[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10568-H10574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996
AMENDMENT
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 2920) to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to modify the requirements for
implementation of an entry-exit control system.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2920
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SEC. 1 MODIFICATION OF ENTRY-EXIT CONTROL SYSTEM.
Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), strike ``Act,'' and insert ``Act (and not later than 3
years after the date of the enactment of this Act in the case
of land border points of entry),'';
(2) in subsection (a)(1), strike ``and'' at the end;
(3) in subsection (a)(2), strike the period at the end and
insert ``; and'';
(4) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
``(3) not significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other
legitimate cross-border traffic at land border points of
entry.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 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 Members
have 5 legislative days in which 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, Congress has required the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to develop and implement a system to track the entry and exits
of those crossing our borders. The purpose of this bill is to make sure
that such a system will not substantially impede trade or traffic
across our borders, both northern and southern.
The intent is, first, to set a reasonable time frame for the
development and implementation of an exit/entry system and, second, to
reaffirm that it is the policy of this Congress that such a system is
to be developed so that, upon implementation, it will not substantially
impede trade or border crossings.
Understandably, this matter may be of particular concern to those
States along our northern border. Unlike the southern border, there are
relatively few northern border entry points and they already are
congested by high volumes of traffic frequently using one- and two-lane
highways and bridges. Any further slowdown in the flow of such traffic
could be seen as hurting the economies of many States, especially New
York, Michigan, and Washington State, but also Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Maine, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and New
Hampshire.
States along our southern border, where 2\1/2\ times as many
individuals were inspected than were along our northern border in
fiscal year 1997, are more experienced in addressing these kinds of
problems. For instance, today in San Diego thousands drove across the
border and were monitored electronically. Some entry points on our
southern border have as many as 23 lanes to speed traffic.
Increased trade with Mexico has spurred investments in the
construction of major new crossings elsewhere. What this bill does is
reassure all Americans and our neighbors both to the north and to the
south that, as the United States exercises its right to control its
borders, it is also committed to facilitating trade.
We should expand our Nation's capacities to trade with our neighbors
as well as facilitate the lawful crossing of citizens on both sides of
our borders. Unfortunately, many people enter our country along our
northern and southern borders legally but, wrongfully, never return
home. Forty percent of the estimated 5 million illegal aliens in the
country today entered in such a manner, overstaying their visas.
The United States needs to develop an entry-exit system to fairly and
effectively address these illegal overstays, but we must do so in a
manner that does not significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other
legitimate cross-border traffic.
Some may suggest this bill would set a different standard for people
crossing our northern border. Any such suggestion is contradicted by
the facts. This bill treats our southern and northern borders exactly
the same. It makes no distinction.
Again, this bill is an affirmation of two important national
policies; one, that we have a right and duty to control our borders;
and, two, that it is in the best interest of the United States and our
neighbors both to the north and south to act so as to facilitate trade
and border crossings.
Our task in the House today is to ensure that border crossings will
not be substantially impeded while we also protect the Nation's
interest in being able to control our borders. And that is exactly what
this bill does.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], the ranking minority
member.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
2920.
As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims,
I have had the opportunity this year to learn a great deal about
America's borders and the importance of securing the borders against
illegal immigration, narcotic, and alien smugglers, and potential
terrorists. Because of this, I have supported efforts by the chairman
of our subcommittee to increase security along the southwest border of
the United States.
Because of the success along the southwest border, pressure has
increased along the northern border. I recognize that there is a long
tradition of openness between the United States and Canada along the
northern border, but times are changing, and I believe our policies
must adjust to reflect these changes.
[[Page H10569]]
There have been numerous incidents of alien smugglers bringing in
hundreds of illegal immigrants across the border between Ontario and
upstate New York. One of the terrorists on trial for participating in
the conspiracy to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel in New York entered the
United States from Canada. The Canadian border must be as secure as the
southern border. Otherwise, we might as well put a neon light over the
Canadian border inviting immigrants to come across it with impunity.
Section 110 provides that by October 1, 1998, the Attorney General
will develop an automated entry and exit control system that will
collect a record of departure of every alien departing the United
States and match the records of departure with the records of aliens
arriving in the United States. This would enable the Attorney General
to identify folks who are overstaying their visas or staying in the
country illegally.
