people want to know as well. And I think that was discussed at the time.

I know you have to leave, Mr. Secretary. Senator DeConcini.

Senator DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. If you want some answers to your questions about Angola, I welcome you to meet Mr. Savimbi this afternoon at 5 o'clock.

Senator KENNEDY. He always seems to come around at appropriations time.

Senator SIMPSON. Who doesn't?

Senator DECONCINI. That is correct. Last week Cristiani was here. It seems to be that season. I agree with the Senator.

ASYLUM ADJUDICATION

Mr. Secretary, I would like to address a couple of things. First, I want to say to the Commissioner, I appreciate your report on the success or improvement, at least, in the Soviet immigration process that you have been able to implement. I am sure the State Department has had a great deal to do with that, and you both deserve credit publicly because you caught a lot of hell for a long time because of the lines and it is very embarrassing and particularly because of us visiting postmen who go over there and see it. I want to compliment you for curing or at least altering that situation.

Mr. Secretary, the administration maintains that asylum applications are decided on the merits and that no bias exists. Therefore, I was particularly disturbed by the allegation-and I underscore allegation-of bias presented in an article which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle June 30, 1990. The article refers to a December 1988 administration videotape of the State Department official of the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, particularly Mr. McGleggan, lecturing Immigration and Naturalization Service officer task force employees on how to handle asylum cases. The tape is clearly insensitive. I don't know if you have seen it. I only have one copy, but if you promise me that you would watch it, I will get one duplicated at my cost and give it to you. Otherwise, I will loan it to you. [Laughter.]

Mr. EAGLEBURGER. I promise I will watch it.

Senator DECONCINI. I will then get it duplicated for you, and also for you, Commissioner.

ROLE OF STATE DEPARTMENT

According to the tape, the State Department's officials specialize in Central American asylum cases and render immediate decisions on 400 cases a day, each individual. Some of the State Department official comments are as follows, and I will just give you a little flavor so I can ask you the question, which is a policy question.

The State Department official states that, "The most popular claim Salvadorans make for asylum, 'My cousin was killed by the guerrillas.' We have a running joke at the Bureau that there are no cousins left in El Salvador." The State Department official states, "If you're not convinced about a claim, deny it. To deny is easier and more correct." Easier and more correct quoted.

When asked about the percentage of applications denial, the official answer was 99 percent, and you will see on the tape where

they have an interesting discussion about whose authority is it, INS or State Department. And he answers that, well, it's INS' authority. But then he says that the Department has a veto over that authority or application. The State Department official presume asylum cases are frivolous and that those seeking refuge in the United States are here for purely economic reasons.

Now, I know from experience and reading cases and going to immigration hearings before administrative judges on asylum cases that some are clearly economical. And as much as your heart bleeds for them, you can understand why the judge does it and why the INS does it and why the State Department does it.

But clearly there is a problem here, and my question to yousorry to take so long to lay out the background-is this the administration policy regarding training of political asylum, adjudicators, and the evaluation of the asylum cases?

Mr. EAGLEBURGER. No, sir, it is not. Let me comment briefly, if I

can.

Senator DECONCINI. Yes.

Mr. EAGLEBURGER. I need to start by saying that that tape is part of at least two ongoing lawsuits, so I hope you will understand if I don't go into too much detail.

Senator DECONCINI. Can you clarify? What do you mean lawsuits? Tell me the parties.

Mr. EAGLEBURGER. Against the Department, as I understand it. Senator DECONCINI. Against the Department? OK.

Mr. EAGLEBURGER. I think that is right.

Senator DECONCINI. Thank you, and I appreciate that.

Mr. EAGLEBURGER. First of all, I haven't seen the tape, and at our expense I will be glad to duplicate it so I can see it, at our private expense.

The State Department officer involved, I can tell you, was not authorized to say what he did. I can tell you he is not in the employ of the Department of State any longer and was not shortly after that particular event that is on the tape. I can also tell you that in subsequent training sessions with State Department officers engaged in this program, the matter was corrected in terms of how we train officers and what their responsibilities are and how they are to conduct themselves in conversations with potential refugees or with INS or anybody else.

Beyond that, at this stage I would prefer not to go on other than to say to you there is no veto which he may have claimed. We have an advisory role with INS, and that is it, and we do not have an authority to veto their decisions.

Senator DECONCINI. Is there any time limit, Mr. Secretary, that you know of that the State Department officer should decide on these? It is working out about a minute an application nowexcuse me, at the time of this tape.

Mr. EAGLEBURGER. Not to my knowledge there is no time limit, but Ambassador Lyman and Commissioner McNary may want to make some further comments.

Senator DECONCINI. Ambassador Lyman, can you tell me if there is any instructions as to how many they should get out a day?

Mr. LYMAN. No, I don't believe there is, and I will get further information for you.

Senator DECONCINI. Would you?

Mr. LYMAN. But I don't know of any time limit put on that.
Senator DECONCINI. Mr. McNary, do you?

Mr. McNARY. No, sir. The task is to make an accurate adjudication, and that is our sole objective.

Mr. EAGLEBURGER. I will certainly make it clear as a consequence of this hearing when I get back that that is also our sole objective and there should be no time limit imposed at all.

Senator DECONCINI. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that very much. Maybe that is already implemented, but I appreciate you saying that on the record so there will be some assurance that this is not a discretionary decision.

Mr. McNary, how much weight does the advisory opinion of the State Department hold with your officers who review this and finally with the district director who makes the decision?

Mr. McNARY. Senator, let me say that by regulation-
Senator KENNEDY. Would the senator yield?

Senator DECONCINI. Yes.

Senator KENNEDY. The Secretary wanted to be free at half past the hour. If you had any others-the other witnesses will remain with us.

