[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 122 (Monday, September 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9332-S9337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Craig):
  S. 1176. A bill to guarantee that Federal agencies indentify State 
agencies and counties as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their 
environmental planning responsibilites under the National Environmental 
Policy Act; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


        THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I come to the floor to introduce a piece 
of legislation which I will submit. It is called the State and Local 
Participation Act of 1997.
  What I would like to do, Madam President, is to introduce a bill that 
would provide for the opportunity for State, local, and county agencies 
to participate in the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]. This 
bill is to guarantee that local agencies have

[[Page S9333]]

an opportunity to be identified as cooperating agencies in the NEPA 
process, as it takes place in the various locations throughout the 
country. All of us know that NEPA was passed in the late 1960's, 
designed to provide for full study before activities are undertaken 
which affect the environment, and I support that idea. It has been an 
interesting topic over the years. NEPA, of course, is a relatively 
small, simple piece of legislation--less than three pages, which is 
unusual in this place, to have a bill that is that short. But 
fortunately or unfortunately, over the period of the 20 years or more 
that have gone since the introduction and passage of this bill, a great 
many changes have been made, not by amendment, not even by regulation, 
but in fact by court decisions. So now we have a very complicated, very 
expensive, very time-consuming process that is still designed, as it 
was originally, to make sure that studies are completed, EIS's are 
completed--environmental impact statements or environmental 
assessments, whichever is appropriate. I support that idea. But we have 
been very involved, in our committee, Energy and Natural Resources--
been very involved in my State of Wyoming in the use of NEPA to provide 
for mineral exploration, to provide for roads in the public areas, to 
provide for grazing, to provide for the number of uses that take place 
on public lands.
  As you can imagine, when you have a State that is 50 percent public 
lands, these kinds of processes are particularly important. We want to 
maintain them. We want to strengthen them, in fact. After 20 years of 
experience, there are some things that we can change. So NEPA was 
designed to ensure the environmental impacts of proposed actions are 
considered and minimized by the Federal agency that is responsible for 
taking the action.
  It is also designed to provide for adequate public participation in 
that decision, in the decision process that is undertaken by the 
Federal agencies. This sounds pretty simple. As a matter of fact, it 
sounds pretty basic and reasonable. And it is. Unfortunately, the 
regulations--have caused it to be something other than simple.
  For example, we had the question of exploring for gas in an area 
north of Casper, WY--a relatively small area. It would have made a 
great deal of difference to that county in terms of employment, a great 
deal of difference to that county in terms of tax base and all the 
things that affect a community. So the county commissioners felt as if 
they ought to be a part of this process, and I certainly agreed with 
them. They had more knowledge about that than any other agency, they 
had more caring about that than any other agency, yet this area was in 
their county so they also cared, of course, equally as much about 
taking care of the environment and the natural resources.
  Unfortunately the BLM, in this instance, would not make this county 
commission a cooperating agency. And they turned to the current law 
which says, basically, ``Prior to making any detailed statement, the 
responsible Federal official shall consult and obtain the comments of 
Federal agencies which have jurisdiction.''
  We are simply suggesting that there be added the words, ``and State 
and county agencies.'' So it would read, ``. . . obtain the comments of 
Federal and State agencies and counties which have jurisdiction.'' We 
think that is a reasonable thing to do. I think it is a reasonable 
thing to do. As a matter of fact, most people think it is a reasonable 
thing to do.
  We also had a forest study that is now underway, in the Medicine Bow 
Forest, in Wyoming. I talked to the regional forester. And we had 
another forest in the Black Hills where the counties and local people 
were not made a cooperating agency. So the regional director said, 
``Yes, this one we will.'' Unfortunately, when it came to it, they 
didn't. And they put them in, in some other category, but not as a 
cooperating agency. And as a cooperating agency you can participate 
with the Federal agencies, put your comments in the report rather than 
just submitting them as any other citizen.