In fairness, the language of this bill is neutral on its face and
makes no direct reference to Canada. Make no mistake about it, however;
this bill is about treating Canada and the northern border differently
from Mexico and the southern border.
There are already stringent entry control systems in place along the
southwest border. Because the INS has a record of every entry from
Mexico, it is able to determine when someone entered the United States
and whether they overstayed or violated the terms of that entry. This
is not the case along the Canadian border.
Crossing into the United States from Canada is not unlike driving
through a toll booth. Passengers answer some routine questions, and if
they are citizens or legal permanent residents of either Canada or the
United States, they are flagged through. Once in the United States,
Canadians are virtually indistinguishable from other Americans. Perhaps
that is why Canada ranks fourth as the source country for illegal
immigrants in the United States.
There are at least 120,000 Canadians working illegally in the United
States, and none of these people entered the country illegally. Nearly
half of all the illegal immigrants in the United States overstaying the
terms of their valid tourist or student visa came in through the
Canadian border. Overstaying or violating the terms of valid visas is
the illegal immigration method of choice for Canadian, Europeans, and
others who know that the INS will never find them.
Section 110 of the illegal immigration reform bill was specifically
designed to give the INS the tools to combat this problem. If my
colleagues are truly committed to combating illegal immigration in all
its forms, if my colleagues want an immigration policy that does not
distinguish between white Canadians and colored Mexicans, then we must
enforce the laws on an equal basis and do it in a racially color-blind
way.
I think this bill does not support that proposition, and I rise in
opposition to the bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Smith] for yielding me the time.
I really am sorry that this bill is being characterized as dealing
with only one of our borders. And I really am upset with the
Congressional Quarterly, which put out a publication this morning here
which said ``U.S.-Canadian border controls,'' and it talks about our
legislation.
Well, our legislation is sponsored by Members from all of the borders
from all over the country. It is not just, sure, I am concerned about
it because it deals with New York State. But my colleagues ought to, I
think, listen carefully to the debate.
Last year, Congress did pass legislation which would require the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to document the entry and
departure of every alien in the United States beginning no later than
September 30, 1998. That is really just around the corner when we start
talking about putting in this kind of a program.
This legislation, with the best of intentions, was designed to
prevent visa overstays and control the flow of illegal immigrants and
the transmission of illegal drugs, terrorism, and other things. The
problem is that this legislation, as it is currently drafted, could
have a devastating effect on commerce, on tourism, along the Texas
border, the California border, and all across all of the borders across
the northern United States, on both sides of the borders.
{time} 2345
In New York State, we have many, many corporations that have
corporations right across the border, and many United States citizens,
New Yorkers, live in New York and work in Canada. There are many other
corporations who have the same businesses in both countries and they
have Canadian citizens that come across the border daily. Many of them
are nurses and doctors, of which we have a real shortage in northern
New York, for jobs.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. McHUGH. The gentleman made mention of treating the two borders
differently and I think that is an important fact. It is my
understanding that this bill treats both borders equally, that the
delay applies equally to both borders. So I would suggest to the
gentleman that is not an issue in this particular context.
Mr. SOLOMON. Let me just say that this bill is simple. It delays the
implementation of the exit and entry control system until 1999. It will
take that long to implement the system, anyway, even if we were to let
it go ahead.
In addition, it adds statutory language which specifically requires,
and I think this is what we need to listen to, because this affects
American jobs, this adds statutory language which specifically requires
that any automated system, implemented by the INS, will not disrupt
trade, tourism or any other legitimate border crossing traffic.
Mr. Speaker, the value of trade crossing on all our borders is
immense. For instance, direct trade between New York State and Canada
totaled $24 billion last year alone. I could go on and on. In New York
State, many merchants and communities along the Canadian border owe at
least 50 percent of their business to Canadian visitors. The same thing
is true in Texas and in California. I hope my colleagues can support
the legislation. It is very important to us.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. LaFalce].
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, first, I strongly support this bill,
although the bill does not go far enough. I support it in the hope that
we can go further within conference with the Senate. Why does the bill
not go far enough? Because it simply delays the effective date with
respect to land borders from September 30, 1998 to September 30, 1999.
