[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11678-S11683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mr. Grams, Mr. Dorgan, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Burns, and 
        Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1360. A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 to clarify and improve the requirements for 
the development of an automated entry-exit control system, to enhance 
land border control and enforcement, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


           THE BORDER IMPROVEMENT AND IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
address a problem that has been attracting significant concern not only 
in my State of Michigan, but also in many other northern border States 
as well as along the southern border. This bill, entitled ``The Border 
Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997,'' will also add desperately 
needed resources for border control and enforcement at the land 
borders.
  I am proud to have a broad range of bipartisan support on this bill 
and to have as original cosponsors Senators Kennedy, D'Amato, Leahy, 
Grams, Dorgan, Collins, Murray, Burns, and Snowe.
  This legislation is needed to clarify the applicability of a small 
provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act--section 110 of that act. That section requires the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop, by September 30, 
1998, an automated entry and exit system to document the entry and 
departure of every alien arriving in and leaving the United States. 
While that may sound straightforward enough, the truth is that there 
could be disastrous consequences if this is not amended to conform with 
Congress' intent and to provide a sensible approach to automated entry-
exit control.
  The problem is that the term ``every alien'' could be interpreted to 
include Canadians who cross our northern land border--and in fact to 
include all aliens crossing the land borders and many aliens entering 
elsewhere who are currently exempt from filling out immigration forms. 
We could literally end up with intolerable backlogs and delays at the 
land borders and could end up creating a conflict with current 
documentary requirements, such as our practice of not requiring 
Canadians to present a passport, visa or border-crossing identification 
card to enter the United States for short-term visits.
  The potential problems here are generating great concern. The United 
States Ambassador to Canada wrote to me on October 14, for example, 
that he

[[Page S11679]]