Mr. EAGLEBURGER. I have got about another 10, 15 minutes. I have got to go to a German unification thing.

Senator KENNEDY. The other witnesses will remain with us. Senator DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, I can get by with the prestigious group without the secretary.

Senator KENNEDY. Paul, did you have anything else for the Secretary?

NO "BLANK CHECK" ON PERSIAN GULF

Senator SIMON. Just one comment for the Secretary in line with Senator Kennedy's comments. Since you are here we can lobby you. The resolution that passed yesterday should by no means be considered a blank check for the President or for anyone in the executive branch on what is happening over there. Specifically, Senator Moynihan and I had a dialog on the language of the resolution. There was one phrase in it that particularly bothered me. Senator Moynihan said, under no circumstances is this a Gulf of Tonkin resolution. This is not something that is a blank check.

I think the general feeling, certainly on my part, is that the President has handled it very well up to this point. But I do not want anyone to misread-I do not think the sentiment is there in Congress for any kind of unilateral military action that is precipitous on our part. I think that is—it is a sentiment I feel very strongly and my vote for the resolution yesterday is not a blank check. I would just pass that along.

Mr. EAGLEBURGER. Again, this is above my pay grade, I am afraid. But in all of the conversations and all of the meetings, NSC meetings and so forth, I have never once heard anybody indicate anything but the strongest desire to work with the Congress, to work with our allies, to work with the United Nations. Nobody is under the impression that this is a Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

Nobody wanted to ask for a Gulf of Tonkin resolution. We understand exactly what the resolution means and does not mean.

I have to assume that to the degree circumstances permit, there is going to be no change in the President's desire to be working carefully and closely with the Congress of the United States. I would hope that the past month's experience would indicate to you that there is a sense of history. We know what is necessary and what ought to be done, and to the degree it can be I have no doubt myself that it will be.

But the chairman was asking me questions, where I have difficulty is this, in trying to answer or commit the President of the United States in hypothetical circumstances where I do not think I have either the authority or the right to do so. But I can assure you that in everything I have heard-and I have been involved in most of it-there is no desire to play games or to cut around the edges. The President is intent on doing this the right way. Senator SIMON. I thank you.

Senator KENNEDY. Senator DeConcini.

Senator DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Being an interloper here and not on the Immigration Subcommittee, I appreciate a chance to be here.

Mr. Secretary, I agree with you. I think the administration thus far has extended itself, and I believe that is why you have the overwhelming support, not only of the American public but of the Congress for the action taken so far. I am very encouraged that you understand the difference between this and any Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which I probably would have voted for based on the circumstances that I think existed then, however I was not here at the time.

I compliment the State Department and also my friend from Illinois. Congress wants to be part of anything that should happen in the Middle East because it is obviously of great national interest to all of us. However, I realize some real problems from those kinds of actions.

I do have another couple of questions when you get through, Mr. Chairman, of Mr. McNary.

Senator KENNEDY. I would just mention that we did have a chance to talk a little bit about this. That is why, given where you are, I certainly could not understand the reluctance of the administration to the idea of consultative group when it was put. It probably would not even include members of our committee, but a consultative group in Congress that would be balanced, and yet that was rejected. That is a matter of some concern.

SITUATION IN KENYA

Just before you leave, I want to commend what the administration has done on Kenya. I hope you will continue to follow that through. I think you are following the best of our ideals. I think we have been questioning you in some areas where we may have some difference, but I just want to say that I think that the recent initiative on human rights in Kenya has been a very, very important decision, a wise one, and I think it has strong support. So we appreciate what they have done in that area.

Senator KENNEDY. Senator Simpson.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I did not realize this was a session of the Foreign Relations Committee. [Laughter.]

I am glad to be here. It is a new and exciting experience for a person who has labored on Judiciary, and Veterans Affairs, and Environment and Public Works. I am glad to have participated.

I thank Larry Eagleburger. He is a splendid representative of our Government. I think that this is not the same kind of President we think of in years past doing things and not involving both parties. This is a different President. This is a former Member of Congress President. I have been privileged to be at meetings of a bipartisan nature and a partisan nature. When the tough stuff is on the table, the meetings at the White House are always bipartisan. When we are figuring out how to do you people in on the other side, that is a different matter.

Senator DECONCINI. Does that come before or after the other one?

Senator SIMPSON. Never in conjunction.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. If the others could remain with us for a short time. We thank you very much, sir. Mr. EAGLEBURGER. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY. Senator DeConcini.

STATE DEPARTMENT'S ADVISORY OPINION IN ASYLUM CASES

Senator DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will try not to take too long here. I have a lot of questions, and if it is proper, I might submit a few to be answered later, if I can.

Mr. Commissioner, in the course of the process where you get the advisory opinion back, do you know how many recommended denials you grant in a period of a month, or a year, or any quantitative period? Do you have any of that information?

Mr. McNARY. I do not have those figures. I can tell you that we are required to send all the applications, asylum applications to the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and they give us an advisory opinion. That advisory opinion in many cases is not conclusive, but rather just a summary statement to the effect there is no country conditions which would authorize or determine a well-founded fear of persecution. We do take it into account but we do not rely on it.

Senator DECONCINI. Do you think it is strange that the statistics that we have demonstrated that 90 percent, 90.9 percent of the Romanian applications were granted by you? I do not know how many of those might have been denied by the State Department, but I doubt there were very many. Whereas, Guatemala 1.9 were granted by INS, and El Salvador 2.3. It seems to me that there is something clearly askew here and that is why I would like to have those figures of how many are denied that you go ahead and approve.

I am interested in knowing whether or not perhaps some of your officers consider it a veto if there is a denial opinion there even though the Secretary says there is no veto and there is no veto in the law. I would appreciate any help you can give us.