  So that is basically what we do with this legislation. It is designed 
to provide for greater input of State and local governments in the NEPA 
process. This measure will be known as the State and Local Government 
Participation Act of 1997. It will simply guarantee that States and 
counties are given an opportunity to participate, and participate in 
the decisions that affect the areas over which they have jurisdiction, 
whether it be in New York, whether it be in Wyoming, whether it be in 
Texas.
  Madam President, I would like also to have unanimous consent that 
Senator Craig, from Idaho, be listed also as a sponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair very much for the time. I certainly 
urge my associates in the Senate to take a look at this opportunity to 
provide for one of the things that we talk about as much as anything in 
this Senate, and that is providing local input into the decisions that 
are made by the Federal Government. Let me tell you, that is 
particularly important to those of us from the West--Idaho, Nevada. In 
Nevada, some 80 percent of the land in Nevada belongs to the Federal 
Government. So the decisions that are made on Federal lands by Federal 
agencies have a tremendous impact on the future of those States and the 
future of the economy, and on the future of citizens. It is my belief, 
and the belief of many others, that local governments, the people that 
have been elected from these areas, should be participating, 
cooperating agencies in the determination of the NEPA arrangement. We 
think that is what this bill will do and we certainly urge support for 
it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1176

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


                              short title

       Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local 
     Government Participation Act of 1997.''
       Sec. 2. Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (43 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``any Federal agency which has'' in the 
     first full sentence after subparagraph (v); and
       (2) inserting in lieu thereof ``Federal and state agencies, 
     and county governments which have''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER:
  S. 1177. A bill to prohibit the exhibition of B-2 and F-117 aircraft 
in public air shows not sponsored by the Armed Forces; to the Committee 
on Armed Services.


         THE PUBLIC AIR SHOW EXHIBITION PROHIBITION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am going to momentarily send a bill to 
the desk which will prohibit the use of F-117 aircraft and B-2 aircraft 
in public shows.
  Madam President, I was stunned to learn last night of this tragic 
accident, and in no way does my action reflect any discredit on the 
pilot or in any way prejudge the outcome of this tragic accident. 
Indeed, there are facts at this moment which indicate this pilot took a 
risk of life to possibly avoid a greater degree of risk to others. As I 
listened to that report, I thought back to my own experience in Korea 
in 1951. My commanding officer--I remember him very well--Lt. Col. Al 
Gordon, U.S. Marine Corps, took off in his AD-1 bomber, and he 
experienced fire over a community. He stayed with his aircraft in order 
to avoid that aircraft going into a community, and as a consequence it 
lost altitude. When he finally bailed out, there was insufficient 
distance between the aircraft and the ground. His chute streamed and he 
lost his life. I remember it so well because I was detailed to go out 
into the mountains and collect that brave officer.
  I believe that we as a nation should not be using this type of 
military asset in this type of show. This airplane, on a unit program 
cost, costs the taxpayers $100 million a copy. We only have 53 
remaining, and they are needed for special missions in the national 
security interests of this country. I just do not believe that type of 
asset can be put at this type of risk. The B-2 bomber is $2 billion a 
copy.
  Madam President, I stand with some embarrassment because I realize my 
office and others are besieged with requests from communities and 
constituents to provide these aircraft for air shows. The aircraft do 
enhance an air

[[Page S9334]]

show a great deal, but I feel it is a matter of principle that this 
Nation cannot subject that costly an aircraft, one that is essential to 
the performance of specialized missions, in this type of circumstance. 
As a result, I will submit this bill. Further, I am going to consider 
this issue in the course of the conference between the House and the 
Senate on the 1998 authorization bill. It will undoubtedly provoke some 
comment which I will listen to very carefully. I just wanted to express 
the heartfelt feelings of one Senator that we have to look more 
carefully at the use of these very costly systems in connection with 
public air shows such as this.
  I yield the floor and thank my colleagues.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Reed, Mr. Gorton, 
        Mr. Inouye and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 1178. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
extend the visa waiver pilot program, and for other purposes; read 
twice.


