[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10251-S10252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SECTION 110 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT
RESPONSIBILITY ACT
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I want to bring to the Senate's
attention an issue of great concern, not only to my home State of
Michigan, but also to many other Northeastern States that border
Canada. Section 110, a rather small provision of the 1996 Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, has generated
waves of controversy here in the United States and in Canada because of
its unintended negative impact on trade and travel between the two
countries.
Section 110 requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
develop an automated entry and exit system to document the entry and
departure of every alien arriving in and leaving the United States. The
term ``every alien'' certainly would be interpreted to include both
Canadians and American permanent residents who cross our land borders
with Canada.
This interpretation conflicts with the decades-old practice of not
requiring Canadians to present a passport, visa, or border crossing
identification card at the border. As previously described, this
interpretation was not intended by the law's authors. My former
colleague, Alan Simpson, who preceded me as chairman of the Senate
Immigration Subcommittee, and Representative Lamar Smith, who is the
current chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, wrote in a
letter last year to the Canadian Government that they did not intend to
impose a new requirement for border crossing cards on Canadians who are
not presently required to possess such documents.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
His Excellency Raymond Chretien,
Ambassador of Canada,
Canadian Embassy, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Ambassador: This is in reply to your letter
regarding congressional intent in the implementation of
Sections 104 and 110 of the ``Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.'' Ms. Strom and Mr. Day
were accurate in their description of our intent regarding
those provisions.
With regard to Section 104, it was not our intent to impose
a new border crossing card requirement on Canadians who do
not now need to possess such a card to enter the United
States. With regard to Section 110, again, it was not our
intent that Canadian citizens who now enter the United States
without an I-94 will be required to obtain that form in the
future.
Of course, any Canadians who elect to possess a border
crossing card will be subject to the requirements for an
improved card; and any Canadians who are now issued an I-94
form will be subject to the new exit control provisions of
the law. But, again, we did not intend to impose a new
requirement for border crossing cards or I-94's on Canadians
who are not presently required to possess such documents.
Respectfully yours,
Alan K. Simpson,
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, U.S. Senate
Lamar S. Smith,
Chairman, Immigrations & Claims,
House of Representatives.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter
from the Canadian Ambassador to Congressman Smith to which his letter
responds be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Hon. Lamar S. Smith,
Chairman, Immigration and Claims,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Chairman: I wish to bring to your attention some
language of the ``Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996'' which, depending on how it is
interpreted, could have significant cost implications for the
United States as well as affect the mobility of millions of
Canadians.
Section 110 of the Act requires the Attorney General to
develop an automated entry-exit control system at ports of
entry. We understand that this provision was introduced to
document the entry and exit and gather information on
immigration violations committed by foreign nationals who are
entering the United States legally either with a U.S. non-
immigrant visa or through the privilege of a visa waiver
pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program initiated in 1986.
Officials in both the Immigration and Naturalization Service
and the State Department have brought to our attention that
the final language of Section 110 uses the word ``alien''
without any qualification. This could be interpreted as
including the millions of Canadian citizens who enter the
United States every year and are not issued an I-94 form.
My officials have discussed the matter informally with Ms.
Cordia Strom, your Chief Counsel, and Mr. Richard Day, her
counterpart, in the House immigration Subcommittee. Ms. Strom
and Mr. Day confirmed our understanding of the legislative
intent as stated above. They indicated that Congress did not
intend to require the issuance of documentation and the
control of departure for the millions of Canadians who have,
since well before 1986, traditionally enjoyed the privilege
of a summary inspection. Such interpretation would have a
very negative impact on cross border mobility at high volume
border crossings such as the Rainbow bridge in Niagara Falls
or the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. I would therefore be grateful
if you could confirm that Congress did not intend to make
Canadians subject to this provision.
I am also concerned about an interpretation of Section 104
of the same Act that appeared in ``Interpreter Releases'' in
their October 7, 1996 issue. The ``Section-by-Section
Summary'' of that publication on Section 104 suggests that
all aliens must use a border crossing card with a biometric
identifier by September 30, 1999.