The Clinton administration has said to this Congress section 110 cannot
be enforced. The Clinton administration has said to this Congress with
respect to land borders, repeal section 110 because it cannot be
implemented. They have submitted legislation to this Congress calling
for its repeal, and all we are doing in this bill is delaying the
effective date for one year. The Clinton administration says it cannot
be enforced, repeal it with respect to land borders.
Mr. Speaker, I have introduced some other bills. In September I
introduced H.R. 2481. Yesterday I introduced a companion bill to
Senator Abraham's bill, H.R. 2955. I believe that the bill that Senator
Abraham has introduced in the United States Senate, to which a few
dozen of us cosponsored yesterday, is the more appropriate approach.
I am not an expert on the Mexican border. I consider myself an expert
on the Canadian border, however. When I was a young boy, I lived
perhaps two blocks away from the Peace Bridge going from the United
States to Canada and vice versa. That is where I played baseball, that
is where I learned how to swim, play tennis. We used to walk across the
Peace Bridge to Canada, to go swimming, to go fishing as easily as one
would go from Virginia to Maryland to the District of Columbia, as
easily as one would go from North Carolina to South Carolina. We pride
ourselves on a shared border, on an
[[Page H10570]]
open border. Do not regress in history. Do not turn aside 200 years of
history and build a wall around the United States. Do not say to
individuals, before you can leave the United States, we must document
each and every person leaving the United States. We have never done
that before, we ought not to do it now. At the very least, delay its
implementation until September 30, 1999 rather than September 30, 1998,
when cooler heads might be able to prevail.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. I have some concerns about H.R.
2920 that have been raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
LaFalce]. I do believe that section 110 of this immigration reform bill
does require some revision, or some study.
As a Representative from Michigan, a State which shares a wide border
with Canada, I have strong concerns about the impact that section 110
may have on States all across the northern border. Implementation of
this system would slow commerce to a virtual standstill. Let me give
Members an example in my State of Michigan. For example, in Detroit
alone, in Port Huron, some 30,000 motorists, actually more than that,
30,000, at the Ambassador Bridge alone cross daily. In fact, the
President of the International Bridge Company has testified that that
could result in backups, delays, and I am talking about people that
work on both sides of the river, both sides, it would back up traffic
perhaps halfway to Flint, Michigan, 40 or 50 miles, and on the Canadian
side even further. In particular, this system would cripple the
automotive industry and the local economy which, as Members, know
depends upon just in time deliveries.
What I would like to do, if I could, I wanted to enter into a
colloquy with the gentleman to make a determination, and I think the
way the bill reads right now is that border crossings will not be
substantially impeded. We have a great deal at risk here. I wanted to
get the gentleman's assurance that that would be the case.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. The gentleman is correct. The language in this
bill is mandatory and says that the entry-exit system shall not
significantly disrupt trade, tourism or other legitimate cross border
traffic. I believe the bill will do exactly what the gentleman would
like to see done.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. If I could reclaim my time, I would like to just say
that I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] has an idea that
is shared by a number of others. We want to do what obviously is best.
We have some time now to do that. I thank the gentleman for making a
clarification.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
To the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the
subcommittee, we never had hearings on this. This was introduced up in
the Committee on Rules and shot through here like a bullet. This is a
very important subject. Does the gentleman have any idea why we did
not? It is our committee. It is the gentleman's subcommittee. We never
had hearings. I guess that does not matter.
Now he comes here in the middle of the night telling us this is a
very critical matter. We have all kind of hearings all year long on
everything in the gentleman's subcommittee. I, for one, if I have any
sympathies for this measure, do not like the process that it was
carried on in.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2920, providing for a 1-year
delay in section 110 of last year's immigration bill (requiring a
border card on the Canadian and Mexican borders).
No Member is more concerned about the potential problems caused by
section 110 than I am. We can see Windsor, Canada from my district.
Last year United States trade with Canada was over $355 billion making
it the largest exchange between any two countries in the world. Of that
figure, 57 billion dollars worth of goods were traded with Michigan--
giving it a larger share of trade with Canada than any other State. The
State Department has stated, ``Section 110 represents a serious speed
bump on the continued expansion of our economic relationships--one
which could literally cause traffic across our northern land border to
slow to a crawl.''