       THE VISA WAIVER PILOT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would reauthorize the current Visa Waiver Pilot Program, which is 
scheduled to expire on September 30, 1997. Senator Kennedy has joined 
me in developing this reauthorizing legislation, and I am pleased to be 
introducing it with him. I am also pleased to have Senators Hatch, 
Leahy, Murkowski, Durbin, Stevens, Reed, Gorton, Inouye and Torricelli 
as original cosponsors.
  The Visa Waiver Pilot Program permits aliens from designated 
countries to enter the United States as temporary visitors for up to 90 
days with a passport, but without the additional visa that normally 
would also be required to enter our country. The program became 
effective in 1988, and was originally limited to eight countries and 
for a duration of three years. Twenty-five countries now participate, 
and the program's authorizing statute has been amended and extended 
five times--a clear tribute to the program's success. Last year's 
immigration reform law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996, extended the Visa Waiver Pilot Program 
through September 30, 1997. The program was extended for only 1 year so 
that we could consider related issues in more detail and apart from the 
multitude of immigration issues Congress was considering last year.
  Visa waiver countries are now selected by the Attorney General in 
consultation with the Secretary of State, a change that was instituted 
through last year's immigration reform law. In order to be eligible for 
the program, countries must meet a number of statutory requirements, 
which aim to ensure that aliens admitted under the program are 
generally low risk and will not overstay their authorized period of 
stay in the United States.
  Mr. President, this program has proven a great success. It has 
significantly furthered international travel and tourism. Nonetheless, 
I believe the program's authorizing statute can be improved in a number 
of ways to address administrative failings and, more generally, some of 
our Nation's very serious illegal immigration problems.
  For instance, under the program, any country designated a Visa Waiver 
Program participant may be placed in probationary status if it does not 
maintain a low disqualification rate and may eventually be removed from 
the program. The disqualification rate represents the percentage of 
nationals from a particular country who applied for admission to the 
United States. at a port of entry as non-immigrants and who violated 
the terms of their nonimmigrant visas, were excluded from admission 
upon trying to enter or withdrew their applications for admission. But, 
due to problems in the administration of the program, no country has 
ever been removed from the program, and countries' continuing 
eligibilities have not even been assessed.
  What can we do to improve this situation? First, we simply must 
improve the current abysmal record of tracking--and even counting--visa 
overstayers. Estimates released earlier this year by the INS put the 
number of illegal aliens in the United States at 5 million; 41 percent 
of these illegal aliens entered the United States legally but 
overstayed their authorized period of stay.
  Moreover, we recently learned that the INS cannot even accurately 
assess overall numbers of those who enter legally and overstay, despite 
the current use of an entry-exit matching system through the I-94 
cards. The current paper-based entry-exit control system relies on a 
card, the I-94 form, half of which is collected upon entry and the 
other half of which is collected by the airline or other carrier on 
exit. Ideally, the INS then would match up the two halves of the card. 
This system should permit the INS to identify individual overstayers. 
Yet the INS has used it only to collect aggregate numbers of 
overstayers. Even for that limited purpose the system has failed. We 
recently learned that INS data based on the I-94's has been virtually 
unusable since 1992.
  The inspector general of the Department of Justice recently issued an 
alarming report on the subject of nonimmigrant visa overstayers. In 
that report, which was issued on September 4, the inspector general 
found that INS's primary information system on nonimmigrants, is not 
producing reliable overstay data, either in the aggregate, or on 
individual nonimmigrants, and noted that INS is unable to perform its 
responsibilities for monitoring the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, 
including determining whether a country should be placed on probation 
or terminated from the program. We need to take immediate action to 
correct these failings and require INS to carry out its 
responsibilities.
  Mr. President, on July 17 I held a subcommittee hearing to examine 
this program. In addition to learning about weaknesses in the INS's 
monitoring of visa overstayers, we also learned that, in the view of 
many nations, the visa refusal rates countries must meet to gain 
admission to the program are set too low given the somewhat subjective 
nature of the visa awards process. Since the program's inception, 
efforts to modify numerical criteria have continually resurfaced. Some 
narrow efforts have been successful for a time, but none have resolved 
the issue on a more permanent basis. Rather than have any sort of 
special probationary status reappear from time to time or create any 
special status for particular countries, in my view it is better to set 
these criteria at a more fair level once and for all and to apply the 
requirements of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program rigorously to newly 
admitted countries and to countries already in the program.