is deeply concerned about this issue and noted that ``section 110 is 
inconsistent with the concerted efforts the United States and Canada 
have made in recent years to improve and simplify cross-border traffic 
flows.'' The Canadian Ambassador to the United States expressed similar 
concerns to me when I met with him last month. I recently chaired a 
field hearing of the Immigration Subcommittee on this issue in Detroit, 
MI, at which elected officials and industry representatives testified 
about the unprecedented traffic congestion, decreased trade, lost 
business and jobs, and harm to America's international relations that 
could result from the full implementation of section 110 in its current 
form.
  Mr. President, this provision was not intended by the law's authors 
to have the impact I just outlined. Our former colleague, Senator Alan 
Simpson, who preceded me as chairman of the Senate Immigration 
Subcommittee, and Representative Lamar Smith, who is 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.''
  The INS appears to maintain, however, that the law as it stands does 
call for a record of each and every noncitizen entering or leaving the 
United States. When you look at the text of the statute, you can 
certainly see a basis for their view.
  That is why I think the most sensible course here is simply to 
correct the statute. I should note that the administration shares our 
concern and has already requested that Congress correct section 110 and 
clarify that it should not apply along the land borders.
  The full implementation of section 110 would create a nightmare at 
our land borders for several reasons. First, every alien could be 
required to fill out immigration forms and hand them to border 
inspectors. That would create added delays at entry points into the 
United States, which would be intolerable. Our land border crossings 
simply cannot support such added pressures.
  A recent study by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas points out 
that traffic congestion and delays at our land borders already create 
unneeded costs and inconvenience. What we need are increased resources 
at the land borders, not increased burdens and bureaucracy.
  Second, every alien would likewise have to hand in forms when they 
leave the United States. Our immigration officials currently inspect 
only those entering the United States, and there are thus no inspection 
facilities at locations where people leave the country. This means that 
new inspections facilities would need to be built and that we would see 
significant increases in traffic on U.S. roads leaving the country.
  This additional infrastructure could run into billions of dollars, 
but the precise cost estimates are not possible at this point since we 
do not know what technology could even make such an exit system 
feasible. Even as a simple fiscal matter, we should not be requiring 
the kind of investment that would be involved here without knowing what 
the payoff, if any, will be, particularly where an undeveloped and 
untested system is involved. Also, at many border crossings, 
particularly on bridges or in tunnels, there simply is not room to 
construct additional facilities.
  The magnitude of these problems cannot be overstated. As just one 
example, take the northern border, with which I am most familiar.
  In 1996 alone, over 116 million people entered the United States by 
land from Canada, over 52 million of whom were Canadians or United 
States lawful permanent residents. The new provision would require a 
stop on the U.S. side to record the exit of every one of those 52 
million people. That is more than 140,000 every day; it is more than 
6,000 every hour; and more than 100 every minute. And that is only in 
one direction. The inconvenience, the traffic, and delays will be 
staggering.
  If uncorrected, section 110 will also have a devastating economic 
impact. 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. Trade and tourism between the two 
nations are worth $1 billion a day for the United States. Canada is not 
only the United States' largest trading partner, but the United States-
Canadian trading relationship is the most extensive and profitable in 
the world.
  My own State of Michigan has been an important beneficiary of that 
relationship. And 46 percent of the volume and 40.6 percent of the 
value of United States-Canada trade crosses the Michigan-Ontario 
border. Last year alone, exports to Canada generated over 72,000 jobs 
in key manufacturing industries in my State of Michigan and over $4.68 
billion in value added for the State.
  The United States automobile industry alone conducts 300 million 
dollars' worth of trade with Canada every day. 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 and travel industries would likewise suffer by the full 
implementation of section 110. People in Windsor, Canada who thought 
they would head to Detroit for a Tiger's baseball game or Red Wing's 
hockey game might think again and stay home--with their money.
  Canadians might decide not to bother to see the American side of 
Niagara Falls, or not to go hiking or fishing in Maine. This would 
happen all across the northern border.
  I am beginning to hear concerns from those along the southern border 
as well, and I believe that the impact of full implementation of 
section 110 there could be equally disastrous.
  Congress did not intend to wreak such havoc on the borders. The fact 
is that these issues were simply not considered last Congress.
  Section 110 was principally designed to make entry-exit control 
automated, so that the system would function better; it was not 
intended to expand documentary requirements and immigration bureaucracy 
into new and uncharted territory. A simple clarification of section 110 
will take care of these problems. At the same time, we can take steps 
to improve inspections at our borders and to begin to take a sensible 
and longer term approach to automated entry-exit control.
  Mr. President, my legislation is quite straightforward and contains 
three pieces.
  First, it provides that section 110's requirement that the INS 
develop an automated entry-exit control system would not apply at the 
land borders, to U.S. lawful permanent residents, or to any aliens of 
foreign contiguous territory for whom the U.S. Attorney General and the 
Secretary of State have already waived visa requirements under existing 
statutory authority. This would maintain the status quo for lawful 
permanent residents and for a handful of our neighboring territories, 
including Canada, whose nationals do not pose a particular immigration 
threat and are already granted special status by the Attorney General 
and the Secretary of State.
  As its second main provision, my legislation calls for a report on 
full automated entry-exit control. In my view, Congress should not 
expand entry-exit control into new territory until it has received a 
report on what that would mean.
  The bottom line here is that we simply do not know whether such a 
fully implemented system is feasible, how much it will cost, whether 
the INS has the capacity and resources to use the data from such a 
system, and whether it might make more sense to devote our resources to 
going after the problem of visa overstayers in other ways.
  Finally, my bill provides for increased personnel for border 
inspections by INS and Customs to address the backlogs and delays we 
already have on the border. For 3 years, it would increase INS 
inspectors at the land borders by 300 per year and Customs inspectors 
at the land borders by 150 per year.
  Mr. President, our borders are already crowded. In 1993, nearly 9 
million people traveled over the Ambassador Bridge, 6.4 million 
traveled through the Detroit-Windsor tunnel, and approximately 6.1 
million crossed the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron. Even without new 
controls, we have unacceptable delays at many points of our borders.
  We should alleviate the problems we already have, not make them worse 
by

