the hands of their persecutors, should not be subjected to the processes known as expedited removal or expedited removal mandated in IIRIRA. These concerns arise from a position that those who have fled persecution have a special moral standing and great care should be taken in our treatment of them. Section 9(a) addresses this question with respect to those who have suffered religious persecution. This is an important step in the right direction, and we look forward to working with this Congress, and future Congresses, if necessary, to move toward complete protection of people fleeing religious, as well as other forms of persecution.
 Page 144       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

TRAINING PROVISIONS IN SECTION 9

    Based on insufficient sensitivity in the past to these issues, both by INS examining officers and Department of State refugee officers, the provisions for special training of immigration and asylum officers on issues of religious freedom seem well justified to us. Such training for immigration officers is specified in Section 9(b) of the bill. Section 10(b) provides for training for Department of State officers. Similarly, we believe that special reporting requirements are warranted on the handling of cases where fear of persecution on religious grounds is alleged. Such reporting by the Director is mandated by Section 9(d) of the Act and greater attention to religious persecution factors in the Department of State Human Rights Reports is required in Section 10(a). Such reporting would permit an evaluation of whether this problem is being properly addressed in the future, as is the intent of the proposed legislation.

ASYLUM ADJUDICATION PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9

    Section 9(c)(1) of the bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for ''Special Rules For Religious Persecution Claims.'' Paragraph (1), ''Procedures Upon Denial,'' restores to the full asylum adjudications several critical procedural safeguards which are basic to a fair hearing for any claimant to asylum or refugee status. For example, any asylum applicant whose claim is denied on the basis of credibility should have the right to know what part of that claim has been found not to be credible and to respond to that doubt. The right to know the basis for that or other grounds for a denial in a quasi-judicial proceeding of such central significance to the applicant and the opportunity to respond formally to such a denial should be made available to any applicant seeking our country's protection on the basis of a ''well founded fear of being persecuted for reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.''
 Page 145       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The United States Catholic Conference strongly believes that those claiming religious persecution should be granted these rights but we also believe that those claiming other forms of persecution should not be denied them. The American Catholic bishops fought the withdrawal of those rights by IIRIRA and continues to urge strongly that they be restored to all of those claiming asylum on the basis of a fear of persecution. Regardless of the outcome of this legislation, it will be a very high priority of the bishops to achieve the restoration of these procedural safeguards to all categories of persons protected under the Geneva Convention as soon as possible.

    There are additional provisions of IIRIRA, not addressed in the bill which also impede access to an asylum adjudication for those seeking asylum, including those claiming religious persecution. These include provisions which require applicants to be returned to a ''safe third country'' rather than affording them meaningful protection in the United States. Also included are time deadlines for filing for asylum. The United States Catholic Conference believes that these provisions should also be rolled back for those seeking asylum in our country.

REFUGEE ADJUDICATION PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9

    For those persons found to be qualified as a refugee under section 101(a)42(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on the basis of religious persecution, it is of course proper that such persons be considered refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States and be given priority consideration at least as high as that given to members of any other specific group of refugees of special humanitarian concern.

 Page 146       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    This has not always appeared to be the case and it is appropriate that such equality of priority consideration be given to those claiming religious persecution as mandated in Section 9(e) of the bill. It should be noted, however, that within such groups there will be gradations of priorities relating to the threat that the individual may be facing. Thus, a person facing the threat of torture or death on account of political reasons may enjoy a more urgent priority for acceptance into the U.S. Refugee Program than a person facing religious persecution in a situation in which that threat is of a lesser magnitude such as discrimination.

EXPANSION OF THE INS ASYLUM CORPS

    With respect to refugee adjudications abroad, it should be noted that there has begun to be some use of Asylum Corps officers for refugee status adjudications. In general, this has been seen as a very positive development but, given the demands placed on the Asylum Corps for domestic asylum adjudications, their use abroad has been necessarily limited. Typically, INS officers assigned to refugee status adjudications abroad are drawn from many parts of the Service. They are often without prior experience with such adjudications, without any serious depth of knowledge on country conditions and frequently are assigned on short term temporary duty assignments. The Asylum Corps officers, to the contrary, are career specialists in conducting such adjudications, often have substantial country conditions information available to them and are given at least some training in the country caseload concerned before going abroad on such an assignment. The Asylum Corps has already developed a substantial data center on refugee law and country conditions and is continuing to expand the information and assistance provided to the asylum officers.