  This legislation addresses the problem of numerical criteria by 
slightly broadening potential eligibility for the Visa Waiver Program. 
At the same time, this legislation contains three provisions tightening 
the program, along with a provision improving administration and one 
extending the program for 5 years.
  Allow me to be specific:
  First: The bill would modify the refusal rate countries must meet to 
be eligible for the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Under current law, 8 
U.S.C. 1187(c), in order to be eligible for pilot program status, a 
country must have a low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate of 2 percent per 
year on average over the previous 2 fiscal years, and its refusal rate 
must not exceed 2.5 percent in either year. The refusal rate is the 
percentage of nonimmigrant visa applications that are rejected at U.S. 
Embassies and consulates overseas. Our legislation would change those 
numbers to 3 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively.
  Our goal here in changing the numbers should not be to guarantee that 
any particular countries will be admitted into the program or to 
increase participation generally for its own sake. Rather, we should 
seek to make the criteria more fair and as a whole more reflective of 
reasons for which a country should be entitled to visa waiver status. A 
number of witnesses testified at our hearing that the Republic of 
Korea--commonly referred to as South Korea, should be admitted to the 
program. While I am confident that South Korea will eventually be 
admitted to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, I should note that, since 
South Korea's refusal rate numbers may exceed 3 percent for the current 
fiscal year, South

[[Page S9335]]

Korea may not be eligible for admission to the Visa Waiver Pilot 
Program immediately.
  Mr. President, increasing the refusal rate numerical cutoffs from 2 
percent/2.5 percent to 3 percent/3.5 percent will not have a dramatic 
effect on the number of countries eligible for the Visa Waiver Pilot 
Program. Fourteen countries meet the current refusal rate criteria but 
have not been admitted to the program for other reasons. Four others--
Botswana, Chile, Greece, and South Korea, do not meet the current 
criteria, but may meet a modified cutoff of 3 percent/3.5 percent, 
depending on what happens with their FY97 numbers. Changing the 
numerical cutoff by 1 percent would thus mean that 18 rather than 14 
countries not admitted to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program might now meet 
the refusal rate criteria. Of those four additional countries, only 
South Korea is likely to meet other program requirements in the near 
future.
  The second reform in this legislation will improve reporting of visa 
overstayer numbers and disqualification rates. Current law provides 
that countries can be removed from the Visa Waiver Pilot Program if 
their visa overstay and disqualification rates--i.e., the rate of those 
turned away at ports of entry as inadmissible, exceed 2 percent of 
those seeking admission as nonimmigrants under the Visa Waiver Pilot 
Program. Yet the INS has produced no data on overstay numbers since 
1992 and has accordingly been unable to fulfill its statutory duties.
  To address this serious shortcoming in administration of the Visa 
Waiver Pilot Program, the bill would require that the Attorney General: 
First, make precise numerical estimates for each pilot program country 
of that country's visa overstay and disqualification rates, and second, 
report those estimates to Congress within 30 days after the end of each 
fiscal year. In addition, for any new country to be admitted under the 
slightly revised refusal rate criteria, the Attorney General would have 
to certify that the country's visa overstay and disqualification rates 
had been within the statutory limits.
  Third, this legislation provides for enhanced passport security 
requirements. Under current program requirements, a country may not be 
admitted to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program unless it certifies that it 
has or is in the process of developing a program to issue machine-
readable passports to its citizens. At the subcommittee hearing we held 
on this issue in July, the INS suggested that participant countries 
also be required to issue fraud resistant passports. This legislation 
actually builds on the INS's proposed requirement. It would require 
that countries seeking admission to the program issue machine-readable 
and highly fraud-resistant passports. It would no longer be enough for 
countries to certify that they were moving toward issuing these 
passports.
  The proposed bill would also extend this requirement to countries 
already in the program. Despite the requirement in current law that 
countries at least be developing machine-readable passport programs, 
there is no requirement that they follow through. Likewise, there has 
been no follow-up by the State Department to ensure that they 
eventually meet the requirement. For countries in the program as of 
September 30, 1997, the bill provides that the Attorney General may not 
redesignate a country as a pilot program country unless the country 
certifies that it has issued or will issue as of a date certain 
machine-readable and highly fraud-resistant passports and unless the 
country subsequently complies with any such certification commitments.

