[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1484-H1503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1432


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2578) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend the 
visa waiver pilot program, and to provide for the collection of data 
with respect to the number of nonimmigrants who remain in the United 
States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the 
Attorney General, with Mr. Sununu in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Let me first explain the bill; then I want to very quickly 
yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2578 extends the visa waiver pilot program. The 
visa waiver program allows business visitors and tourists to enter the 
United States without obtaining a visa. Currently, 26 nations have 
qualified as visa waiver countries.
  Normally, a consular officer conducts a face-to-face interview with a 
visa applicant to check for fraudulent documents and to weed out 
individuals who do not plan to leave the United States before their 
visas expire.
  Since the visa waiver program removes the ordinary visa requirement, 
there is very legitimate concern that those intending to violate our 
immigration laws, and perhaps more serious

[[Page H1485]]

crimes inside the United States, could very well abuse it.
  The security of the program currently rests on two standards. First, 
to become eligible, a nation must have a visa refusal rate of less than 
2 percent. Second, to remain in the program, a nation must have a visa 
overstay rate of less than 2 percent. The INS has been unable to 
calculate specific visa overstay rates for close to 5 years, so there 
is no reliable way to determine if a country should, in fact, remain in 
the program.
  The only reasonable course of action is to extend the visa waiver 
program for 2 years, as the administration recommends, so that the 
administration can implement reforms that will allow it to determine 
those visa overstay rates.
  To encourage these efforts, this legislation includes a provision 
requiring the INS to collect data regarding visa overstays and to 
report such data to Congress.
  Pending this review, the Attorney General, as well as the State 
Department, has strongly endorsed an extension of this program, with no 
amendments to change the standards for entry.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and oppose any 
amendments that would lower the standards and thus increase illegal 
immigration in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, for 
being so kind as to yield to me and to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) for his deference, too, which I appreciate.
  I am pleased to speak in support of this legislation which extends 
the visa waiver pilot program. Under this program, the United States 
allows short-term visitors for business or pleasure, with passports 
from 26 designated countries, to travel to the United States without 
first obtaining visas abroad. Visa waiver substantially facilitates 
international travel and greatly benefits the economy of the United 
States, with over 12 million visitor arrivals under the program in 
1996.
  Designation as a new visa waiver program country under current law 
necessitates, along with other requirements, low nonimmigrant visitor 
refusal rates for nationals of the particular country. That rate, 
calculated over the last 2 fiscal years, must average below 2 percent 
and must remain below 2.5 percent for each of those years. In other 
words, the general requirement of consular screening abroad can only be 
waived when the U.S. consular officers rarely deny visitor visas to a 
country's nationals as demonstrated by objective criteria.
  It is important to retain such criteria undiluted at this time as a 
safeguard against potential immigration law abuses. The legislation 
before us adheres to that principle. INS officers, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service officers, at ports of entry, of course, will 
continue to check everyone seeking admission, including visitors under 
the visa waiver program.
  Visa waiver, properly limited, encourages leisure and business travel 
from low-fraud countries while permitting the State Department to 
concentrate consular resources where they are most needed. It is a good 
program. It advances U.S. interests. I urge my colleagues to support 
its extension.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of my 
friend, the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  (Mr. DELAHUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan 