    The United States Catholic Conference urges that the Asylum Corps be further expanded to the end that more and more refugee status adjudications can be carried out by Asylum Corps officers. The initial expansion of Asylum Corps activities abroad might concentrate on caseloads from countries designated as category 1 and 2 religious persecutors. The Asylum Corps refugee data center should work closely with the Director to assure that adequate, up-to-date and accurate information on religious persecution in category countries is included in country conditions information available to Asylum Corps officers and others responsible for refugee adjudications.
 Page 147       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the United States Catholic Conference is pleased that the authors of H.R. 2431 recognized the deficiencies in current asylum and refugee law in identifying and protecting people fleeing religious persecution abroad. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to refrain from weakening or eliminating the important safeguards contained in H.R. 2431, even while we also urge that similar protections be established for those who seek relief from persecution on the basis of race, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion: the other grounds protected under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

    Who we are as a people is largely manifested in the principles embodied in our laws and public policies. When one considers how we as a nation have historically welcomed the oppressed, we have much of which to be proud. However, the recent changes in the laws governing how one applies for asylum in the United States sends the wrong message; one that serves to erode our nation's commitment to the ideals that have made ours a country known throughout the world as a beacon of freedom.

    During his most recent visit to the United States, our Holy Father John Paul II asked the relevant question, ''Today, as before, the United States is called to be a hospitable society, a welcoming culture. If America were to turn in on itself, would this not be the beginning of the end of what constitutes the very essence of the American experience?''

    We look forward to working with you, the other members of the Subcommittee, and other Members and Senators in this and future Congresses, if necessary, to secure the protections we feel refugees fleeing religious and other forms of persecution so badly need and so richly deserve.
 Page 148       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Table 1

Table 2

    Mr. SMITH. Let me begin with a question for you, but first of all let me say that as far as the overall bill goes, I think it is trying to achieve admirable goals. Most of the bill does not have to do with immigration. This is a big bill. Most of the rest of the bill has to do with sanctions, spotlighting the problem, and so forth.

    I agree with all that. That is the huge problem. You have millions of people around the world who are subjected to religious persecution. That is offensive, it is objectionable, and we ought to try to end that kind of behavior by any government that might undertake it.

    However, that huge problem that you have described and that I have heard described by other individuals, I don't believe is solved by changing immigration law and making it easier for individuals to be given asylum based on group membership. This huge problem we are talking about is better addressed, as most of the bill does, by spotlighting the problem, and with sanctions.

    A few minutes ago you heard Paul Virtue, the general counsel for the INS, say he was not aware of any appreciable number of legitimate religious persecution cases where the individuals had not been granted asylum; and that given the high approval rate, and, more importantly perhaps, given the availability of appeals to immigration judges, that he had not seen any problem with individuals seeking relief from religious persecution being granted asylum.

 Page 149       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Do you have more than anecdotal evidence to the contrary?

    Mr. FRANKEN. I would say no to that part of your question. We don't have access, nor does any nongovernmental entity have access to the process leading up to where someone is allowed to proceed with asylum adjudication.

    Mr. SMITH. I am with you and with a lot of folks as far as addressing that huge problem. I just don't think immigration is really the right remedy for the huge problem that exists. I appreciate your answer.

    I have a question for both Mr. Krikorian and Mr. Robb: Do you feel the asylum provisions in the bill would lead to an increase in illegal immigration? Mr. Krikorian, if you will give the first answer.

    Mr. KRIKORIAN. Almost certainly, for a number of reasons. First, it will make application for asylum more attractive as a way to physically enter the United States, rather than sneaking across the Mexican border or taking your chances in some other way. By voiding expedited exclusion for claimants of religious persecution, we would be giving a tool to alien smugglers, for them to essentially equip their customers with the proper language and the proper terms in order to get them past the immigration inspectors and into the United States.

    Now, in addition, because of the extensive paperwork requirements, it is almost certain that religious claims of persecution would be granted asylum at a higher rate than they are now and compared to other sorts of claims, so those attempting to acquire asylum fraudulently would use this tool as part of the process of illegally entering the United States.
 Page 150       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Robb?

    Mr. ROBB. I would have to say almost certainly, because since whole groups like the Chinese Christians, almost any Middle Eastern Christian, could get into the country definitely in the first place and wait for a hearing, we have heard before that before the Reform Act passed, 6 percent might show up for their hearings. We don't know what it is going to be now, but it is not going to be a majority, I will bet. So the more people who get in legally, the more who will stay illegally.