[[Page S11680]]

adding more controls and burdens. Even in the best case scenario, the 
new entry-exit 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. We must act to prevent it 
from happening and take action to address the delays already existing 
at our borders.
  I would also like to note that placing new entry-exit control 
requirements on our border neighbors will do virtually nothing to catch 
people entering our country illegally. For that, we need to improve 
border inspections and increase resources there.
  I do agree that automated entry-exit control certainly is needed to 
improve upon the INS's current system, which has a poor track record of 
providing data on visa overstayers. Having correct and usable data 
would be extremely helpful for a number of purposes; for example, to 
determine whether countries should remain in the visa waiver program 
and which countries pose particular visa overstay problems.
  However, in my view, being able to use automated entry-exit control 
as a means of going after individual visa overstayers is a long way 
off. That is why we should be cautious in our approach.
  We need to study this problem and consider some hard questions like 
what we will do down the road with all this data. Do we really think 
that the INS is currently capable of compiling and matching the data 
correctly or that INS has the resources to track down individuals based 
on this data? Do we want to be directing the INS to use its limited 
resources in this manner?
  I recommend that for the time being we attack the visa overstayer 
problem by focussing on our current enforcement tools and by continuing 
the enforcement approach taken in last year's illegal immigration 
reform bill. I supported efforts there to increase the sanctions for 
visa overstayers and to increase the number of INS investigators 
looking into visa overstayers.
  But before we burden the vast majority who do not present an 
enforcement problem and before we add inconveniences and costs to our 
own citizens, we should continue to study the options for broader 
automated entry-exit control.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation 
quickly. Tomorrow, we will be having a hearing to consider this bill 
and these issues in the Immigration Subcommittee. Given the 
overwhelming support for this along the land borders and from the 
administration, there is no need to wait on such an important issue or 
to leave so many with uncertainty.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire 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. 1360

       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 ``Border Improvement and 
     Immigration Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND 
                   IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996.

       (a) In General.--Section 110(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1221 note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) System.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 
     2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Attorney General shall develop an automated entry and exit 
     control system that will--
       ``(A) collect a record of departure for every alien 
     departing the United States and match the record of departure 
     with the record of the alien's arrival in the United States; 
     and
       ``(B) enable the Attorney General to identify, through on-
     line searching procedures, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants 
     who remain in the United States beyond the period authorized 
     by the Attorney General.
       ``(2) Exception.--The system under paragraph (1) shall not 
     collect a record of arrival or departure--
       ``(A) at a land border of the United States for any alien;
       ``(B) for any alien lawfully admitted to the United States 
     for permanent residence; or
       ``(C) for any alien for whom the documentary requirements 
     in section 212(a)(7)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act have been waived by the Attorney General and the 
     Secretary of State under section 212(d)(4)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-
     546).

     SEC. 3. REPORT.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than two years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a 
     report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives on the feasibility of developing 
     and implementing an automated entry-exit control system that 
     would collect a record of departure for every alien departing 
     the United States and match the record of departure with the 
     record of the alien's arrival in the United States, including 
     departures and arrivals at the land borders of the United 
     States.
       (b) Contents of Report.--Such report shall--
       (1) assess the costs and feasibility of various means of 
     operating such an automated entry-exit control system, 
     including exploring--
       (A) how, if the automated entry-exit control system were 
     limited to certain aliens arriving at airports, departure 
     records of those aliens could be collected when they depart 
     through a land border or seaport; and
       (B) the feasibility of the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, negotiating 
     reciprocal agreements with the governments of contiguous 
     countries to collect such information on behalf of the United 
     States and share it in an acceptable automated format;
       (2) consider the various means of developing such a system, 
     including the use of pilot projects if appropriate, and 
     assess which means would be most appropriate in which 
     geographical regions;
       (3) evaluate how such a system could be implemented without 
     increasing border traffic congestion and border crossing 
     delays and, if any such system would increase border crossing 
     delays, evaluate to what extent such congestion or delays 
     would increase; and
       (4) estimate the length of time that would be required for 
     any such system to be developed and implemented.