amendment, which would broaden the visa waiver pilot program to make 
tourists from Portugal and Greece eligible to participate on equal 
terms with their European neighbors.
  These two countries are presently the only members of the European 
Union who do not benefit from this program, and it is high time that 
Congress corrected that inequity.
  There is only one fair justification for excluding these or any other 
countries from the waiver program: namely, where there is a high rate 
of abuse. Yet there is no evidence that visitors from Portugal are any 
likelier than others to overstay their welcome in the United States 
once their visas have expired. In fact, the evidence refutes any 
suggestion that there has been an increase in illegal immigration from 
Portugal in recent years.
  Yet the continued exclusion of these countries from the pilot waiver 
program creates a hardship for the many visitors who wish to come to 
this country and enhance our local economies. It creates a hardship for 
the many families in this country with relatives in Portugal who seek 
to travel here to see them.
  Many of those families are from southeastern Massachusetts, where the 
Portugese-American community has made enormous contributions to our 
local heritage. These citizens and their family members overseas 
deserve to be treated fairly, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2578, a bill to extend 
the visa waiver pilot program and to require the collection of data 
regarding the visa overstay rates of nonimmigrants who visit the United 
States.
  The visa waiver pilot program was first authorized in 1986. The 
principles and goals of the program are sound: to save government 
resources while promoting tourism to the United States.
  The program was based on the presumption that when visa abuse is very 
low from a given country, it is better to shift resources away from 
U.S. consular posts in that country and toward consular posts where the 
risk of visa fraud is more likely.
  I do not believe that any of us are interested in seeing the visa 
waiver pilot program expire. The impact on the State Department, which 
would have to redeploy key resources, would be enormous. The potential 
negative impact on U.S. travel and tourism would be immeasurable.
  I understand that the chairman will offer an amendment to extend the 
program until the year 2000 to make it a true 2-year extension of this 
pilot program. I will support that amendment, but only because the 
bill, as currently drafted, includes provisions which will require the 
Attorney General to implement a program to measure visa overstay rates 
for all visitors to the United States.
  Currently, a country is eligible to participate in the visa waiver 
program if it has a visa refusal rate lower than 2.5 percent for the 
preceding 2 years and if other criteria are met.
  The other criteria include having machine-readable passports, 
reciprocity for American tourists, and a low risk of compromising the 
law enforcement interest of the United States.
  In non-State Department jargon, the words visa refusal rates refer to 
the percentage of tourist visa applications that are denied in a given 
country. Visa applications are refused when U.S. consular officers, 
often using subjective factors, race or class-based profiles, decide 
whether someone is likely to overstay a visa or not.
  A resident at the U.S. consulate in San Palo, Brazil highlights the 
irrationality of reliance on visa refusal rates for participation in 
the visa waiver program rather than objectively measured overstay 
rates, which this bill will allow us to gather information to 
implement.
  In the instance in Brazil, the Brazilian consular officers were using 
criteria, a code on the application that illustrates the point that I 
am making. The code on the application was a code which says LP, which 
stood for ``looks poor.'' These same consular officers were instructed 
to carefully review any visa application from persons living in regions 
of Brazil which were predominantly black or Asian.
  The net effect of this careful review was that few Brazilians of 
African or Asian ancestry ever got visas to visit the United States. We 
only found out about this because one of the consular officers refused 
to follow this process. When he did, the State Department fired him. 
When the State Department fired him, he sued them. Finally, last week, 
a U.S. Federal District Judge ordered that he be reinstated in his job.
  Because of the subjectivity of visa rates, visa refusal rates 
generally, I