    Mr. KRIKORIAN. Could I add one other thing? An interesting wrinkle that I don't think anybody has considered is, for instance with regard to immigration from the Middle East, I think it is almost certain that Muslims would begin to take advantage of the special rights afforded to Christian religious persecution claims by claiming to be Christians in order to acquire asylum. Muslims with Christian friends, certainly in Egypt and Lebanon and Syria there is a lot of familiarity between Muslims and Christians, so a lot of Muslims I think would be able to make a plausible claim to be Christians and therefore included on this official list of persecuted people, and thus illegally enter the United States and acquire asylum.

    Mr. ROBB. Not to mention the Shiite-Sunni split among Islamic people in every country in the Middle East. One of those groups is on top and the other is on the bottom. Sooner or later one of the groups, the group on the bottom is going to be considered a religious minority Category 1 or 2.

    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Krikorian, at the end of your prepared testimony you mentioned that there were a number of other countries that might have individuals that would fall within these categories. You just started to allude to that a second ago. Is there any way to estimate how many millions of people around the world might——
 Page 151       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. KRIKORIAN. As far as total number, no. I did actually come up with some estimates for some of the big countries in the world. Should I briefly go over these?

    In India, for instance, about 135 million Muslims, particularly important because a Hindu nationalist government, an anti-Muslim government, has now taken over. Forty million people in Nigeria are Christians, while the government and army is predominantly Islamic. In Kazakhstan, 7 million of the 17 million people are Russian or Ukrainian, whereas the rest are Muslim, and there is now a growing sense of Islamic nationalism in Kazakhstan and elsewhere in central Asia.

    So the answer is I have no total, but it is easily in the several hundred millions.

    Mr. SMITH. These are individuals who would fraudulently enter the United States by wrongly claiming to be Christians in many instances?

    Mr. KRIKORIAN. No, no, these are people who belong to religious minorities which eventually would end up having to be added to this list, even though individually they would or would not be Christian.

    Mr. SMITH. I was remembering earlier testimony from a previous hearing where we were talking about individuals who were fraudulently claiming to be Christians. The question asked by the consular officer to determine if someone was a Christian or not, was that they had to name a book of the Bible. If they could not do so, there was some presumption that maybe they were not legitimate. But that was a different subject.
 Page 152       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I appreciate your answer. The answer was that hundreds of millions of individuals might be able to claim persecution. Thank you.

    The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.

    Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me go back to the issue that Mr. Virtue testified about and that you raised at the beginning of your questioning, the statistic that says 87 percent to 90 percent of the people who claim religious persecution get processed and are accepted.

    The complaint that I hear most often is that that processing takes place at a third or fourth level after folks have been screened out at the first and second level, and that there really has not been any study, reliable or not, of what is happening with folks who are at that first and second level claiming persecution. So you would almost think that once you get to the third or fourth level, the figure would not be 7 percent, it might be 95 or 98 percent.

    The tougher issue is how many of the people at the first and second level who are never getting to the third level are being denied improperly, and if we were going to do something useful in this bill, perhaps we ought to authorize a study of how many people are actually claiming religious persecution at that first and second level and some evaluation of how many people are never getting to the level that Mr. Virtue testified was at 87 percent.

    Mr. SMITH. If the gentleman will yield on that point, as I understand it, we can ask for clarification. I believe that those figures are asked for in this bill, and I would support the gathering of that data because I think that would be important.
 Page 153       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. WATT. From my understanding, those figures are not asked for in this bill.

    Mr. SMITH. Okay.

    Mr. WATT. We will take a closer look at that.

    Let me ask you, Mr. Franken, you seem to be closer to what I was saying in my opening statement in the comments that you made. I take it what you are saying is that you favor the provisions of section 9 of this bill. Am I correct in hearing what you are saying, that section 9 of the bill really ought to be applied to all kinds of persecution, not just religious persecution, so that there could be a real evaluation made by trained people of who is being persecuted for whatever reason? Am I misstating what you said, or did I misunderstand what you said?

    Mr. FRANKEN. No, you are precisely correct. There are a couple of reasons, just quickly, on this.

    One is, we are leaving to the discretion of a rather low-level INS person to have total sway on a person at the airport, in the conditions that surround that environment, to make a judgment whether there is credibility involved here in the claim.

