Speech #1040272589

SIMON. JEFFORS. and HATcH. we prevailed. On May 1. 1996. the Senate approved our amendment 51 to 49 and it replaced the summary exclusion provisions that had been in the immigration bill. The bill that the Senate passed last May did not undermine our asylum processes or require summary exclusion where it was not necessary or appropriate. In the only vote by either body on these issues the Senate stood with those fleeing oppression and upheld our tradition as a haven for the oppressed and for those seeking religious and political freedom. We have now come full circle. We in the Senate again find ourselves confronted by a time deadline and an unamendable bill. I am aware of where we are on the legislative calendar and can see other Members looking at their watches as they struggle to conclude this Congress and return home to campaign for reelection. I suspect that most Members have not even had a chance in the waning days of this Congress to examine the immigration bill conference report. let alone begin to explore what it will mean to those who will be denied refuge from oppression in other parts of the world under its provisions. There is no time. no real opportunity to educate ourselves or focus attention on this important matter. The majority simply rolls it out as part of "mustpass" legislation at the end of the session and it cannot be stopped. I know that this legislation will pass and I expect that President Clinton will sign itdespite concern that these provisions may well violate our treaty obligations and undercut our world leadership on this issue. I recall that last February President Clinton wrote to Congressman BERMAN and noted his concern that "we not sacrifice our proud tradition of refugee protection and support for the principles of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees." The President wrote: "This critically important Treaty. which responded to the displacement that followed the Second World War. has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Congress. Moreover. our efforts to urge other governments to comply with its provisions has been a major element of our diplomacy on international humanitarian issues." Specifically on the matter of summary exclusion. the President wrote that he favored "carefully structured standby authority for expedited exclusion." That is what I would provide. but the approach that the conference report rejects. With regard to the overall proposals for summary exclusion that the House was pressing. the President wrote that they were "too broad and would also result in considerable diversion of INS resources." He noted that: "These provisions seem particularly unnecessary in view of the successful asylum reforms we have already initiated." I agree.