[[Page H1486]]

firmly believe that we must move toward a policy where participation in 
the visa waiver pilot program is conditioned not on subjective factors, 
but on objective criteria. That objective criteria should be low visa 
overstay rates, not low visa refusal rates. Simply put, countries whose 
nationals enter the U.S. but then fail to leave should not be allowed 
to participate in a visa waiver pilot program.
  Whether that country is Europe or Africa, the same criteria ought to 
be applicable. Likewise, countries whose nationals enter the U.S. and 
then leave as they have committed to do and are obligated to do should 
be given the presumptions the visa waiver program gives to them. Their 
visa overstays should be the criteria.
  We must stop presuming, based on whatever subjective stereotypical or 
irrational criteria we are using, that one group or another is more or 
less likely to overstay their visa and stay in the United States. We 
should have some objective criteria.
  Of the 26 countries currently authorized to participate in the visa 
waiver program, 21 are European countries. Part of that is because we 
are now using subjective criteria. Many have requested that we make our 
visa waiver pilot program a permanent program.

                              {time}  1445

  The Chairman's amendment will extend that by 2 years, rather than 
just into 1999 as the current draft of the bill will do.
  I will support the Chairman's amendment, but I should be clear that 
so long as participation in the program is based on subjective rather 
than objective criteria and, therefore, potentially discriminatory 
criteria, I would oppose any efforts to make this Visa Waiver Program a 
permanent program.
  On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, if we move to a point where 
participation is based on truly objective criteria, the amount of 
overstays in this country, I will be among the first to seek to make 
this program a permanent one.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill moves us in that direction by significantly, 
under its provisions, directing the INS to gather information that will 
allow us to measure visa overstays and not just be a slave to visa 
denials. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to make the point that today we have a very rare 
alignment where we have the Justice Department, the State Department, 
the administration as a whole, as well as the full committee chairman 
of the committee of jurisdiction and the subcommittee chairman of the 
subcommittee of jurisdiction all in favor of this bill, but all opposed 
to any weakening amendments that would expand this program to include 
any other country; and the reason for this bipartisan alignment that 
would oppose any weakening amendments is simply because of our very, 
very serious concern that expanding the program would lead to a 
dramatic increase in illegal immigration to America.
  Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is to read into the Record the 
statement of administration policy that we just received yesterday. 
These are direct quotes. ``The administration would oppose any changes 
to the current program criteria used to determine country participation 
in the Visa Waiver Program. The current program criteria are objective, 
non-country-specific, and help to maintain the security and law 
enforcement interests of the United States.''
  From Attorney General Janet Reno we have a letter that says, ``I ask 
you to join me in supporting pending legislation that will extend the 
Visa Waiver Program for 2 years in its current form; that is, without 
amendments.''
  We have another letter from the Department of Justice saying that 
``The Department also endorses the recommendation that the 
qualification criteria for designating countries to participate in the 
Visa Waiver Program not be changed at this time.''
  And a letter from the State Department says, ``As laid out in 
existing law, the criteria for participating in the program, which are 
objective and not country specific, have worked out extremely well. The 
established requirements have ensured that only low-fraud, low-risk 
countries have been designated as participants.''
  Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that at some times in the past the 
administration has, in fact, politicized the immigration policy. But 
today we see an administration willing to take a principled stand, 
willing to stand for and protect the integrity of the immigration 
process by supporting this extension without any weakening amendments 
to include any other countries.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that we should compliment the administration 
for their stand and support their recommendation, as well as the 
recommendation of many of us who are concerned about increased illegal 
immigration in America, were we to bring any other countries into this 
Visa Waiver Program, until we have additional data.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christian-
Green.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt), for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to join my colleagues on the Travel and 
Tourism Caucus in strong support of H.R. 2578, which will extend the 
visa waiver pilot program, as well as provide for the collection of 
data related to the overstay rates for visitors.
  Mr. Chairman, the visa waiver pilot program deserves all of our 
support because it has served our country well. It is a carefully 
crafted program which was created in 1988 to allow for hassle-free 
travel between the country and countries offering similar privileges to 
U.S. citizens for periods of 90 days or less for business or pleasure, 
without having to obtain a visa.
  At a hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, witnesses from the Clinton administration 
and the travel and tourism industry testified that the failure to 
extend the visa waiver pilot program would cause disruptions in State 
Department operations and hamper business travel and tourism in the 
United States. In addition, neither the State Department nor the INS 
reports a significant level of violations on the part of persons 
entering the United States under the current Visa Waiver Program.
  Mr. Chairman, the visa waiver pilot program works and continues to 
deserve our support. More than 46 million international travelers visit 
the United States every year, providing a boost of $84 billion in 
spending to our economy. Many of the small businesses in the districts 
of my colleagues, and mine, benefit directly from these visitors; and 
they will feel the effect of lost revenue and jobs if this program is 
not renewed.
  In closing, I want to also mention that my staff and I for some time 
now have been exploring the possibility of extending a similar Visa 
Waiver Program to the neighboring eastern Caribbean islands of my 
district of the Virgin Islands. Allowing the residents of Antigua, St. 
Kitts, Dominica and the other Caribbean island nations to visit the 
Virgin Islands for short periods, to shop and for other commercial 
activity, would mean a tremendous boost to our fragile economy. This is 
similar to the Underwood amendment, which I also support.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. I urge all of my colleagues, in a 
bipartisan spirit, to support the passage of H.R. 2578 and extend this 
program.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me go into a little bit more detail as to why so many of us, 
including the administration, feel that if we expand the program to 
include any other country, it will increase illegal immigration in our 
country.
  While the United States, as we have seen in the past couple of years, 
has increased security along our land borders, we have found out that 
those who want to enter illegally are increasingly looking for other 
avenues, such as coming in through visa-waivered countries.
  State Department visa officers who issue the visas are in fact our 
first line of defense against illegal immigration. Through face-to-face 
interviews with