However, H.R. 2920 is the wrong fix at the wrong time. This is a
difficult problem which involves sensitive and complex issues
concerning trade, drug running, tourism, and illegal immigration. Yet,
the bill comes to this floor without the benefit of any committee
hearings, debate, or report.
The bill is strongly opposed by the Canadian Government. They have
written:
In a nutshell, Canada opposes the bill because it would
only postpone a problem that really needs to be eliminated .
. . under the present circumstances, the best course of
action would be to refer H.R. 2920 to Committee, in order for
it to be properly debated before being brought before the
full House for a vote.
From my perspective, there are far preferable approaches available.
The Senate has already conducted two hearings on the issue and Senator
Abraham has introduced legislation (S. 1360) which provides for a full
exemption from the land border crossing requirements while we study the
problems of implementing this vast new bureaucracy. A counterpart bill
(H.R. 2955) has been introduced in the House which is supported by the
administration.
In order to consider these and other responses, we need to vote this
bill down today, so we can look at this issue in the Judiciary
Committee with more than 24 hours notice.
H.R. 2920 is a ``Band-Aid quick fix'' which does not provide the
proper solution for our border control concerns. Section 110 is not
scheduled to be implemented until October 1998. We have plenty of time
to hold committee hearings and develop a practical bipartisan solution
to this problem.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I just want to mention that I know this legislation is approved
also by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the
committee. I think this is critical. I am glad that we are acting,
because the implementation date of September 30, 1998 could cause
tremendous disruption in Michigan, not only to tourist traffic but to
trade and to our economy. I think this new statutory requirement that
this automated system will be delayed until 1999, and it will not
disrupt trade, tourism or other legitimate cross border traffic is a
good thing. I strongly support the bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I just find it very amazing that all of
these representations are being said about what disruption is going to
happen on the Canadian border as if the same disruptions do not happen
on the southeastern border and the southern border. There is absolutely
no distinction between the northern border and the southern border. The
same arguments that apply on the northern border apply on the southern
border. All these people are talking about, well, 50 years ago I used
to play on the Canadian border. Fifty years ago we all used to keep our
doors unlocked at night. But nobody does that now. We have turned up
the pressure on the southern border and people are going around, coming
in the northern border as if it is a sieve. It was the Republicans who
kept telling us last year that we had to secure our borders. Now they
are back making exception after exception after exception.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SOLOMON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Everett]. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am confused about who is managing the
time on that side of the aisle. I have heard the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] yield time, but then I am told that the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has the time. Who is managing
the time on that side of the aisle? And how much time is remaining on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is
managing the time for the minority.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
has 10\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]
has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. McHugh].
[[Page H10571]]
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McHugh was allowed to speak out of order.)
Request for Authority for Speaker to Designate Time for Resumption of
Proceedings on Remaining Motions to Suspend Rules Considered Monday,
September 29, 1997
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be
authorized to designate a time not later than the legislative day of
November 14, 1997, for resumption of proceedings on the seven remaining
motions to suspend the rules originally debated on September 29, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, I am afraid I did not understand what the gentleman was doing
in the midst of the debate on this bill. Would the gentleman restate
what he is doing?
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am informed
that the unanimous-consent request had already been agreed to and I was
reading the text of that into the Record.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. There cannot be a unanimous consent that
is agreed to if he is asking unanimous consent on the floor.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to
object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]
has reserved the right to object.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the unanimous consent request,
and I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
{time} 0000
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, evidently my good friend, the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], and he is a good friend, did not hear
my testimony earlier. I spoke about the borders of California, about
the borders of Texas.
As my colleagues know, we are talking about all of the borders of
this land. This legislation affects the borders on California, the
borders on Texas, the borders on all across the northern part of the
country. They are all affected the same, and we should not be trying to
mislead, and I thank the gentleman from New York for having yielded me
the time.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I would just add to my friend, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], he asked why have we not had any hearings,
and I think that is an appropriate point. I would suggest to him that
this arose very quickly because very quickly the Immigration and
Naturalization Service came to us in my office and said, ``By the way
you will be the lucky recipient of a test program.'' We felt that that
had not had hearings. That indeed had not been an issue discussed, and
I would suggest to the gentleman that the entire point behind delaying
the implementation of this bill for years was to provide the gentleman
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and others who have a direct
and very understandable interest in this with the opportunity to have
the hearings, and therefore I believe we should support this for the
very reasons he stated.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Now there is no urgency on this bill. This is not an appropriation.