     SEC. 4. INCREASED RESOURCES FOR BORDER CONTROL AND 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Increased Number of INS Inspectors at the Land 
     Borders.--The Attorney General in each of fiscal years 1998, 
     1999, and 2000 shall increase by not less than 300 the number 
     of full-time inspectors assigned to active duty at the land 
     borders of the United States by the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, above the number of such positions 
     for which funds were made available for the preceding fiscal 
     year. Not less than one-half of the inspectors added under 
     the preceding sentence in each fiscal year shall be assigned 
     to the northern border of the United States.
       (b) Increased Number of Customs Inspectors at the Land 
     Borders.--The Secretary of the Treasury in each of fiscal 
     years 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall increase by not less than 
     150 the number of full-time inspectors assigned to active 
     duty at the land borders of the United States by the Customs 
     Service, above the number of such positions for which funds 
     were made available for the preceding fiscal year. Not less 
     than one-half of the inspectors added under the preceding 
     sentence in each fiscal year shall be assigned to the 
     northern border of the United States.

  Mr. D'AMATO. I want to congratulate the chairman of the Immigration 
Subcommittee, Senator Abraham, for focusing on this issue and am 
pleased to join him and my other colleagues in putting forth this 
legislation which is aimed at correcting deficiencies that exist in the 
current law.
  Let me say I don't intend to repeat all of the arguments put forth by 
my colleagues. But I do want to point out, very clearly, there are a 
number of my colleagues who are concerned about the impact of 
implementation of this legislation.
  We were given such assurances as it related to its enforcement--that 
there was no intent to impose various requirements that would actually 
stop people from Canada who were coming in on a daily basis--millions 
of people, millions. In New York, 2.7 million Canadians visit for at 
least 1 night. One bridge, the Peace Bridge, carries 80 million 
dollars' worth of goods and services between Canada and New York, my 
State. Mr. President, 80 million dollars' worth of merchandise a day.
  It is estimated that if we impose this law that we will impose more 
time on inspections, which is now about 30 seconds per person, and make 
that at least 2 minutes a person. We will have traffic jams of 3, 4, 5 
and 6 hours. We will cost American consumers hundreds and hundreds of 
millions of dollars. We will disrupt trade. We will create an absolute 
catastrophe at our borders.
  Now, is that what we intend to do? If we really want to go after drug 
dealers, and that is what this intends to do, then let's go after them. 
We know who the cartel leaders are.
  You are going to stop millions of people on a daily basis who are 
traveling

[[Page S11681]]

back and forth between Canada and the United States? That is not going 
to affect the drug trade. Who are we kidding?
  The implementation of this would be costly because we are talking 
about $1 billion a day in trade. That is what we are talking about, $1 
billion a day.
  Senator Simpson, who was chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration 
last year, along with Congressman Lamar Smith, chairman of the House 
committee, in a letter that they wrote to the Canadian Ambassador, said 
that ``We 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, this legislation authored by Senator Abraham, and 
which I am very pleased to support, would exclude Canadians who are 
currently exempted, just like we told the Canadian Ambassador. So this 
legislation really keeps a commitment that was made to our friends, to 
our partners in Canada, and one in which I must say is absolutely vital 
to the interests of many, many communities.
  Let me mention a number of communities who have said if this 
legislation is not amended, it would be disastrous: Buffalo, NY; 
Syracuse, NY; Onondaga County; Oswego County and Plattsburgh. I have to 
tell you, they have been absolutely aghast. These are just some of the 
communities who have written to me and expressed, by either way of 
their elected officials or by the various trade groups and 
representatives, that this would be catastrophic. I believe they are 
right.
  This bill will stop problems before they are created--traffic jams 
never envisioned before, the flow of goods and services absolutely 
brought to a stop. I don't think we should wait for the problem to take 
place, nor do I think we can continue to abdicate our responsibility. 
As Senator Abraham has pointed out quite eloquently, we have not gotten 
the kind of clarification necessary that would allow the normal 
intercourse of business between our two great countries. You can't 
jeopardize people's lives, the well-being of our communities and, 
indeed, our national prosperity. I am pleased to support this bill. I 
hope we can get Senator Abraham speedy action on this. I intend to 
support Senator Abraham in every way possible and I want to commend you 
for having brought this to the attention of the U.S. Congress and 
putting forth legislation in such a thoughtful way.
  Last but not least, this legislation does something that is pretty 
important. It calls for increasing the number of Customs and INS 
inspectors and says at least half of them have to be placed on northern 
borders. While I understand that we have some tremendous problems on 
our southern borders dealing with the flow of drugs, we cannot 
underestimate the importance of continuing the process of commerce--in 
a manner which will continue to expand upon it and not impinge upon it.
  I thank my colleague from Michigan for being so forthright on this. I 
hope we can get this legislation passed sooner rather than later.
  To reiterate, I am pleased to join with the chairman of the 
Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Abraham and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Senator Kennedy, to introduce the Border Improvement and 
Immigration Act of 1997--a bill that will preserve the smooth and 
efficient trade and travel experienced between the United States and 
Canada.