[[Page H1487]]

the visa applicants, the consular officers can weed out individuals who 
do not plan to leave the United States when their visas expire. Just as 
Border Patrol agents defend our land borders every time a Border Patrol 
agent apprehends an illegal alien, so our consular officers defend our 
borders every time they deny a visa to an individual who would have 
stayed in the United States illegally and would have overstayed their 
visa.
  Mr. Chairman, the INS, through their Border Patrol agents, last year 
apprehended 1.6 million illegal aliens. Consulate officers denied visas 
to 1.5 million foreign applicants, almost the exact same number 
apprehended in the United States by the Border Patrol agents. Without 
our visa screening, therefore, we would have at least 1.5 million more 
illegal aliens in the United States, and perhaps many times that 
number.

  Mr. Chairman, a lot of people do not realize that 40 percent, or at 
least 40 percent of the number of illegal aliens in this country today 
did not cross the border illegally; they came in on a tourist visa or a 
business visa and then overstayed that visa. That is 40 percent of our 
illegal alien problem in America today. If we eliminate a visa 
screening process for additional countries, we are simply going to be 
asking for more illegal immigration.
  I have to say also that one of the particular problems we have with 
admitting a country like Portugal is that the problem will be worse 
with that country than with any other visa-waivered countries. Today, 
there are 26,000 people in the United States who are here illegally and 
who came from Portugal. If we did not have a visa program for 
individuals coming from Portugal and if the visa program was eliminated 
and if Portugal became a visa-waivered country, think how many times 
that 26,000 illegal alien number from Portugal we would have in the 
country today.
  So clearly it does not make any sense to give a country that already 
has so many people who have already come in illegally, to give any 
special consideration to not have to go through the visa process.
  Finally, I have to say to many of my colleagues, and I know there are 
several who support expanding the program, that I am surprised by their 
stand; and it is not clear to me why any individual who has supported 
reducing illegal immigration in the past by their votes in Congress 
would support an expansion of this program when so clearly that 
expansion would mean an increase in illegal immigration.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, would the chair advise us 
to how much time remains on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from North Carolina has 19 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas has 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I take the time today to express my strong support for H.R. 2578, 
which is of vital importance to many areas that rely on tourism, 
including my own home island of Guam where we get over 1.2 million 
tourists a year, many of them from Japan.
  Today I want to speak about an amendment that I have printed in the 
Record which I will explain in the course of general debate now and 
withdraw later on. I want to take the time to explain exactly what I am 
trying to do.
  Guam has a Guam-only Visa Waiver Program which is separate from this 
general Visa Waiver Program. In our Guam-only Visa Waiver Program, 
visitors are allowed to come from countries like Japan, Korea, and 
Taiwan for 15 days, and there are 14 other countries on that list.
  One of the issues that always affects the people of Guam, which has a 
large number of Philippino Americans, is how to deal with family 
events; and what we have been proposing and what we have been working 
towards with a locally organized task force for the past 4 years is to 
set up a pilot project within the scope of this Guam-only Visa Waiver 
Program, to run a pilot project for 1 year, allowing 100 citizens of 
the Philippines to come in under a Visa Waiver Program per month and to 
determine subsequent to that whether such a program can be 
realistically enforced on a longer-term basis.
  This has been done through a lot of discussions, and my own efforts 
in personally observing and discussing the process with officials in 
the U.S. embassy in Manila and trying to work through with local INS 
officials on Guam.
  The program that I envision, the pilot project that is mentioned in 
the amendment, envisions a family-based program in which citizens would 
be allowed to come for special family events. The program that we are 
outlining here says that no program will be in effect until a 
memorandum of understanding is signed between the U.S. Attorney General 
and the Government of Guam to make sure that the pilot project is 
conducted in a fair, efficient and effective manner; and at the same 
time, it also posits that if we get a 20 percent failure rate on any 
month, that the pilot project immediately come to a halt. So that is 
the basic outline of the project that we have.
  Some of the questions that have been raised pertain to whether this 
will be a conduit for illegal immigration. I want to assure the Members 
of this House that the Guam-only Visa Waiver Program is in force by INS 
not only as people come into Guam, but as people leave Guam and go to 
Honolulu.
  I dare say I am probably the only Member of Congress who has to show 
a passport to go from his home district to Washington, D.C. That is how 
stringent the process is. Maybe we ought to introduce legislation to 
exempt me from this burden, but it is accurate to say that the anomaly 
of the situation is such that there is a double-check.
  So Guam-only visas are exactly that. They are only meant for Guam; 
they are meant for 15 days, it is not the 90 days that is in the 
general Visa Waiver Program.