    Now that presumes that the person who has gone through the trauma that they have gone through, and persecution, gets at the airport and is able to articulate it. We all know the stories of the holocaust victims who years and years after that experience cannot even tell their close family members the experiences they faced.
 Page 154       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In the current environment we are asking these people to arrive here and tell a complete stranger, someone who may wear a uniform or be perceived very much like the persecutors they just left, to articulate what happened to them. You know, there is something fundamentally wrong in that environment.

    Mr. WATT. I am not excluding the other two witnesses here, but you are the only witness who has testified today who appears to be in favor of this provision of section 9 of this bill. I just want to be clear what it is you are saying. Are you saying that to do justice under section 9 for religious persecution is better than continuing to do injustice completely for everybody?

    Mr. FRANKEN. Yes. As I mentioned, were it not for the 1996 reform, this provision and 2431 would not be necessary, primarily because just before the passage of the 1996 bill, as we heard from INS, they implemented significant changes that addressed some of the problems that the Chairman has indicated in his opening remarks.

    For example, there was something like a 60 percent reduction in the number of asylum applications in the year just prior to the passage of this. There were only 18,000 applications that were adjudicated favorably for asylum in the year preceding this bill.

    These are not large numbers. It is not the numbers we are hearing floating around. I fear that some may be perceiving the provisions of 2431 as doing more than they really will. After all, the provisions in section 9 do not change the standard, the legal standard by which one claims asylum and is adjudicated. It simply eliminates the credibility dimension of it.
 Page 155       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Imagine, these people that are coming to apply for asylum or upon arrival apply for asylum, are put in jail. Most of them are shackled. Is this an incentive?

    Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, if it is all right, let me just ask one more question that will require a yes or no answer from all three witnesses, and I think they can do this fairly quickly.

    I take it, then, if I were to offer an amendment that applied section 9 or something similar to section 9 to all kinds of persecution, all kinds of asylum requests, I take it, Mr. Franken, you would favor that?

    Mr. FRANKEN. Strongly.

    Mr. WATT. And Mr. Robb, you would oppose it?

    Mr. ROBB. Correct.

    Mr. WATT. And Mr. Krikorian, you would oppose it?

    Mr. KRIKORIAN. I wish the answer were that easy. The credibility standards really can't apply beyond religious groups. It would be difficult. Would we have an official list of political parties, then? So the answer is mostly no, but some of it I really can't answer one way or another.

 Page 156       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.

    Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I pass.

    Mr. SMITH. Do you have any other questions?

    Mr. WATT. I have no further questions.

    Mr. SMITH. I do. Mr. Franken, I was going to go back to your description of a traumatized individual who comes into the country, arrives at the airport and can't quite tell their story, can't even say ''I am afraid'' or whatever else is required. If you have that kind of situation, it is not solved by getting to an asylum officer or getting to an immigration judge, if the individual is that traumatized. The only way to solve that problem is not to have any kind of screening process at all, but anybody who wants to get asylum would be granted asylum.

    Mr. FRANKEN. Well, what may help alleviate that dimension, the ability of someone to articulate what happened to them——

    Mr. SMITH. Tell me if I am wrong, but the current situation now is someone arrives at an airport and they feel they are being persecuted, they want to claim asylum, they first visit with an inspector of the INS at the airport. If the person says ''I am afraid,'' the inspector says, ''Go see our asylum officer and show a credible fear.'' Ninety percent are approved.

 Page 157       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    One can get to the asylum officer fairly quickly and easily. I agree we need figures on what happens with the airport inspectors. But as I understand it, unless there is an obvious fraudulent claim, the individual goes to see the asylum officer. And again, 90 percent are approved, and all they have to do is meet the lower standard of credible fear.

    I, like you, am concerned about the person that is traumatized. If they are traumatized and can't talk for years about it, there is no way they are ever going to be able to make their case. The only way to make sure that person receives asylum is not to have any screening process at all.

    I am happy to stand corrected, but that is the implication, I believe, of what you said.

    Mr. FRANKEN. Well, two points to that, Mr. Chairman. First, we don't know. I mean, there is no indication that we would have on the folks before they get to the point where they can make an asylum claim, what those numbers are. So I can't agree with that.

    But on the second, if we restored some of the safeguards that were prior to the 1996 law, it would provide an opportunity for the asylum claimant to at least have counsel or representation from someone that can be trusting enough to draw out of them information about their circumstances and help them make a defensible claim, a more appropriate and realistic claim.