This is not anything. It has not had a hearing, and here we are at
midnight and one of the last days of the first session of the 105th
Congress talking about a 1-year extension. We had plenty of time to
hold all the hearings in the world in the Committee on the Judiciary,
which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] has never held on this
subject. Now the Senate has held hearings on this subject, and by the
way, the other body has no inclination whatsoever, whatsoever to pass
this measure.
So what I am saying is that the best reason to be against this
measure is that we do not understand its import and we are not in any
rush. This measure does not expire until October 1998.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
I do not want to get caught in the crossfire of who had or did not
have hearings, but there is some urgency to this matter, and it is very
uncomplicated.
Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for this immigration bill to begin with
because I thought it was going to have many of the problems that have
come up because it is so complicated, and the border between the United
States and Canada is one of the most complex. It is also the longest
open, free, unguarded border in the entire world. Every day a billion
dollars in goods and services cross the border from Canada to the
United States and back and forth.
In an era of just-in-time delivery of goods, it is extremely
important that we have a smooth flow across the U.S.-Canada border for
that billion dollars daily of economic activity to survive. But with
this legislation the more than 76 million people who enter the United
States by land from Canada are going to line up, be checked in, have
long waiting lines.
And let me just tell, my colleagues, what happens from the
International Falls Daily Journal newspaper, the northern border of my
district, a place that most of my colleagues will recognize as the cold
spot of America. Right across the water is Fort Francis, Canada. Mark
Elliot crosses the International Bridge of the United States nearly
every day to visit his girlfriend in International Falls. Crossing
between these countries normally takes very little time because he is
such a familiar face, he and many other residents. But a law scheduled
to take effect in 1998 will make his visits more difficult.
That is what it is all about. It comes down to one human being. This
is a border control, this is an entry/departure control measure, it is
not an inspection requirement. It is going to build up complexity
between our two countries. It is going to build up complexity between
the United States and Mexico. The amendment that we are considering
tonight applies to both borders, will resolve these complexities.
I do not address the United States-Mexico situation because I do not
live there, and I do not understand that problem, but I do understand
United States-Canada, and for every individual to have to have an entry
or departure control document is going to, for those 76 million
crossings, is going to be extraordinarily complex. I can imagine it
would be even worse on the United States-Mexican border.
It is not difficult to understand the problem. This is a very simple
fix of 1 year delay. Give us time to adjust, to think out, what this
language means. We should not have passed that bill in the first place,
but having passed it, this mistake ought to be corrected.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
To the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], my ranking member on
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, my best friend, No.
1, that guy with the girlfriend in Canada, one of them ought to move.
No. 2, the Canadian Government, not that we give a hoot about their
opinion, is totally opposed to what we are doing, not that that
matters.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Reyes].
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me, and now I can perhaps give some personal perspective to what is
being discussed here this evening in the hypothetical, although I will
tell my colleagues that hearing some of the impassioned reasons like
trade, commerce, long waiting lines, tourism, congestion; as my
colleagues know, they are discussing Canada, but they are describing
the southern border with Mexico, and my good friend, the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], made mention that perhaps this bill should
never have been passed.
Well, absolutely there were a lot of things that were passed in this
House before I was able to be here that should not have been passed.
There were a lot of things that we are going to have to go back and
address because they are simply not fair, and what we are doing here
this evening is simply not fair.
And I can tell my colleagues as a ex-immigration officer, as an ex-
border patrol chief, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is
absolutely correct. If we shut down the southern border, guess where
they are going to smuggle from? Guess where intelligence today tells
the United States
[[Page H10572]]
Border Patrol, the United States Customs, the United States Immigration
Service, the United States Secret Service, guess where the focus of
entry is? Guess where the only documented cases of entries into this
country for terrorism have come through? It has not been through
Mexico, because, no, we have been pretty darn tough on Mexico. It has
been through the Canadian border, because, as several of my colleagues
have said, heck, we have an open border up there.