                              {time}  1500

  We feel very strongly and we believe that if this program were 
family-based, based on sponsorship, based on a limited number, we would 
be able to obtain better data.
  The visa refusal rate in the U.S. embassy in Manila is a general 
refusal rate. It does not track Guam visitors as a separate category. 
We think that this is a fair response to the problem. We think it is an 
honorable response, and we hope that we will be allowed to proceed with 
such a pilot project.
  In recognition of the chairman's concerns about this, and the fact 
that perhaps it caught him a little unaware in the process of bringing 
up the general visa waiver program, I will not proceed with the 
amendment later on today, but I would like to ask the chairman if he 
would be willing to work with me over the next couple of weeks to see 
what we can do to make progress towards this pilot project.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me reassure the gentleman that I am happy to work with the 
gentleman on this idea. Let me say, listening to the gentleman's 
explanation, which is an education for all of us, we have not had time 
to study the amendment. He makes many valuable points. Certainly the 
gentleman is doing an excellent job of representing his constituents.
  I certainly recognize the need to try to expedite that free exchange 
and flow of trade, free trade and tourism between the countries as 
planned, and we look forward to hearing more about that in our 
subcommittee deliberations.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that 
statement. I look forward to trying to make sure this works out for the 
people of Guam, in full recognition of the general provisions of the 
visa waiver program, and as well as making sure that it meets the 
concerns of the people of Guam.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith) for bringing 
this very important bill to the floor.
  Having heard the gentleman from Guam, we understand, certainly, his 
interests and obviously other countries'

[[Page H1488]]