  Fourth, this legislation links expansion of Visa Waiver Pilot Program 
with INS development of an automated entry-exit control system. The 
illegal immigration reform bill requires the Attorney General to 
develop, by September 30, 1998, an automated entry-exit control system 
that will match arrival and departure records and make possible 
identification of individual aliens who overstay their visas. INS 
indicates that they will have this system up and running on time for 
ports of entry other than our land borders. To ensure that the Visa 
Waiver Pilot Program will not be expanded before INS complies with 
those requirements--and to add some incentive for them to do so--the 
Abraham-Kennedy bill would require that no new country be admitted to 
the program until 30 days after the Attorney General certifies to 
Congress that the automated entry-exit control system mandated by the 
illegal immigration reform law is operational at all ports of entry 
excluding the land borders. I note that there may be some question as 
to whether last year's law intended to have the automated entry-exit 
control system apply to the land borders, and I will be working 
separately to clarify that Congress intended the provision to apply 
only to entry and exit at ports of entry excluding the land borders.
  Fifth, this legislation provides modified roles for the Secretary of 
State and Attorney General to reflect their respective Agency's 
expertise. Last year's immigration reform law also altered the 
relationship between the Secretary of State and the Attorney General 
with respect to decisions under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. That 
program previously provided that relevant determinations would be made 
jointly by the Secretary and the Attorney General. The illegal 
immigration bill provided that such determinations are to be made by 
the Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary. Under the 
Abraham-Kennedy bill, the Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney 
General, would have the lead role only in terms of initially allowing a 
country into the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.
  The Secretary is given this role because she compiles the refusal 
rates and is in a better position to assess a country's passport 
program than the Attorney General. Once countries are admitted to the 
program, however, the Attorney General would play the lead agency role 
in determining whether a country will remain in the program or be 
placed on probation for having excessive overstay and disqualification 
rates. This is in keeping with the Attorney General's responsibility 
for determining these figures and over aliens once they arrive at a 
port of entry to the United States.
  Finally, the proposed bill includes a 5-year extension of the Visa 
Waiver Pilot Program, setting an expiration date of September 30, 2002.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the extension of this 
important program in conjunction with the changes that Senator Kennedy 
and I have developed. This legislation will rationalize an important 
program that has brought significant benefits to our Nation, while 
instituting important safeguards to protect that program's integrity.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1178

       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 ``Visa Waiver Pilot Program 
     Reauthorization Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

       (a) Designation of Pilot Program Countries.--Section 217(c) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Designation of Pilot Program Countries.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of State, in consultation 
     with the Attorney General, may designate any country as a 
     pilot program country if it meets the requirements of 
     paragraph (2). In order to remain a pilot program country in 
     any subsequent fiscal year, a country shall be redesignated 
     as a pilot program country by the Attorney General in 
     accordance with the requirements of paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Qualifications.--The Secretary of State may not 
     designate a country as a pilot program country unless the 
     following requirements are met:
       ``(A) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate for previous 2-
     year period.--The average number of refusals of nonimmigrant 
     visitor visas for nationals of that country during the two 
     previous full fiscal years was less than 3.0 percent of the 
     total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of 
     that country which were granted or refused during those 
     years.
       ``(B) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate for each of 2 
     previous years.--The average number of refusals of 
     nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country 
     during either of such two previous full fiscal years