In their efforts to facilitate mobility in the context of
the Border Accord, both Canada and the United States,
encourage frequent travellers to consider the benefits of
using dedicated inspections lines by enrolling in
[[Page S10252]]
INSPASS or CANPASS. Enrollment in these programs is
voluntary. Making it a mandatory requirement would become a
major impediment to cross border mobility for millions of
American and Canadian travellers. Our reading of Section 104
of the Act does not lead us to such a conclusion. I would
therefore also appreciate your confirmation that it was not
Congress's intention to require all Canadians, travelling to
the U.S. by September 30, 1999, to hold such a card.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation on these matters.
Yours sincerely,
Raymond Chretien,
Ambassador.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Unfortunately, the INS appears to maintain, regardless
of the intention, that the law clearly calls for a record of every
entry and departure by noncitizens entering or departing the United
States. I will be sending a letter to INS Commissioner Doris Meissner
to ask how the agency interprets section 110, how the agency plans to
implement the law, and how we might work together to remedy what I see
as an enormous problem on the horizon.
Bumper-to-bumper traffic is not an unusual occurrence in many parts
of the country, whether its a morning or afternoon commute or a trip to
a football game. This also occurs every day at already busy border
crossing points. But imagine if you will, the traffic nightmare of
back-up for miles and miles that would result from implementing this
new provision at all U.S. border crossings. Under the section 110
statute, every Canadian citizen and American permanent resident must
present a visa or proper immigration form to border inspectors. In 1996
alone, over 116 million people entered the United States by land from
Canada. Similarly, over 52 million Canadian residents and United States
permanent residents entered Canada last year. The new provision would
require a stop on the U.S. side to record the exit of each person in
every car. That's more than 140,000 every day; 6,000 every hour; 100
every minute. And that is just when you exit the United States. Those
person entering the United States from Canada will also confront a
similar circumstance. These delays will affect American citizens alike.
Now imagine the economic impact of such a policy. The free flow of
goods and services that are exchanged every day through the United
States and Canada has provided both countries with enormous economic
benefits. Together, trade and tourism between the two nations is worth
a billion dollars a day for the United States, and Canada is the United
States' largest trading partner. The State of Michigan is an important
beneficiary of this longstanding close relationship. The Ambassador
Bridge in Detroit is the largest land border crossing point in North
America. The United States automobile industry conducts $300 million
worth of trade with Canada every day. Michigan, and Detroit in
particular, would be severely impacted by excessive delays that would
surely arise if truckers were forced to show a visa or fill out
immigration forms at each port of entry. New just-in-time delivery
methods have made United States-Canadian border crossings integral
parts of our automobile assembly lines. A delivery of parts delayed by
as little as 20 minutes can cause expensive assembly line shutdowns.
Tourism is another industry that would surely be affected by the
implementation of section 110. Suddenly, people in Windsor, Canada, who
thought they'd head to Detroit for a Tiger's baseball game or Red
Wing's hockey game think again and stay home--with their money. In
fact, this provision would force all Canadian residents who visit their
family and friends in America to obtain a visa or obtain other
immigration forms. It is for these reasons that we have twice rebuffed
previous attempts in the Senate to impose a tax on border crossings.
Mr. President, our borders are already crowded. In 1993, nearly 9
million people traveled over the Ambassador Bridge I referred to
earlier, 6.4 million traveled through the Detroit-Windsor tunnel, and
approximately 6.1 million crossed the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron.
Think what it would mean to load them down with paperwork and fee
payments. Optimistically, the new controls might take an extra 2
minutes per border crosser to fulfill. That is almost 17 hours of delay
for every hour's worth of traffic. It's just not practical, and we must
act to prevent it from happening.
As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, I intend to
hold hearings in both Michigan and Washington to learn more of the
impact of section 110. I am certain these proceedings will be useful in
determining how to clarify the act and make the case to my colleagues
that we must remedy this situation.
The illegal immigration law passed last year focused on those persons
who enter our Nation illegally, not those who come here legally to make
a better life for themselves and their families--let alone those who
visit family here on a regular basis or help carry out our crucial,
ongoing trade with Canada. I should also note that Canadians have not
historically presented significant illegal immigration problems and
that I appreciate very much the unique and close relationship Americans
and Canadians share. Section 110 will not go into effect until
September 1998. In the meantime, it is my hope that Congress will take
the time to closely consider the problems I have outlined and conform
the act to reflect current policy and our special relationship with
Canada.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence after quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________