interests in expanding the program, but we want to make certain as well 
that before we expand unlimitedly, that we provide the kind of 
safeguards that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith) has been 
asking for, to make certain that the programs do in fact work, that we 
do have a viable program, but that we do not unwittingly provide for a 
flood of illegal immigration, if you will.
  I want to talk specifically about the bill the chairman has on the 
floor. It has been in existence 10 years. The visa waiver program has 
been an excellent tool for encouraging tourists to come to the United 
States. That has had a direct impact on virtually every region of our 
country. Whether you are on the West Coast of the United States, 
Florida, or Massachusetts, we have all benefited by the visa waiver 
program.
  In fact, in 1996 alone 46 million international visitors came to the 
United States, and they spent more than $90 billion; $90 billion spent 
by 46 million international visitors. Those dollars translate into jobs 
in hotels, in airports, in train stations, in restaurants, in clothing 
stores, in nearly every sector of the American economy.
  International tourists are so important that travel and tourism 
itself has become one of America's largest employers, directly 
employing 6.8 million Americans and generating a total travel-related 
payroll of $121.6 billion. Travel and tourism in fact ranks as the 
first, second, or third largest employer in fully 32 States and the 
District of Columbia.
  The visa waiver program extends to more than 20 countries right now, 
including Japan, Germany, and the United States, and tourists from 
these countries have generated considerable dollars for us. Some 5 
million Japanese, for instance, visited America in 1996, and they spent 
more than $10 billion while they were here.
  Why do I keep underscoring numbers? Why do I keep talking about 
dollars? Because the jobs and the economy of the United States depend 
on a vibrant tourism industry. The visa waiver program has been part 
and parcel of that success.
  As cochairman of the Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus, along 
with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), I strongly 
support the visa waiver program because of the benefits it provides to 
our economy through tourism. I strongly urge my colleagues, whose State 
economies all benefit from travel and tourism, to vote yes on the 
chairman's bill to keep this program alive.
  Whether Members know it or not, and they should ask their local 
restaurant operator, ask their local hotelier, ask their local rental 
car agent, ask their local merchant, how many people come into their 
businesses on an annual basis that are from other countries? I think it 
will startle and surprise us, because not only is the Sunshine State of 
Florida a popular destination, but almost every State now is enjoying 
the economy from tourism.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Lamar Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims, for his work in developing this important legislation to extend 
the visa waiver pilot program. I would like to add parenthetically, Mr. 
Chairman, my particular thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) 
for his kindness, courtesies, and his consideration of the issues that 
I brought before him.
  He has been accommodating in listening to concerns and suggestions 
those of us from Hawaii have expressed to him through hearings last 
year in which Hawaii Lieutenant Governor Mazie Hirono presented 
testimony for the State, as well as through discussions we have had in 
the Committee on the Judiciary's consideration of the bill, and in 
subsequent discussion.
  I am engaging the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith) today to 
further emphasize the importance not only of the changes the committee 
has recommended, but also of the need to expand the number of countries 
allowed to participate in the expedited entry procedures accorded visa 
waiver pilot program participants.
  The committee has wisely recommended that the INS undertake compiling 
visa overstay rates for those countries of which we still require visas 
for entering the country, and I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) has made quite extensive remarks already on that subject.
  I am certain that the Committee on the Judiciary will monitor closely 
expeditious implementation of the requirement. The INS has not been 
timely in completing an interagency report on reform issues which would 
have aided House consideration of this bill. I trust overstay 
statistics will be the basis for changes in the future by which 
countries will qualify for the waiver program based on how well foreign 
citizens comply with visa requirements, instead of the current system, 
under which qualification is based on the percentage of applications 
for visas which are rejected by the State Department.
  Rejections are based on often subjective criteria, as was illustrated 
last week when a mediation panel found a U.S. consular official in the 
Sao Paolo, Brazil, visa office was unjustly dismissed from his position 
for having criticized the visa approval system as being vague and 
having inconsistent criteria used there, criteria such as labeling some 
non-immigrant applicants as ``looks poor,'' ``talks poorly,'' or 
``looks rough.'' Moving away from such a seriously flawed system would 
be welcome.
  Representing an area very heavily dependent on tourism, particularly 
on tourists from Asia, I and a number of others here in the Chamber 
have been working to bring South Korea into the visa waiver program. 
The Seoul embassy has the highest number of applications for non-
immigration visa of any U.S. embassy. Approximately 600,000 visa 
applications were filed there last year, many of them for visitor 
visas.
  This shows not only the importance of Korean travel to our country, 
but also the need to expedite the system for allowing Korean visitors 
into the United States for tourism, as well as for business and 
commercial purposes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii, 
my friend, for his generous comments about me personally. They are 
appreciated. The only thing I can do is to reciprocate, and say that in 
my time in Congress I have met few individuals who have been as 
articulate and as persuasive in advocating their constituents' 
interests as has the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. Chairman, we have talked about this issue a number of times over 
the past months, probably because of the gentleman's persuasive powers 
and the merits of the case. I am hoping we can move forward in a 
substantive way in the near future as well. I particularly appreciate 
the comments of the gentleman from Hawaii. I understand the concerns 
that he and others have brought to the attention of the subcommittee.
  I also want to acknowledge and thank the gentleman from Hawaii for 
his efforts in presenting the facts about Korea's eligibility for the 
visa waiver program. He has added greatly to our understanding of the 
program as it pertains to the Republic of Korea. He has moved us 
forward on the issue, and I believe that because of his work we are 
closer to a resolution that satisfies the requirements of all parties 
involved.
  For a variety of reasons, we have not been able to get this bill yet 
through our subcommittee and to accommodate all of his interests. He 
has brought, however, not only reasoned but intense commitment to his 
constituents in the legislative process. I understand well the need to 
increase tourism, not only from Korea and Asia, but also from the rest 
of the world, to Hawaii as well.
  I recognize the economy of Hawaii is very heavily dependent on 
tourism, particularly tourism and family visits from Asia, and that the 
State stands to benefit greatly if Korea was able to enter the visa 
waiver program. That is one of the reasons we have, on a bipartisan 
basis, mandated the compilation