I grew up there. I played baseball. I went back and forth. There is a
gentleman that has got a girlfriend and goes back and forth. Well,
guess what? Those same things could describe the relationship between
Texans and Mexico, between New Mexicans and Mexico, between Arizona and
Mexico, between southern California and Mexico. All of those things are
appropriate, all of those things apply to the southern border of the
United States as well.
And my point here tonight is that this issue is about fairness. This
issue is about listening to ourselves as we make these arguments in
some inane way where the people on the southern border cannot
understand us. First my colleagues want to be tough, then they want to
be not so tough on the northern border. Well, my colleagues, it does
not work that way. It does not work that way because the men and women
that enforce the laws of this country, myself included for 26\1/2\
years, are impartial. We do not want to enforce one law on the southern
border and another law on the northern border. We do not want to treat
Canadians one way and Mexicans a different way.
Let us get a grip. If we want to be fair, if this country is going to
remain the beacon of fairness, the beacon of liberty, the beacon of
opportunity, then for God's sake let us do the right thing and let us
apply the law equally on the northern border as it is on the southern
border.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to respond to the concern of
the gentleman and others who have spoken about shifting of drug
trafficking from one border to another. I tell my colleagues we have
got a wilderness border between the United States and Canada in my
district, and the timberwolves will get them before anybody else gets
across that border, believe me. There is no trafficking across that
border.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
There is not any trafficking across that part of the northern border,
but there is plenty of drugs increasingly coming in at the northern
border.
And one more thing, my colleagues. This bill is being represented as
a temporary fix. What the real deal is is that it is going to be
permanent, and we will never get to the hearings on the bill that
everybody is for or against it. It never had hearings.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of my good friend, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], earlier tonight. When my other
dear friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], talks about
the fact that there is absolutely no distinction between these two
borders, we are simply coming here tonight to tell our colleagues in a
very calm, experienced way that we think there might be some
distinctions, and we would like to share some of those differences with
our colleagues if we see some. My other friend from Texas says that
they are all the same, and I would suggest to him that this is exactly
the reason we want to try to treat them the same.
Now, we had an opportunity tonight to hear about statistics and
numbers and the amount of trade and the tourism that goes back and
forth between at least the border that we know best, the Canadian
border. I would like to suggest to the rest of my colleagues as we look
at 2920 that there is also the people that are involved here entering
into that equation.
When my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], talks
about his knowledge and experience in the Buffalo area at the Peace
Bridge, I want to add to that my own experience, and it is not ancient
history, colleagues, it is not something that happened 50 years ago or
60 years ago, it is happening today. It is happening right now, and it
is happening with young people, experienced people, whether it is
drivers, whether it happens to be jobs, it is happening now.
And all we are suggesting to our colleagues is that we would like the
time that 2920 suggests to have some of the hearing and some of the
time that has been talked about, but we are not just trying to tell our
colleagues that we are telling someone else what they should do. We
have some experiences there, we know what is happening at that border,
and we are suggesting to our colleagues that if this plan is
implemented now, it will be disastrous to affect not only trade, not
only jobs, not only commerce, all the good things my friend from Texas
talked about, but also affecting people's everyday lives.
And it is not political, and it is not Democrat, or it is not
Republican. We have got people from both parties here trying to add
some intelligence to the discussion.
{time} 0015
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, we need experts like that to testify at a hearing. You
know, we are at midnight talking about all the experts on immigration
at the northern border, and we have not had one hearing on this whole
thing. I suggest this suspension be turned back and that the Committee
on the Judiciary do its job.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we screw up, and when we do, we
need to take steps to fix it. When we passed the illegal immigration
reform bill, that put on to the INS the requirement to develop a system
for documenting every alien entering and leaving this country by
October of 1998. We put in place a system that could not work, that
will not work, and that threatens commerce on both borders.
This is about delaying the effective date of that one year, and I
believe we will even have to take additional steps, as outlined by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] and others.
Let me just show you North Dakota. I represent this State. It is a
State that shares one of the longest borders with Canada in the entire
country. It is absolutely vital to our commerce, more than $50 million
of commerce to North Dakota coming back and forth every year, 2 million
border crossings in North Dakota alone.
This has not been a problem. What the people back home cannot
understand is, when Congress makes a mistake, we all make mistakes, but
why can we not fix the mistake before people get hurt?
