[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7623-H7626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             REGARDING CANADIAN BORDER BOAT LANDING PERMIT

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 2027) to provide for the revision of the requirements 
for a Canadian border boat landing permit pursuant to section 235 of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, and to require the Attorney 
General to report to the Congress on the impact of such revision.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2027

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

     SECTION 1. CHANGE IN CANADIAN BORDER BOAT LANDING PERMIT 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Revised Regulation.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of 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 certain 
     individuals entering the United States from Canada by boat 
     obtain a landing permit. The revised regulations shall 
     provide that, in the case of a United States citizen 
     traveling in a boat of not more than 65 feet in length 
     (including a boat of not 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, the citizen need not obtain such a permit 
     if--
       (1) the citizen carries a United States passport for the 
     duration of the trip; and
       (2) the citizen is not an owner, or an operator, of the 
     boat.
       (b) Sunset.--The revised regulations issued under 
     subsection (a) shall cease to be effective on December 31, 
     1998. After such date, the regulations that were in effect on 
     the day before the enactment of this Act with respect to the 
     requirement that certain individuals entering the United 
     States from Canada by boat obtain a landing permit shall 
     resume to be effective, in the same manner and to the same 
     extent as if this Act had not been enacted.
       (c) Report.--Not later than March 1, 1999, the Attorney 
     General shall report to the Congress on the impact of the 
     revised regulations issued under subsection (a) on the number 
     and nature of unauthorized entrances by individuals into the 
     United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on 
the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time and effort the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. LaTourette] has devoted in working with me to devise a bill that 
addresses the legitimate concerns of his Great Lakes constituency while 
at the same time keeping the U.S. border as secure as possible. H.R. 
2027 carefully balances the two competing interests. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.
  By way of background American and Canadian small boat operators and 
their passengers returning to the U.S. from Canadian waters must either 
enter through a port of entry or possess approved I-68 forms issued by 
the INS and good for 1 year. While the I-68 forms allow individuals on 
boats to enter the United States without being inspected at each 
docking, the persons are physically inspected and entered into INS 
records once a year in applying at INS offices for the forms. H.R. 2027 
would set up a pilot program whereby a United States citizen passenger 
on a small boat would be able to return from Canadian waters without an 
inspection or an I-68 form as long as the passenger was carrying an 
United States passport.
  I do not want to leave the impression that I do not have concerns 
about any waiving of the I-68 requirement. The Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims recently held a hearing on alien smuggling in 
which it was learned that smuggling from Canada has been increasing and 
will continue to increase as beefed-up border control presence makes 
the southern border less hospitable. Unfortunately, smugglers will look 
for any available weak link in our border security apparatus.
  However there are two aspects to the bill of the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. LaTourette] that minimize these security concerns. First, 
passengers must still carry U.S. passports. Because a passport is the 
identification document most difficult to counterfeit, alien smugglers 
will find it difficult to use.

[[Page H7624]]