[[Page H1489]]

of overstay statistics, so we can base participation in the program on 
sounder public policy than we are able to under the rejection rate 
criteria now required. It is necessary to remain under the flawed 
system until we can rationally deliberate and debate an alternative, 
which we expect to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) 
has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to also commend the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie) for his bringing this issue to our attention, and for his 
constructive proposals for reforming the program to allow South Korea 
entry into it.
  This bill continues the program until October 1 of next year, and we 
will be reviewing the program as well as implementation of the system 
for compiling overstay statistics, and I hope we will be able to move 
forward at that time to decide whether countries like South Korea 
comply sufficiently with the aims and goals of the program.
  Once again, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie) for his persistence in pursuing the interests of his 
constituents and the interests of Hawaii, and of course the interests 
of all of those who want to visit Hawaii as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  I am very grateful to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for his 
kind remarks, and I look forward to working with him and the 
administration in the future to address these matters, as well as the 
very legitimate concerns such as security that the chairman has raised.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, visa waiver has nothing to do with credit cards, but it 
has a lot to do with small business. I stand in support of this, 
because as cochair of the Travel and Tourism Caucus, along with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mark Foley), we stand in bipartisan fashion 
to support the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism's 
recommendation to this House that we ought to expand the visa waiver 
program. I hope it is expanded.
  Let me tell the Members why this is important to this country. 
Twenty-six countries now have the visa waiver program. This bill helps 
Main Street, U.S.A. Why? Because it brings people from other places, 
international visitors, to the United States. They spend $90 billion 
when they are here, money that is brought into this country to shop and 
visit places in America. They learn about our country. They learn about 
our culture. They visit this Capitol. They may be sitting upstairs 
right now.
  We have over 46 million international visitors each year in the 
United States. They spend more in this country than all of the 
Americans spend when we go abroad, so our balance of trade in the 
tourism issue is in the $26 billion surplus.
  We are winning with this program. It is good for Main Street, 
America. It is good for the United States Congress, because it helps, I 
think, visiting this country and understanding what makes it work at 
the local government, State government, Federal government level, it 
really helps people appreciate what democracy is all about.
  The visa waiver program is one small step for getting us on more 
user-friendly terms with countries that we as Americans just take for 
granted, because oftentimes they require no visa for us to visit them. 
We should not require a visa for them to visit us, particularly when 
the error rate is so low. I hope we will adopt the amendment that will 
allow other countries to come into the program.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to several of the Dear Colleagues 
that have been passed around among Members. I am talking particularly 
about several of these Dear Colleagues. There have been three now which 
have said the exact same thing.