    Mr. SMITH. Is there there anyone from the INS still in the room? Is there a way for us to get figures as to a breakdown of what happens to individuals when they arrive at the airport and they see the INS inspector, how many people——
 Page 158       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. WATT. And the second person.

    Mr. SMITH. Excuse me?

    Mr. WATT. And the secondary person.

    Mr. SMITH. What we need to do is get better figures for how many people are being allowed to go to the asylum officer, what their claims were, why they might have asked for asylum. Can we get those? Are those figures available, to your knowledge?

    Ms. RYAN. In answer to your question about primary inspection, we are developing a system to be used nationwide that will have information about every single person seeking admission when they come in. That database is not fully operational yet. With respect to the people in secondary inspection placed in expedited removal proceedings, we do have some figures on that.

    Mr. SMITH. We would like those figures. When you say that the database is not fully operational, what is that a euphemism for?

    Ms. RYAN. Prior to this year, actually, we had stand-alone computers at different ports of entry. There are hundreds of ports of entry around the country. We are trying to have a unified computer system that the inspections office is developing.

    Mr. SMITH. If we wanted the data for just one port of entry today, say New York City, would we be able to get that?
 Page 159       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. RYAN. I can't make any promises, because I am in the General Counsel's Office, but I think we could provide certainly one port of entry. I think the General Accounting Office has been gathering some of that data for its report to the Congress.

    Mr. SMITH. Are you Kelly Ryan?

    Ms. RYAN. I am.

    Mr. SMITH. You have been identified forever now. We need for you to be responsive and get us as much data as you can.

    Ms. RYAN. All right.

    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Rogan of California is recognized.

    Mr. ROGAN. No questions.

    Mr. SMITH. Anything else? Mr. Watt.

    Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to submit for the record a letter dated September 24, 1997, to Representative Gilman from the American Jewish Committee, and a letter dated March 23, 1998, from the National Association of Evangelicals to Mr. Gilman.

 Page 160       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I am not trying to set up a conflict between this association and Mr. Robb, but I would point out to him that the third paragraph of this letter says that ''It is a well-known fact among those who work with refugees that religious persecution claims are typically looked at with a great deal of skepticism. H.R. 2431 is a step in the right direction by erecting safeguards against deportation for those who have fled religious persecution. Our only critique is that the provision only goes part way. We strongly urge you to extend these safeguards to include anyone fleeing persecution. The work of the State Department's advisory committee is instructive. In its interim report dated January 23, 1998, the committee recommends that 'the summary exclusion law of the Immigration Act should be repealed.' We endorse this recommendation and hope that you will see fit to include it in your legislation.''

    Thank you.

    Mr. SMITH. Obviously there is a difference of opinion among the evangelical organizations.

    Mr. Watt, without objection, the letters will be made a part of the record.

    [The information referred to follows:]


The American Jewish Committee,
New York, NY, September 24, 1997.
Hon. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN,
House International Relations Committee,
 Page 161       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

    DEAR CHAIRMAN GILMAN: We are writing regarding our concerns over the proposed ''Freedom from Religious Persecution Act'' (H.R. 2431). In introducing this bill, Representative Frank Wolf has brought much needed attention to the plight of untold numbers around the globe who are suffering death, torture, or other grievous injury because of their religious beliefs. We appreciate that Rep. Wolf—as well as you, Mr. Chairman, and Rep. Christopher Smith—have heightened the visibility of the issue. Recent hearings before the House International Relations Committee offered a number of views as to the steps that the United States should take to maintain its global role as a defender of religious minorities against persecution.

    As you know, the American Jewish Committee has long been among the most active organizations working to establish international norms to protect religious freedom, to devise policies and mechanisms to bring pressure to bear on government authorities to end religious persecution, and to see that the U.S. has fair and generous asylum and refugee policies when victims of religious persecution seek to come to these shores.

    With these goals in mind, we wish to identify several specific changes we urge be made in H.R. 2431, as amended on September 18, that we believe would better serve our shared goal of ending religious persecution.