[[Page S9336]]

     was less than 3.5 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant 
     visitor visas for nationals of that country which were 
     granted or refused during that year.
       ``(C) Machine-readable passport program.--The government of 
     the country certifies to the Secretary of State's and the 
     Attorney General's satisfaction that it issues machine-
     readable and highly fraud-resistant passports to its 
     citizens.
       ``(D) Law enforcement interests.--The Attorney General 
     determines that the United States' law enforcement interests 
     would not be compromised by the designation of the country.
       ``(E) Illegal overstay and disqualification.--For any 
     country with an average nonimmigrant visa refusal rate during 
     the previous two fiscal years of greater than 2 and less than 
     3 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas 
     for nationals of that country which were granted or refused 
     during those years, and for any country with an average 
     number of refusals during either such year of greater than 
     2.5 and less than 3.5 percent, the Attorney General shall 
     certify to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives that the sum of--
       ``(I) the total of the number of nationals of that country 
     who were excluded from admission or withdrew their 
     application for admission at a port of entry during such 
     previous fiscal year as a nonimmigrant visitor, and
       ``(II) the total number of nationals for that country who 
     were admitted as nonimmigrant visitors during such previous 
     fiscal year and who violated the terms of such admission,

     is less than 2 percent of the total number of nationals of 
     that country who applied for admission as nonimmigrant 
     visitors during such previous fiscal year.
       ``(3) Continuing and subsequent qualifications.--The 
     Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     State, shall assess the continuing and subsequent 
     qualification of countries designated as pilot program 
     countries and shall redesignate countries as pilot program 
     countries only if the requirements specified in this 
     subsection are met. For each fiscal year (within the pilot 
     program period) after the initial period the following 
     requirements shall apply:
       ``(A) Countries previously designated.--(i) Except as 
     provided in subsection (g) of this section, in the case of a 
     country which was a pilot program country in the previous 
     fiscal year, the Attorney General may not redesignate such 
     country as a pilot program country unless the sum of--
       ``(I) the total of the number of nationals of that country 
     who were excluded from admission or withdrew their 
     application for admission during such previous fiscal year as 
     a nonimmigrant visitor, and
       ``(II) the total number of nationals of that country who 
     were admitted as nonimmigrant visitors during such previous 
     fiscal year and who violated the terms of such admission,