  A provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act has caused enormous trepidation among businesses and 
families living along the northern border of the United States and 
Canada. Several organizations have contacted me with their concern 
about section 110 of the 1996 act--a provision that requires ``every 
alien'' to display documents upon entry to or exit from the United 
States.
  To put this problem into perspective, let me explain what 
implementation of section 110 would mean for New York State. Over 2.7 
million Canadians visit New York each year for at least 1 night, 
spending over $400 million. Last year, my State's exports to Canada 
exceeded $9.5 billion and the first 6 months of 1997 has seen a rise in 
exports. The ties between the communities are strong and must not be 
disrupted.
  The common council of the city of Plattsburgh has submitted a 
resolution indicating the threat to the strong relationship enjoyed by 
Canada and the United States--its economic, cultural, and social 
impact. The Greater Buffalo Partnership states that there are about 
5,000 trucks moving goods through the port of Buffalo every day that 
will be subject to a time intensive document production under this 
provision. They conclude that ``this provision will cause 5-hour delays 
and jeopardize every business relying on just in time deliveries.''
  This new requirement will cause unprecedented traffic jams at the 
border and chaos in the business and travel industry in northern New 
York.
  Implementation of this border restriction would be costly for both 
American and Canadian business and tourism throughout both nations. 
Nationally, trade with Canada hovers near $1 billion a day and there 
has been up to 116 million people entered the United States from Canada 
in 1996. As bilateral trade grows every year, traffic congestion and 
back ups could be expected to last hours, translating into frustration 
and lost opportunities.
  When Congress passed this law, there was no intent to impose this 
requirement on Canadians. As expressed by Senator Alan Simpson, 
chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration last year, and 
Congressman Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on 
Immigration, in a letter to the Canadian Ambassador, ``we did not 
intend to impose a new requirement for border crossing cards * * * on 
Canadians who are not presently required to possess such documents.''
  This new legislation will exclude Canadians, who are currently 
exempted from documentary requirements, from having to register every 
arrival and departure at the United States border. Because of the 
tremendous burden of enforcement on our borders, the bill also 
authorizes an increase of at least 300 INS inspectors and 150 Customs 
inspectors each year.
  There is a major problem brewing on our border with Canada. It's a 
problem that threatens vital trade and travel between our two 
countries. This bill will halt the problem, and allow our normal trade 
and tourism to continue successfully. I am proud to lead the effort to 
pass this important legislation.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, Minnesota and Michigan are two States that 
share a common border with Canada, and so I am very proud today to join 
my colleague, Senator Abraham, chairman of the Judiciary Immigration 
Subcommittee, as a cosponsor of his bill to ensure Canada will receive 
current treatment once the immigration law is implemented in 1998. 
There has been a great deal of concern, especially in Minnesota, as 
well, as to how the immigration law we passed last year will affect the 
northern U.S. border. Right now the fear is the law is being 
misinterpreted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  Minnesota alone has about 817 miles of shared border with Canada and 
we share many interests with our northern neighbor--tourism, trade, and 
family visits among the most prevalent. In the last few years, passage 
back and forth over the Minnesota/Canadian border has been more open 
and free flowing, especially since the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. There were 116 million travelers 
entering the United States from Canada in 1996 over the land border. As 
our relationship with Canada is increasingly interwoven, we have sought 
a less restrictive access to each country.
  The immigration bill last year was intended to focus on illegal 
aliens entering this country from Mexico and living in the United 
States illegally. The new law states that ``every alien'' entering and 
leaving the United States would have to register at all the borders--
land, sea, and air. The Immigration and Naturalization Service was 
tasked with the effort to set up automated pilot sites along the border 
to discover the most effective way to implement this law, which was to 
become effective on September 30, 1998.
  The INS was quietly going about establishing a pilot site on the New 
York State border when the reality sunk in. A flood of calls from 
constituents came into the offices of all of us serving in Canadian 
border states. Canadian citizens also registered opposition to this