    First, we would substitute a menu of calibrated and discretionary sanctions for the automatic but narrow sanctions proposed by the bill, taking into account not only national security concerns but also whether the sanctions will benefit or harm the protected class. Further, we would broaden the definition of acts of religious persecution that trigger the bill's sanctions so as to be consistent with the definition of religious persecution under international and U.S. law. These changes would allow for responses that are country-specific and situation-specific (which may be more or less severe than those prescribed by the bill) while at the same time brining within the bill's purview many severe forms of religious persecution and related abuses to which it currently does not apply.
 Page 162       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Second, in lieu of the proposed creation of an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring, we urge that responsibility for response to religious persecution be placed within the existing human rights machinery of the State Department and the National Security Council, with sufficient funding and staff specifically dedicated to this issue. We do not question the need for higher visibility on the issue of religious persecution nor the need for mechanisms that will give this issue the priority that it deserves. But the creation of a separate White House office would isolate the primary responsibility in this area, segregating it from the information-gathering and diplomatic apparatus of the State Department and the NSC policy apparatus that coordinates government-wide responses. Our experience reveals that religious persecution does not take place in isolation from other rights abuses; it is important to act early and effectively to identify and combat such abuses and to do so as part of a concerted human rights effort. The proposed approach might, in the end, have the opposite of the hoped-for effect.

    Third, in seeking to exclude victims of ''category 1 or category 2 religious persecution'' from the application of last year's expedited exclusion enactment, the bill commendably recognizes that expedited exclusion will inevitably result in this nation's returning persons with meritorious claims for asylum to nations of origin where they face death, torture or other grievous harm. That awful possibility faces, of course, those who flee persecution of any type, not just victims of religious persecution. We urge that the bill be revised so as to provide for an across-the-board elimination, or at least substantial moderation, of expedited exclusion. We also note with concern analyses that suggest that the bill as drafted may not provide the intended relief from expedited exclusion even for the protected class.

    Having said this, we want once again to affirm our appreciation for all you have done in an area of urgent humanitarian need, and our recognition of the potential that the ''Freedom from Religious Persecution Act'' offers. We believe the bill's call for institutionalized monitoring of, and annual reports on, religious persecution abroad would be useful. We support the changes that have been made to the bill's refugee provisions, which provide a statement of Congressional intent that refugees to be admitted under the legislation should not displace those admitted under current law, and other new language that clarifies the relation between the bill and existing provisions of refugee and asylum law. We would urge, in addition, explicit reference to ensure that refugees admitted pursuant to H.R. 2431 will be in addition to those currently eligible for admission.
 Page 163       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We look forward to working with you and with other members of the Congress in the cause of human rights and freedom from persecution, whether based on religion or other causes.

Sincerely,
Robert S. Rifkind, President
David A. Harris, Executive Director.



National Association of Evangelicals,
Washington, DC, March 23, 1998.
Hon. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

    DEAR REPRESENTATIVE GILMAN: On behalf of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), I am writing to reiterate our support H.R. 2431, the ''Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1998,'' and particularly its refugee and asylum provisions. Representing more than 43,000 churches from 50 denominations, the NAE has a long history of concern for and care of people fleeing persecution of all forms, including religious. Our humanitarian assistance arm, World Relief, has been assisting refugees since 1944. And, our participation in the Department of State's Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad is another example of our commitment.

    H.R. 2431 addresses some of the most onerous provisions of the 1996 ''Immigration in the National Interest'' law, namely those dealing with the treatment of persons seeking asylum. The 1996 law allows for the immediate removal of a person seeking asylum, if they arrive at a port of entry without document or false documents. Now, someone arriving without documents or with false documents is presumed to be in the U.S. fraudulently. Furthermore, the review process for those claiming a credible fear of persecution in their homeland has been stripped by the 1996 law, allowing for individual INS officers to decide the fate of a claimant. One need only take a walk through the Holocaust Museum here in Washington to be reminded that people seeking asylum are rarely afforded an opportunity to obtain legitimate documents. Falsified documents are in many cases the only way for a refugee to escape.
 Page 164       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    It is a well-known fact among those who work with refugees that religious persecution claims are typically looked at with a great deal of skepticism. H.R. 2431 is a step in the right direction by erecting safeguards against deportation for those who have fled religious persecution. Our only critique is that the provision only goes part way. We strongly urge you to extend these safeguards to include anyone fleeing persecution. The work of the State Department's Advisory Committee is instructive. In its Interim Report (January 23, 1998) the Committee recommends that ''the summary exclusion law of the immigration act should be repealed.'' We endorse this recommendation and hope that you will see fit to include it in your legislation.

    Lastly, let me add that having just returned from an historic trip to China, the importance of passing H.R. 2431 is all the more real to me. We urge your support for this critical legislation and particularly for its refugee and asylum provisions.

Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. Don Argue, President.


    Mr. SMITH. Any other comments by any other Members?

    If not, we thank our second panel for their comments today and for being good witnesses. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]