 Second, experimenting with an I-68 waiver as a pilot program lasting 
until the end of 1998 will enable the INS to measure its effects and 
report back to Congress on whether making the waiver permanent is 
warranted.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2027.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, and let me state from 
the outset that if a vote is called on this bill, it will not be 
because I called for the vote. It seems to me that we are getting votes 
on each one of the suspension bills today for other reasons. I rise in 
opposition to this bill not because there are not competing arguments, 
but because there are competing arguments, and I think my colleagues 
deserve to hear arguments on all sides of this bill.
  This is a bipartisan bill, and a number of my colleagues on the 
Democratic side will be speaking in favor of it, and so I hope that my 
colleagues will just pay attention to the debate and make their own 
decisions about it.
  We used to say when I was growing up that consistency is the 
hobgoblin of small minds, but we also used to say that when you ignore 
consistency sometimes you can be extremely hypocritical, and, so 
according, this dilemma here. On the one hand we are substantially 
beefing up our borders along especially the southern borders and 
throughout the rest of the United States. On the other hand, this bill 
relaxes our border around the Great Lakes, and it seems to me that we 
at least need to be aware that this is inconsistent with everything 
else we are saying about immigration policy.
  The bill, like every other bill related to U.S. immigration policy, 
is about striking the proper balance between securing U.S. borders 
against illegal immigration while allowing trade and tourism to 
continue to flow freely. I am not convinced that H.R. 2027 strikes the 
proper balance between these competing interests. The fact is that the 
southwest border of the United States between Mexico and the United 
States is becoming more and more secure, or at least we are attempting 
to make it more and more secure, and as a result pressures are being 
increased on other borders for people to try to immigrate to this 
country illegally across other borders. There have already been 
incidents of smugglers bringing illegal aliens into the U.S. through 
upstate New York, and while there have been no reported incidents of 
alien smuggling on the Great Lakes, there have been innumerable 
instances of alcohol and tobacco products being smuggled across the 
Great Lakes into Canada to avoid the steep Canadian excise taxes. If we 
continue to relax the border on the Great Lakes we may be setting the 
stage for an influx of illegal immigrants directly into the heartland 
of the United States, and that is the dilemma we are in with this bill.
  I think it is commendable to try to make it as easy as we can make it 
for citizens to get back, for our citizens to get back and forth, into 
and out of Canada. Unfortunately it is not possible always to know who 
our citizens are, and the law, as currently written, provides some 
protections while not creating so much of an inconvenience that it is 
unreasonable.

                              {time}  1530

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette], who has been a tireless advocate of 
recreational boaters who have to comply with the requirements of the I-
68 form. While the subcommittee had concerns with the gentleman's 
earlier version of this legislation, he was willing to work with me and 
other members of the subcommittee, and that is much appreciated. Thanks 
to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette], H.R. 2027 strikes an 
important balance and ensures our borders remain secure and brings 
relief to the boating public.
  (Mr. LaTourette asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], for his cooperation 
and leadership on this bill. While, as the gentleman noted, we had a 
difference of opinion initially on this piece of legislation, I 
appreciate his willingness to work out a compromise and move H.R. 2027 
to the floor.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], 
the ranking member of the subcommittee, and although I have not been as 
successful in convincing him of the worthiness of our bill as I was 
with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], I do want to thank him for 
his cooperation and also appreciate the thoughtfulness of his remarks.
  Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks about the bill itself, I 
want to extend a personal apology to several supporters of this 
legislation who asked to be cosponsors of the bill, and, much to my 
disappointment, were not added. If there is one positive effect to this 
revelation, it is that I did not ignore any one Member of Congress, I 
excluded all of the potential cosponsors to the bill so as to not 
slight anyone.
  Accordingly, I want to take a moment to mention the champions of the 
boating public who serve in the House on both sides of the aisle and 
thank them for their efforts on this issue. I want the record to 
reflect their cosponsorship of H.R. 2027.
  They are the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], who happens to be 
the cochairman of the Congressional Boating Caucus; the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the dean of the House, a bad one to leave off; 
my colleagues the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur]; the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon]; the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Stupak]; also the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], and also on 
the floor with us here today is the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
LaFalce], a tireless champion for the boating public as well.
  Madam Speaker, earlier this year I introduced legislation to modify 
the I-68 program to allow greater flexibility for recreational boaters 
from the United States that wished to call on a Canadian port and 
return home without the inconvenience that that current program places 
on boaters.
  The INS is charged with the important responsibility of keeping our 
borders secure from illegal immigration, a mission which I 
wholeheartedly support. Current law requires vessels that have visited 
Canada undergo a face-to-face inspection with INS upon return, but 
since 1963 boaters have been afforded the opportunity to apply for what 
is known as an I-68 permit that would allow multiple crossings without 
inspection.
  This permit was issued without charge until 1995. They then began 
charging a $16 personal fee and required that all passengers apply to 
the INS office.
  Until this change, many boaters thought they were complying with the 
law by calling in to customs and were unaware of the INS inspection 
requirement. This has caused much confusion along the Canadian-United 
States border because they are not required to pay a fee at Canadian-
United States land crossings. These boaters rightfully wonder if once 
again they are being singled out as a broad target for additional user 
fees such as the ill-conceived FCC radio license fee.
  Madam Speaker, I am a supporter of the fee-for-service concept and I 
believe that if a particular class of citizens is receiving an 
individualized service from the government, it should help pay for it. 
However, there appears to be no discernible increase in INS inspection 
activities for the recreational borders along the border with the I-68.
  Additionally, if INS is willing to forego the face-to-face inspection 
requirement for a $16 annual fee, it appears it does not consider 
recreational boaters as a major conduit for illegal aliens, but rather 
as a source for additional revenue.
  The I-68 permit has caused an adverse economic impact in my district, 
and I would suggest all of the districts along the Great Lakes border. 
This has translated in my district to 6,000 less boat trips and an 
economic loss of about $2 million for each of the countries involved in 
the destination spending.
  With the counsel of the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, and the