     was less than 2 percent of the total number of nationals of 
     that country who applied for admission as nonimmigrant 
     visitors during such previous fiscal year.
       ``(ii) In the case of a country which was a pilot program 
     country in the previous fiscal year, the Attorney General may 
     not redesignate such country as a pilot program country 
     unless the Attorney General has made a precise numerical 
     estimate of the figures under clauses (i)(I) and (i)(II) and 
     reports those figures to the Committees on the Judiciary of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives within 30 days 
     after the end of the fiscal year. As of September 30, 1999, 
     any such estimates shall be based on data collected from the 
     automated entry-exit control system mandated by section 110 
     of Public Law 104-708.
       ``(iii) In the case of a country which was a pilot program 
     country in the previous fiscal year and which was first 
     admitted to the visa waiver pilot program prior to September 
     30, 1997, the Attorney General may not redesignate such 
     country as a pilot program country unless the country 
     certifies that it has issued or will issue as of a date 
     certain machine-readable and highly fraud-resistant passports 
     and unless the country subsequently complies with any such 
     certification commitments.
       ``(B) New countries.--In the case of a country to which the 
     clauses of subparagraph (A) do not apply, such country may 
     not be designated as a pilot program country unless the 
     following requirements are met:
       ``(i) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate in previous 2-year 
     period.--The average number of refusals of nonimmigrant 
     visitor visas for nationals of that country during the two 
     previous full fiscal years was less than 3.0 percent of the 
     total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of 
     that country which were granted or refused during those 
     years.
       ``(ii) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate in each of the 2 
     previous years.--The average number of refusals of 
     nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country 
     during either of such two previous full fiscal years was less 
     than 3.5 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor 
     visas for nationals of that country which were granted or 
     refused during that year.
       ``(4) Initial period.--For purposes of paragraph (3), the 
     term `initial period' means the period beginning at the end 
     of the 30-day period described in section 2(c)(1) of the Visa 
     Waiver Pilot Program Reauthorization Act of 1997 and ending 
     on the last day of the first fiscal year which begins after 
     such 30-day period.''.
       (b) Authorized Pilot Program Period.--Section 217(f) of 
     that Act is amended by striking ``September 30, 1997'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 2002''.
       (c) Development of Automated Entry Control System.--(1) As 
     of the date of enactment of this Act, no country may be newly 
     designated as a pilot program country until the end of the 
     30-day period beginning on the date that the Attorney General 
     submits to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a certification that the 
     automated entry-exit control system described in paragraph 
     (2) is operational.
       (2) The automated entry-exit control system is the system 
     mandated by section 110 of Public Law 104-208 as applied at 
     all ports of entry excluding the land borders.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join Senator Abraham, the 
chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, in introducing legislation to 
extend the Visa Waiver Program for 5 additional years. The programs 
serves the Nation well, and deserves to be extended.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill we introduce today would 
create a pilot program to expand the number of countries able to 
participate in the Visa Waiver Program. I am optimistic that Portugal, 
for example, will qualify for the waiver program under the legislation 
which Senator Abraham and I propose today. I have advocated Portugal's 
inclusion in this program for several years because of the close ties 
between the people of Massachusetts and that country. Its inclusion in 
this program will allow Portuguese citizens to come to the United 
States to visit relatives or conduct trade and business without facing 
the often time-consuming task of obtaining a visa.
  This Visa Waiver Program started as a pilot program in 1988 with only 
one country, the United Kingdom. Today, it has grown into an important 
part of overall U.S. immigration policy. Twenty-five countries now 
qualify for the program, and it brings significant benefits to the 
United States as well as to visitors from those nations.
  Almost half of those who visit the United States for business or 
tourism now enter under this program. Billions of dollars in 
international transactions are facilitated by the ease of travel that 
it makes available. According to the Travel Industry Association of 
America, tourists coming to this country under the program contribute 
$84 billion to the economy and help support 947,000 American jobs in 
the tourist industry.
  The Visa Waiver Program also strengthens immigration enforcement. 
Rather than spending tax dollars to conduct needless visa interviews, 
the program enables us to concentrate scarce resources on the serious 
immigration problems of keeping criminals and terrorists out and 
dealing more effectively with visa fraud. As a result of the program, 
millions of dollars and hundreds of consular personnel have been 
reallocated to target the most serious immigration threats.
  Countries must meet strict criteria before they are eligible to 
participate in the waiver program, in order to prevent illegal 
immigration to the United States. The Attorney General may cancel a 
country's participation at any time if she believes a waiver 
compromises law enforcement or national security.
  Travelers from participating countries may come to the United States 
without visas, but they still must be interviewed by U.S. immigration 
officials at the airport or other points of entry before they are 
admitted to this country. According to INS statistics, few travelers 
abuse the program to enter the United States illegally. INS has turned 
away less than 1 percent of those seeking entry under the Visa Waiver 
Program.
  The bill we introduce today makes a good waiver program even better. 
It builds on the success of the current waivers by establishing a small 
pilot program to enable certain countries that do not currently qualify 
to participate if they meet certain strict requirements. A precondition 
for the pilot program is for INS to develop and implement an automated 
entry-exit control system. Today, we know who comes to America, but we 
do not always know who leaves. We need this information in order to 
track down visitors who remain in this country illegally after their 
visas expire, and to ensure that countries are abiding by the 
requirements of the program, and