[[Page S11682]]

new restriction. It became quite clear that no one had considered how 
the new law affected Canada. Current law already waives the document 
requirement for most Canadian nationals, but still requires certain 
citizens to register at border crossings. That system has worked. There 
have been very few problems at the northern border with drug 
trafficking and illegal aliens.
  In an effort to resolve this situation, I have joined Senators 
Abraham, D'Amato, Collins, Snowe, Burns, Jeffords, Kennedy, Leahy, 
Moynihan, and Graham of Florida in a letter asking INS Commissioner 
Meissner for her interpretation of this law and how she expects to 
implement it. We have not had a response to date, but the INS' previous 
reaction to this issue indicates that every alien would include both 
Canadian nationals and American permanent residents--everyone crossing 
the border.
  Therefore, we must make it very clear that Congress did not intend to 
impose additional documentary requirements on Canadian nationals; 
Senator Abraham's bill will restore our intent. Our legislation, the 
Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997, will not open the 
floodgates for illegal aliens to pass through--it will still require 
those who currently need documentation to continue to produce it and 
remain registered in a new INS system. This will allow the INS to keep 
track of that category of non-immigrant entering our country to ensure 
they leave when their visas expire. Senator Abraham's bill will not 
unfairly treat our friends on the Canadian side that have been deemed 
not to need documentation--they will still be able to pass freely back 
and forth across the border.
  But our bill will enable us to avoid the huge traffic jams and 
confusion which would no doubt occur if every alien was to be 
registered in and out of the United States. Such registration would 
discourage trade and visits to the United States. It would delay 
shipments of important industrial equipment, auto parts services and 
other shared ventures that have long thrived along the northern border. 
It will discourage the economic revival that northern Minnesotans are 
experiencing, helped by Canadian shoppers and tourists.
  Mr. President, I do not believe Congress intended to create this new 
mandate. We sought to keep illegal aliens and illegal drugs out, not 
our trading partners and visiting consumers. Through the Abraham bill, 
we will still do that while keeping the door open to our neighbors from 
the north. The bill is good foreign policy, good public policy and good 
economic policy. We all will benefit while retaining our ability to 
keep track of nonimmigrants who enter our borders.
  Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank Senator Abraham for 
his leadership on this very important matter. I am aware that Senator 
Abraham had a successful hearing on this issue recently in Michigan. 
Many Minnesotans, through letters, calls and personal appeals, have 
also showed their opposition to a potential crisis. I look forward to 
testifying before the Immigration Subcommittee hearing tomorrow and 
assisting my colleague from Michigan in his efforts to pass this bill 
before the 1998 implementation date. Again, this is an unacceptable 
burden on our Canadian neighbors and those who depend upon their free 
access that effects the economics of all border states.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator 
Abraham, chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, as a cosponsor of 
legislation to clarify the intent of Congress under section 110 of the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. He 
has taken up this matter to clarify the intent of Congress and I 
appreciate his efforts and those of Senator Kennedy to deal with this 
expeditiously.
  The interest of North Dakota in this bill specifically relates to the 
impact of imposing section 110 entry-exit requirements on the land 
border between Canada and North Dakota. In September, I introduced 
legislation, S. 1212, to exempt Canadian nationals from the 
requirements of section 110. Senators Conrad, Moynihan, and Levin have 
joined me in cosponsoring the bill.
  I have subsequently heard from small businesses not only in North 