[[Page H7625]]

support of other members of the subcommittee, we have crafted a bill 
that we think crafts a good compromise. It will give boaters an 
additional option to the I-68 without compromising the security of the 
United States-Canadian border.
  The bill will allow passengers on the vessel to utilize the U.S. 
passport, which is the document we use to travel all over the world, 
without paying an additional fee. Thanks to Chairman Smith's wisdom, we 
have also included a provision that there will be a report sent to 
Congress that will evaluate the effectiveness of our change and will 
also sunset after a 1-year exploration period.
  Also I wanted to commend the INS. They are now engaged in a pilot 
program where they have video phones installed in the district of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh], and it is my hope that if we 
cannot eliminate either the fee or the I-68, eventually we can expand 
that pilot program to the ports of entry along the Great Lakes.
  Again I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, for 
his cooperation and also the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], 
the ranking member.
  Madam Speaker, with the balance of the time that I have been yielded, 
I would ask the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] if he has 
observations he wanted to make?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very much and your 
efforts. I was part of an effort to offer an amendment last year that 
was approached but was finally dropped from the bill that deals with 
this particular issue. I would like to say that the arguments and 
positions presented in opposition by the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Watt] make a lot of sense, and I hope before it is all over some 
of those things will be worked out, because his position is very valid. 
I want to commend him for the effort he has made. We have an awful lot 
of boaters up there and I believe there has been an undue hassle. 
Sometimes we can cut through the red tape.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].
  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Speaker, I support the purpose of this bill to 
make it easier for recreational boaters to cross the waters between the 
United States and Canada. Very often those waters are as far from the 
one wall of this Chamber to the other wall of this Chamber. It is 
important to understand that. But I do think there are two 
modifications to the bill before us that I hope will be made in 
conference that could significantly improve the legislation.
  One of the main complaints I hear about the current I-68 program is 
that a United States citizen who is invited to go on a pleasure ride 
aboard a friend's boat must first go to an immigration office to 
complete the I-68 application and pay the required fee even for a one-
time recreational excursion that never stops in Canada.
  This is crazy. This is crazy. So H.R. 2027 would take a step in the 
right direction by exempting passengers who are U.S. citizens from the 
requirement of obtaining an I-68 permit, but only if they carry a U.S. 
passport.
  I have some difficulty with that, because the passport requirement is 
unprecedented with respect to the United States and Canada, and, in my 
judgment, extremely impractical. We are talking about friends who come 
up with their bathing suits and their children and they do not have 
passports to go out on these recreational boats for a swim, to fish, et 
cetera.
  United States citizens have never been required to carry a passport 
to reenter the United States from Canada. Indeed, such a requirement 
would violate the specific intent of the United States-Canada Accord on 
our shared border to open and improve the flow of United States and 
Canadian citizens across the border. As a practical matter, requiring 
recreational boaters and their guests, many of them children, to carry 
a passport while boating, is quite unrealistic.
  I understand they can have the I-68 instead, but the INS enacted 
regulations last week that attempt to simplify the process for 
obtaining these permits for some boaters by allowing applications to be 
made by mail. Well, this is a welcome change, but it does not alleviate 
the problem for most guests because the initial application must still 
be made at an immigration office.
  For these reasons, I hope the final version of the bill will strike 
the passport requirement, and we never required a passport for Canada, 
while retaining the I-68 exemption for United States citizen 