I have got letters here from small businesses all across the State of
North Dakota. Now, they are not involved in any of the high stakes and
the high rhetoric about the immigration reform. All they know is, they
need the daily flow of commerce like they have had it.
Please, please, do not hurt North Dakota's economy on a mistake that
we did last year. Let us fix this mistake, or at least delay the
implementation 1 year. Please pass this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Bilbray].
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides to listen
to the discussion. I heard my colleague talk about when the borders
used to be open in Canada. I remember walking up and down the beaches
along the Mexican border all the time. We do it today.
But this debate is really showing that we need to have internal
enforcement. Do not try to do it all at the border. I do not care if it
is in my neighborhood, that of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] and
mine with Mexico, or Canada.
I call on everyone saying that they want to see the good things
continue to go across the border and to stop the bad things; let us
finally sit down and work on internal enforcement. Do not try to do it
all on the borders or all in the Canada neighborhoods or in the Mexico
neighborhoods of those of us who live next door to it.
Let us get together and say all of America should be participating in
controlling illegal immigration. Not
[[Page H10573]]
just those of us on the frontier who just happen to live along the
border, but all Americans should join in this. Let us take this debate
and accept that there is a problem here and in Mexico. Back and forth,
we need to have a check system. In Canada we need it. But we also need
a check system on every employer and every social program in America.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Maine.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Pease]. The gentleman from Maine [Mr.
Baldacci] is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am almost hesitant to wade into this discussion going
on, but I feel I must, especially since Maine does border Canada and we
have been very deeply involved in this.
This is a very technical matter. It is a technical correction that is
being offered, and it is something that is not a fight between the
Mexican border or the Canadian border. Unfortunately, Section 110
overlooks the history and tradition of the longest peaceful border in
the world, and that is shared northern borders with Canada.
For decades, most Canadian nationals have been exempt from
registering with the I-94 documentation for entry into the United
States. In 1996, more than 116 million people entered the United States
by land from Canada, and 76 million more were Canadian nationals or
U.S. permanent residents. Imposing a registration requirement on
Canadians who otherwise are not required to possess a visa or passport
will cause traffic tie-ups of chaotic proportions.
All this bill purports to do is, it purports to delay the
implementation of the requirements on both borders. It is a technical
correction.
Mr. WATT or North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BALDACCI. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, people
keep saying that. Understand, the Mexican border, the entry system is
already in place. So this notion that we are delaying and it is just
applying to equally is just not true.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this bill is a
technical bill that only delays the implementation on both borders. It
does not show a preference on one border or the other. It delays the
implementation of the rule on both borders, so it is not showing
preference. This is very badly needed because of the interests,
especially of what we are talking about, because the Canadian
Government does not only support moving in this direction, but they
want to do it permanently. They are not in opposition to the direction,
they just would like to have more instead of less.
We are 99.9 percent problem-free. We have an agreement between the
United States and Canada that was a border agreement accord which was
the framework of the border inspections.
I urge Members to support this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to appeal to the distinguished
subcommittee chairman to consider withdrawing this bill. It is clear we
need hearings. The smart thing for us to do at 12:20 in the morning is
to take this thing back to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it has
never been.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the chairman in the beginning of this
debate that said that this country has the right and the duty to
control our borders. Well, if we pass H.R. 2920, we will be asserting
our right but we will be ignoring our duty.
You see, back in 1996, just a year ago, we passed a law that said
that we must inspect our borders, both in terms of people entering and
people leaving. For Mexico, last year we imposed that entry check, so
anyone coming into this country from our southern border right now must
go through this entry check.
It was not until this year, a year later, that the exit check for
both Mexico and Canada was to take effect, along with the entry check
for Canada, which did not take effect when the entry check for Mexico
took place. Only now is that entry check now going to take effect in
Canada.
But where was the outrage about the disruption to commerce, to
tourism, to family ties, when we imposed the entry check on the U.S.-
Mexico border? Now we hear the outrage. The same thing applies, but it
is different treatment. What people are saying today is, if it was good
enough for one part of the border, it is good enough for the rest of
the borders.
What we have to understand is, what we do today if we pass this bill
is say we are allowing and willing to allow people to come into this
country, overstay their visas, and become undocumented individuals in
this country.