[[Page S9337]]

are not contributing to illegal immigration.
  In order to participate in the new pilot program, a country must have 
a low visa refusal rate at our consulates abroad. Under the normal Visa 
Waiver Program, qualifying countries must have a refusal rate of less 
than 2 percent over the past 2 years. The Abraham-Kennedy pilot program 
would set the requirement at 3 percent for countries to enter the 
program on a pilot basis. In recent times, Portugal's refusal rate has 
been below the 3-percent threshold, so unless Portugal's refusal rate 
rises, I would look forward at long last to welcoming Portugal into 
this program.
  Mr. President, the Visa Waiver Program works, and I urge Congress to 
extend it. I commend Senator Abraham for offering this timely 
legislation, and I am proud to be a sponsor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Abraham 
and Senator Kennedy's efforts to amend and reauthorize the Visa Waiver 
Pilot Program [VWPP]. The Visa Waiver Pilot Program has been highly 
successful program, freeing up embassy staff, promoting tourism and 
trade, and fostering closer ties between our country and her allies. 
Chairman Abraham has made a number of important changes to the VWPP 
which I believe will make this program even more successful. The 
changes include tightening controls so that there will not be abuse of 
the program, and adjusting the admission criteria to include deserving 
countries.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have been a strong advocate of 
including South Korea in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. I believe no 
other country, not currently included in the pilot program, represents 
as close an ally as South Korea. As our fifth largest export market, 
home to 37,000 of our troops, and with an economy larger than all but 5 
of the current visa waiver countries, this democratic country deserves 
the right to participate in this program. With a 1996 unemployment rate 
of 2 percent, lower than all but one of the VWPP countries, the 
burgeoning middle class in South Korea should be able to travel to the 
United States without the cumbersome restraints associated with 
citizens traveling from high-risk countries.
  The Abraham legislation is a positive step, but it is unclear if 
South Korea will be eligible for the VWPP in the short term because of 
the bill's continued reliance on refusal rates as the defining criteria 
for admission. However, under this legislation Korea stands a much 
better chance of becoming eligible than under current law. For this 
reason and the fact that Senator Abraham and Senator Kennedy have 
strengthened the safeguards in the VWPP, I am supporting this 
legislation.
  This bill expands along the concept of promoting tourism and trade 
and fostering closer ties between our country and our allies by 
increasing the refusal rates needed to become eligible for inclusion 
into the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. The bill also addresses many of the 
concerns raised by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the 
Justice Department by including additional safeguards to ensure that 
the program is not abused and becomes a vehicle for illegal 
immigration.
  For instance, in order for a visa waiver country to be redesignated 
as a visa waiver country, under this legislation the Attorney General 
must make precise estimates, based upon data collected from an 
automated entry-exit control system, of the overstay rates of each 
country. If the Attorney General cannot make an estimate for a country, 
that country will lose its privilege to travel to the United States 
visa free.
  In the past, Congress could not adequately monitor the effectiveness 
of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. With the requirements for overstay 
rates, Congress will have analytical evidence that countries are not 
abusing this privilege and that the Visa Waiver Pilot Program works. 
Coupled with the additional safeguards, including the requirement for 
machine readable and highly fraud resistant passports for countries 
entering the program, the entry-exit control system, already being 
implemented by INS, will ensure that the VWPP continues to be 
successful.
  I would like to see further changes. For example, changing the 
reliance on arbitrary refusal rates decided in many cases by overworked 
staff in our embassies and consulate offices abroad. Examples where 
embassy staff have mistakingly denied visas, abound. They include:
  President Kim Young Sam's sister rejected the first time she applied 
for a tourist visa.
  The daughter of the chairman of the multibillion-dollar company, 
Hyundai, was rejected for a student visa based on insufficient 
financial resources.
  The son of the president of IBM Korea was rejected because the 
consular office did not believe the son would be a good student. He had 
already been accepted in the school in the United States.
  For South Korea, where our United States Embassy processes more 
nonimmigrant visa applications than any other country in the world, the 
use of the refusal rate automatically puts South Korea at a 
disadvantage. This needs to be corrected. Perhaps with the 
establishment of a working entry-exit control system required in this 
bill, the overstay rate coupled with other objective criteria can be 
used to determine eligibility.
  I would like to commend Senator Abraham and Senator Kennedy for 
taking such an active role regarding Korea and the Visa Waiver Pilot 
Program. The Subcommittee on Immigration on the Judiciary Committee has 
worked closely with my staff to try to accommodate my concerns. I look 
forward to working closely with both Senators in the future regarding 
this issue.

                          ____________________