passengers. As this bill provides, boat owners would still be required 
to obtain a permit.
  Now, a second, even stronger complaint I hear from my constituents 
involves the fee that the INS began charging for these permits in 1995. 
Again, I am saying INS began charging fees in 1995. They did not charge 
fees before. They never wanted to, they did not, but in 1995, they 
looked at a law and said we think this law requires us to charge a fee. 
For 32 years they interpreted the law to say no fee is necessary and 
will not charge one, because the amount we raise is negligible. But for 
the past 2 years, because of this new interpretation of an old law, 
they have been charging $16 for individuals and $32 for family permits.
  We need to change the law so that they can operate in the future the 
way they did for 30-some years. How much money have they raised per 
year by charging these fees? About $30,000. That is what we are talking 
about. It is peanuts. But insofar as the number of permits, well, in 
1995, when no fee was required, we had about 10,000 permits; in 1996, 
with that fee, about 1,000; 1,000 percent more in 1995 than 1996. Who 
is adversely affected? American businesses along the border, where 
those recreational boaters are not stopping. That is who is being hurt.
  I believe that Congress should provide direction to the INS by 
authorizing the Attorney General to eliminate the fee, the way they did 
for 30-some years. These fees act as a deterrent to boaters in 
obtaining the permit, particularly in light of the fact that Canada 
does not require such a fee for entry.
  I again applaud the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] for his 
excellent leadership on this, and I look forward to working with the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Smith] as this bill proceeds and goes into conference.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. LaFalce] for his thoughtful comments and suggestions. I can 
assure the gentleman that I support both of the proposals to improve 
the current I-68 program. The original legislation, as the gentleman 
knows, proposed exactly the gentleman's thoughts. However, in working 
through the legislative process with the subcommittee, it became 
apparent that such a proposal would not win the approval of the 
committee and hence no floor action.
  I made it clear to our colleagues on the subcommittee that we hope 
the study included in this bill would give us evidence to come back and 
hopefully get rid of the fee and/or the I-68. I look forward to working 
with the gentleman, and I thank him for his thoughts.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  Mr. METCALF. Madam Speaker, I want to take us on a short excursion 
through the Second Congressional District of Washington State, one of 
the most beautiful inland waterways in the world. With over 200 
islands, give or take a few, depending on the tide, it is no wonder 
that the San Juan Islands and Northern Puget Sound have been called the 
boating capital of the world. In fact, the San Juan Islands are always 
ranked among the top tourist spots in the Northwest, and on any given 
day in the summer months, thousands of boaters travel the inland waters 
between Canada and the United States.
  But today, Madam Speaker, the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
in their infinite wisdom has decided that this kind of boating needs 
much more regulation. It is not enough that American boaters must 
report to the

[[Page H7626]]

Canadian authorities when they enter Canada and to customs agents when 
they return from Canada. Now they must procure a special form from the 
INS called the I-68 form when they travel back and forth from United 
States to Canada. This form must be in the possession of every member 
on board the vessel at a cost of about $20 a head.
  I frankly do not think the INS knows exactly what it is getting into. 
For one thing, where is the money coming from which will fund the 
hundreds of new INS agents that we are going to need to enforce this 
outlandish regulation? It will not raise that much money. Finally, I do 
not think many of my constituents are excited about going through the 
bureaucratic nightmare, drive perhaps 100 miles to an INS facility, 
stand in line for possibly hours, pay a $20 fee for a piece of paper 
that now gives them the OK by INS to travel into Canada and back.
  Let me thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] for their work on this issue. Let 
us not further increase bureaucratic redtape at the border for law 
abiding citizens.

