[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.

                          ____________________