[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11629-H11630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H11629]]
CHANGES TO CANADIAN BOATER LANDING PERMIT PURSUANT TO IMMIGRATION AND
NATIONALITY ACT
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4165) to provide for certain changes with respect to requirements
for a Canadian boater landing permit pursuant to section 235 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4165
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CANADIAN BORDER BOAT LANDING PERMIT.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization, shall issue revised
regulations for the implementation of section 235 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the
requirement that individuals travelling between the United
States and Canada by boat obtain a permit which is consistent
with the following guidelines:
(1) An individual may request a form to apply for the
permit through Immigration and Naturalization Service
offices, the mail, or an internet address.
(2) The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall
establish a toll-free information number to provide
information and respond to inquiries regarding the permit,
including how to obtain the forms, where to file the forms,
and the cost of the permit.
(3) In consultation with the chief executive officers of
States where individuals affected by the permit requirement
reside, develop alternate procedures for acquiring the
necessary permits, including in conjunction with State
fishing and boat licenses.
(4) In the case of a boat of no more than 65 feet in length
(including a boat used for commercial purposes) on a trip
between the United States and Canada of not more than 72
hours duration, a United States citizen passenger (who is
neither an owner nor operator of the boat) need not obtain a
permit pursuant to section 235 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act if carrying the same proof of U.S.
citizenship as currently required by INS for U.S. citizens
making land surface crossing between the United States and
Canada for the duration of the trip.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hoke] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I want to thank my
colleague from Ohio, Mr. Traficant, for his help in crafting this
legislation and getting it to the floor. The gentleman knows very well,
probably better than anyone in this House, how the heavy hand of
Government can get in the way of people's lives.
Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the Record that I am going to
submit, but I will very, very briefly describe this piece of
legislation that might more appropriately or as appropriately be a
candidate for a Corrections Day calendar, as it is designed to move
forward with respect to legislation or regulations that were put into
place by the INS with respect to the Canadian border boat landing
permit.
What this legislation does essentially is that it makes it possible
for United States citizens who are either fishermen or pleasure boaters
making trips into Canadian waters or to Canadian islands or Canadian
land across the water boundaries that separate Canada and the United
States, it facilitates the ease of either getting the I-68 form that is
required, and it also waives the requirement of that form in the case
of a situation where the pilot has the form and the other passengers
have proof of American citizenship as otherwise required for normal
land border crossings between the United States and Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4165, legislation
making certain changes in the Canadian Border Boat Landing Permit.
At the outset, I want to thank my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Traficant,
for his help in getting this bill to the floor. He knows--probably
better than anyone else in this House--how the heavy hand of Government
can reek havoc in people's lives.
For those who are not familiar with the Canadian Border Boat Landing
Permit, let me summarize its history. The boat landing permit was
created in 1968. In October 1995, however, the INS issued new
regulations requiring every individual traveling between the United
States and Canada by boat to obtain a permit--now known as the I-68
Form. And for the first time in the program's history, INS began
charging a fee and imposing stiff penalties for non--compliance.
Permits are available only at INS offices during regular business
hours. Applicants must apply in person and bring with them a fist-full
of documents and their checkbooks. Individual permits cost $16.00 with
a family cap of $32.00.
During the 1996 boating season, the first one since the new
regulations took effect, it became apparent that the program is not
operating efficiently or effectively.
In addition, the INS has been less than forthcoming with information
about how to obtain forms. One constituent told me he spent 20 minutes
on hold at the Cleveland INS office waiting for someone to answer his
question.
And the heavy-handed tactics INS has been using to ensure compliance
are big government at its worst: threatening boat confiscation and
prolonged court proceedings requiring boaters to defend their
citizenship.
Needless to say, this requirement has put quite a damper on the
spontaneity of pleasure boaters and fisherman. Since many boaters use
their vessels to entertain guests, a good host would certainly not ask
his guests to foot the bill for a day of boating, thus making the cost
of taking friends and extended family out for the day prohibitive for
many.
Since the program began last October only 23,396 permits have been
issued. And that is for all the Northern border states: Maine, New
York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, and
Alaska. In Ohio alone there are over 385,000 registered boaters. These
statistics show that the I-68 has clearly had a chilling effect on
boating activities.
The Hoke-Traficant legislation provides a common-sense solution.
It allows individuals to get forms through the mail or over the
internet.
It directs the INS to operate a toll-free information line to answer
questions about the program.
It directs the INS to work with state governments to develop other
ways of streamlining the application process.
And, most importantly, it exempts from the requirement of purchasing
a permit, law-abiding citizens traveling on small vessels for short
trips if they have other proof of citizenship.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me say as a strong supporter of tough immigration
laws that we do not, however, need those type of strong laws and
adverse regulations to affect our own American citizens.
This bill will not soften our immigration policy. It will lessen the
burdensome regulations put on American fishermen and American
recreational boaters. It will make it easier to obtain the I-68 form.
It will make it available not only in INS offices but through the mail
and on the Internet.
It would also require the INS to establish a toll-free information
number to provide information about the program and how to obtain the
forms and where to file those forms.
It will further streamline the ability to obtain permits, and the
bill would direct the INS to work with State officials to develop
alternate procedures as well.
Finally, the bill exempts American citizens from obtaining an I-68
form if they are traveling on a boat no more than 65 feet long, on a
trip that lasts no longer 72 hours, and they carry a U.S. passport to
prove their citizenship.
I want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] for the
effort that he has made on this. The gentleman and my staff have worked
closely together. We believe this is in the best interests of all, and
it will take some of those adverse regulations and burdensome
procedures and set them aside. It is certainly not perfect but a step
in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
modification to h.r. 4165 offered by mr. hoke
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify the version
of the bill at the desk, striking out the handwritten language in the
last two lines.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inquire of the gentleman,
does he mean then to reinsert the stricken language replaced by the
handwritten language?
Mr. HOKE. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
[[Page H11630]]
The text of the modification is as follows:
Modification to H.R. 4165 offered by Mr. Hoke: On page 3,
beginning on line 12, strike out ``the same proof of U.S.
citizenship as currently required by INS for U.S. citizens
making land surface crossing between the United States and
Canada for the duration of the trip.'' and insert ``a United
States passport for the duration of the trip.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I will not object.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the motion is modified.
There was no objection.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 4165, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to provide for certain
changes with respect to requirements for a Canadian border boat landing
permit pursuant to section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act.''
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________