                              {time}  1545

  Let us get rid of one more Federal form, the I-68.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 2027. While not a perfect 
bill, it is a move in the right direction. This bill will establish a 
pilot program that aims to prove that once again, while the Federal 
Government has good intentions, its regulations can, at times, be 
overburdensome on American citizens.
  For years, recreational boaters were permitted to obtain form I-68 
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, for free. This 
form allowed the boaters to reenter the United States without 
inspections on bodies of water along the Canadian border during the 
navigation season. In the Great Lakes, Canadian waters can be as close 
as a stone's throw away. In fact, in my congressional district, which 
has more shoreline than any congressional district except Alaska, and 
most of that shoreline is with Canada, we want the freedom to move back 
and forth without further interference and disruption from the Federal 
Government.
  Two years ago, the INS began charging a fee for this form. What this 
all boils down to is that American citizens are paying a new fee for 
the privilege of reentering the United States. They are not receiving 
services, because that was the whole purpose of the form, to allow 
citizens to move back and forth freely without inspection. I find it 
incredible that we are now charging U.S. citizens for the simple act of 
reentering their own country.
  Furthermore, individuals must apply and pay for this form in person. 
This may not seem like such a hardship to other States, but in northern 
Michigan, this could mean at least an 8-hour drive for many of my 
constituents to the nearest INS office.
  This bill is simply an 18-month pilot program that reestablishes a 
system that has worked well for years. I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation and to restore a small sense of integrity to the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I 
would hope the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] would finish up 
with his speakers and we could proceed.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time to just say in conclusion that this bill clearly is an 
improvement over similar legislation which passed the House on the 
Suspension Calendar last year, but there is no escaping the fact that 
the net effect of the bill is to further relax border security on the 
Great Lakes. While I understand that the current system may be 
inconvenient to Great Lakes boaters, I do not believe that such 
inconvenience justifies any further relaxation of the border along the 
Great Lakes, especially at a time when the Congress and this 
administration have increased efforts to secure all of America's 
borders against illegal immigration and drug smuggling.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I support this very narrow and time limited 
change to the law which will allow guests of boat owners sailing on the 
Great Lakes to be exempted from the INS I-68 permit. The I-68, called 
the Canadian border boat landing permit, allows boaters to travel to 
and from Canada without inspection for the entire summer boating 
season.
  This bill will not exempt boat owners from I-68 permit requirements. 
It will merely permit a nonfamily member guest from having to apply for 
the I-68, paying $16 and waiting 2 weeks for the permit just to take a 
possible one time recreational ride on a boat on the Great Lakes. 
Guests will still be required to have a U.S. passport.
  This bill is not a carte blanche opening of the Great Lake borders, 
it is tailored very narrowly. H.R. 2027 will sunset in December 1998 
and requires the Attorney General to make a report to Congress on the 
impact of the revised regulation. Therefore, next year, INS will be 
able to ascertain whether this limited exemption has had any adverse 
impact on illegal immigration or narcotics smuggling. In the meantime, 
this small but important change will enhance tourism on both sides of 
the border.
  The Great Lakes provide great summer recreation to many American 
citizens and Canadian nationals. In Detroit, we can see Windsor, 
Canada, and share the Detroit River with them. Many of my constituents 
vacation on the Great Lakes in the Upper Peninsula and frequently cross 
over to the Canadian shore. By modernizing the I-68 permit requirement 
we can ease the paperwork burdens on their travel as guests. I urge 
your support on this very narrowly tailored and practical bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2027.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________