Dakota, but from New York State, Michigan, and other States. They are 
very concerned that if Congress fails to take action to exempt Canadian 
nationals from the section 110 requirements it could have a devastating 
impact on their businesses.
  In 1995, Canadian visitors spent nearly $200 million in North Dakota. 
That is one in every four total tourism dollars coming into the State 
of North Dakota. Grand Forks, ND, devastated by floods last spring, is 
seeing a return of Canadian weekend visitors. The Convention and 
Visitors Bureau there tells me that without the Canadian visitors--who 
shop there, and who stay in area motels--without the Canadian visitors 
Grand Forks may never see a full economic recovery. These visitors are 
terribly important to this city trying to make a comeback.
  Ask any small business owner in northern North Dakota--or for that 
matter any northern border State. We should be talking about policies 
to encourage more Canadians to visit the United States. It is incumbent 
on the Senate and the House to act to exempt Canadian nationals from 
the requirements of section 110 and to send a signal that we welcome 
their business.
  Mr. President, I commend Senator Abraham for taking up this important 
issue at this time. I endorse the exemption of Canadian nationals from 
section 110 requirements, and I wholeheartedly support his efforts to 
authorize additional personnel for the northern border. The northern 
borders in particular have seen no growth in resources for some time 
now.
  I encourage the committee to move expeditiously to bring this bill to 
the floor. To do so will reassure small business owners and small 
communities across the northern United States that we are looking out 
for their economic interests.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support my colleague from 
Michigan, Senator Abraham, in the introduction of the Border 
Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997. This legislation will clarify 
a small provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act, specifically section 110. Section 110 requires the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop, by September 30, 
1998, an automated entry and exit control system to document the entry 
and departure of `every alien' arriving in and leaving the United 
States.
  This section, if not amended, would pose great hardship to Montana, 
and to most border States. The current procedure allows Canadians to 
cross the United States-Canadian border without requiring them to 
present a passport, visa, or border-crossing identification card. This 
assists our communities, on both sides of the border, to expand their 
economic growth. A large portion of our economic life is derived from 
the business we have that comes from Canada, whether it be from travel, 
tourism, or regular trade. 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. If not amended, this 
could drop dramatically.
  Congress did not intend to cause such a disruption of service when it 
passed the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Section 
110 was principally designed to make the current entry-exist control 
system automated--so that the system would function better; it was not 
intended to expand documentary requirements and bureaucracy. This 
legislation will take the steps needed to insure that the law is read 
properly. This bill would require that the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service to develop an automated entry-exit control 
system would not apply at the land borders, to U.S. lawful permanent 
residents or to any nationals of foreign contiguous territory from whom 
the Attorney General and the Secretary of State have already waived 
visa requirements.
  Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will review this bill and 
understand the merits that it provides, not only for our border States, 
but also for the Nation. I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to ensure its swift passage.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
The Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997. This bill will 
ensure that Canadians and United States permanent residents are treated 
fairly and