Understand, there are people that cross through all parts of our
border. If you vote for this bill, you are saying you are willing to
allow people to overstay and become, as many of you term it, ``illegal
aliens.'' So understand, do not make any mistake about it, this is not
to just conform the law, this is not to try to take care of disruption
for commerce and family, this is an attempt to try to withhold the
function of the law, the application of the law, for one place but not
for others. If it is fair for one place, it should be fair for all the
others.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Conyers] has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say my friend from California has, I believe,
made a statement that was inaccurate. The point of this bill, H.R.
2920, is not to eliminate an entry-exit system but simply to make the
system more workable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
LaFalce].
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to reiterate one
point: That is, the Clinton administration favors repeal of section 110
with respect to land borders. The Canadian Government favors repeal
also. This bill does not call for repeal; it calls for a 1-year
additional delay.
I also want to thank the distinguished ranking Democrat on the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers],
for, number one, being an original cosponsor of the bill, H.R. 2481,
repealing it; for being an original cosponsor of H.R. 2955, repealing
it; for having testified before Senator Abraham's hearing in Detroit
respecting it; and for indicating at that time that when the technical
corrections bill is taken up in the Committee on the Judiciary, he
would offer an amendment to the technical corrections bill seeking
repeal of section 110 with respect to land borders.
Until we get to that point though, let us delay its effective date
for 1 year.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, this issue is very critical to my district.
I have the second largest traffic in the whole country, I believe, from
the Blaine border crossing. It is very critical, very important. I
believe this is a technical correction, and it is just very vital.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 2920. It
will do two things: It will facilitate trade, and it will protect our
borders. Most importantly of all, it has one fair standard for both
borders, north and south.
Mr. Speaker, it will affirm America's commitment to facilitate lawful
trade and border crossings with our northern and southern neighbors and
also support development of a workable, and I emphasize the word
``workable,'' border entry-exit system for all our borders.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2920,
introduced by my colleague from New York, Mr. Solomon. H.R. 2920 would
delay the implementation of Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (P.L. 104-
[[Page H10574]]
208) at land-based border entry ports from October 1, 1998, to October
1, 1999. Section 110 requires the Immigration and Naturalization
Service [INS] to implement an entry-exit system at all entry points to
the U.S. H.R 2920 would still require the INS to implement an entry-
exit system at U.S. airports and seaports by October 1, 1998, and would
also require the INS to implement Section 110 in such a way that would
not significantly disrupt or impeded trade or tourism.
I was a proud supporter of immigration reform last year, and believe
that an entry-exit system should be an integral part of U.S. efforts to
address illegal immigration. However, I believe Congress should provide
the INS additional time to implement Section 110 at land-based border
entry points. There are simply too many land-based entry points into
the U.S., six in my district, for the INS to implement an entry-entry
system by the end of next year. Allowing the INS to first implement an
entry-exit system at U.S. airports and seaports should give the INS
additional time to implement an entry-exit system in such a way that
would not cause unnecessary delays at border crossing. Mr. Speaker,
there have been numerous legislative proposals to address concern about
Section 110, and I have been supportive of legislative corrections to
Section 110. It is possible that Congress will pass such corrective
legislation next year, but I believe this is too important an issue to
leave unresolved until then. I thank my colleague from New York for
introducing his bill at this time, and ask my colleagues to support
H.R. 2920.
Mr. McHugh. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 2920.
The question was taken.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. 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. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 325,
nays 90, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 627]
YEAS--325
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berman
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--90
Abercrombie
Baesler
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Deal
Dellums
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frost
Green
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (RI)
Kleczka
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Martinez
Matsui
McKinney
Meek
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Sherman
Skeen
Skelton
Snyder
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wynn
NOT VOTING--18
Boucher
Burton
Cubin
Dingell
Ewing
Flake
Foglietta
Gonzalez
Johnson, Sam
Klug
Largent
McCrery
McDermott
Norwood
Riley
Roukema
Schiff
Yates
{time} 0055
Messrs. WYNN, TORRES, ABERCROMBIE, LoBIONDO, SHADEGG, BOB SCHAFFER of
Colorado, SCARBOROUGH, and SHERMAN changed their vote from ``yeas'' to
``nays.''
Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. MOAKLEY, and Mr. KENNEDY of
Massachusetts changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________