[[Page S11683]]

appropriately and that the United States and Canada's long and friendly 
relationship regarding immigration issues is preserved.
  We must preserve the integrity of our open border and ensure that no 
undue hassle, inconvenience, or burden is placed upon those who cross 
the United States-Canada border. Vermont and Canada share many 
traditions, and one that we all value is the free flow of trade and 
tourism. Ours is the longest open border in the world, and we should do 
nothing to change or endanger that relationship. On Vermont's border 
with Canada, commerce, tourism and other exchanges across the border 
are part of our way of life. A general store in Norton, VT, on the 
border has the separate cash registers at either end of the shop.
  The Border Improvement Act will preserve the status quo for Canadians 
and Americans crossing the United States' northern border. It will 
ensure that tourists and trade continue to be able to freely cross the 
border, without additional documentation requirements. This bill will 
also guarantee that the over $1 billion in daily cross-border trade is 
not hindered in any way. The Border Improvement Act takes a more 
thoughtful approach to modifying U.S. immigration policies than last 
year's bill, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act [IIRIRA]. By requiring the Attorney General to 
thoroughly assess the potential cost and impact before implementing any 
sort of automated entry-exit monitoring system on the Nation's land 
borders, this bill ensures that any such system will be well planned 
and implemented. Finally, the Border Improvement Act will ensure 
adequate staffing on the northern border by requiring a substantial 
increase in the number of INS and Customs agents assigned to this 
region over the next 3 years.
  I am particularly pleased to see that this bill has clear bipartisan 
support. Last year, I worked closely with Senator Abraham to quash 
another ill-conceived proposed addition to the immigration bill--the 
implementation of border-crossing fees. We successfully defeated the 
fee proposal last year, but only after much debate and negotiation.
  Unfortunately, we did not have the same opportunity to debate fully 
the provision in section 110 of the IIRIRA which mandates that the INS 
develop an automated entry and exit control system to track the arrival 
and departure of all aliens at all borders by next October.
  The current language in section 110 of the IIRIRA, as agreed to in 
last would have a significant negative impact on trade and relations 
between the United States and Canada. By requiring an automated system 
for monitoring the entry and exit of all aliens, this provision would 
require that the INS and Customs agents stop each vehicle or individual 
entering or exiting the United States at all ports of entry. Canadians, 
United States permanent residents and many others who are not currently 
required to show documentation of their status would either have to 
carry some form of identification or fill out paperwork at the points 
of entry. This sort of tracking system would be enormously costly to 
implement along the northern border, especially since there is no 
current system or infrastructure to track the departure of citizens and 
others leaving the United States. Section 110, as currently worded, 
would also lead to excessive and costly traffic delays for those living 
and working near the border. These delays would surely have a negative 
impact on the $2.4 billion in goods and services shipped annually from 
Vermont to Canada and would likely reduce the $120 million per year 
which Canadians spend in Vermont.
  This legislation has been crafted with input from the INS and 
representatives of the Canadian Government. By including the 
administration and our northern neighbor in the discussions, Senators 
Abraham and Kennedy have developed a remedy which is sure to be 
implemented smoothly. My cosponsorship of this bill reflects my ongoing 
concern about the negative impact the implementation of the current 
language in section 110 of the IIRIRA would have on the economy in my 
home State of Vermont, as well as in the other northern border States. 
While this remedy was being negotiated, I cosponsored an amendment on 
the floor and sent letters to Attorney General Reno and INS 
Commissioner Meissner requesting that a study be undertaken before any 
sort of automated entry-exit monitoring system be implemented. I am 
pleased that this bill has a similar provision. But, the Border 
Improvement Act goes one step further to protect our Canadian 
neighbors' rights to freely cross the border into the United States 
without facing needless traffic delays or unnecessary paperwork 
requirements.
  I am pleased that Senator Abraham has called a hearing tomorrow to 
discuss this bill and the negative impact the current law would have in 
so many of our States. At the hearing, we will hear the testimony of 
Bill Stenger, the president of the Jay Peak Ski Resort in Vermont which 
is situated only a few miles from the Canadian border. Mr. Stenger will 
testify to the disastrous effect any increased documentation 
requirements for Canadians would have on his business, and so many 
other United States businesses which are dependent on the preservation 
of free trade and travel across the Canadian border.
                                 ______