                              {time}  1515

  They have made the point that every country in the European Union is 
a visa waiver country except for two, Portugal and Greece. But I want 
to say to my colleagues that just because countries are a European 
country does not mean that they are going to automatically get certain 
special treatment. There should be nothing magic attached to the fact 
that a country is in the European Union or not.
  The fact that there are two countries that are not in the visa waiver 
program that are in the European Union simply points and underlines the 
fact that we do have objective criteria that determine whether or not a 
country is going to be a visa waiver country or not. What it shows is 
that we have the same standards that apply to every single country in 
the world. The countries that meet the standards are admitted and 
become part of our visa waiver system. The countries that do not meet 
the standards are not admitted, and it does not matter whether they are 
in Europe or some other continent.
  The fact of the matter is that saying that two countries deserve to 
be admitted to the visa waiver program just because they are European, 
and that is the implication of these three Dear Colleagues, is implying 
that European countries are more qualified to be admitted than 
countries in South America or Asia or Africa. I hope that is not the 
intent of the drafters of what those Dear Colleagues meant. 
Nevertheless, that is the clear conclusion that any of us can draw when 
they say that the reason these two other countries, Portugal and 
Greece, should be admitted is because they are part of the European 
Union.
  Again, there is nothing magic about being in the European Union. If 
any country in the world wants to become a visa waiver country, all 
they have to do is meet the very clearly delineated standards. We 
should not change the rules simply to guarantee an outcome that we 
might like to have. That would be a little like a teacher who wants to 
lower the passing grade from 50 to 40 just to be able to pass a 
particular student.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not lower the standards for countries that 
want to become visa waiver countries, just like we should not lower the 
standards in our classrooms. It is not good for education and it is not 
good for our immigration process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) just said about what our motives were for putting the two 
European countries, as if we were implicitly also condemning countries 
in Africa or Asia or South America by singularly referring to the 
European Union as like if every other country is part of it, then why 
should these two not be a part of it. That would be the same way as me 
saying that the gentleman's metaphor about the classroom meant that he 
does not think Greece and Portugal are up to grade. I would never 
question the gentleman's motivations to say that Greece and Portugal 
are not up to grade.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman did 
understand the point of my metaphor there, but if the countries have 
not met the standard that currently exists, we are not asking for 
special treatment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) talked 
about standards, because implicitly in this bill the gentleman is 
begging the question. The gentleman is changing the standards in this 
bill. That is what everyone is talking about. The gentleman

[[Page H1490]]

is moving from that ``standard'' that he says is an objective standard, 
but readily admits is a faulty standard. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) readily admits it is a faulty standard.
  That is why we have got this bill, because this bill is going to move 
from an overall refusal rate to an overstay rate. It is a much more 
realistic measure of what we should be determining, which countries 
make it into the visa waiver program versus which countries do not.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) himself is 
admitting that, well, it needs to comply with the standard, but then he 
is also saying that standard is no good anymore. That is exactly our 
point.
  The idea behind this, if I might say so, is Portugal and Greece are 
two of our closest allies, and the fact of the matter is if we want to 
look at indices, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has cited a 
few indices over there but I would be happy to cite some on our side, 
the fact of the matter is that between 1992 and 1996, illegal 
immigration, so to speak, from Portugal was on the decrease.
  I do not know where the gentleman got his statistics, but I beg to 
differ. Let us call a truce, because the INS is giving the gentleman a 
set of statistics and they are giving us another set. But let us look 
at the objective facts. So far as Portugal is concerned, Portugal's 
economy is growing by leaps and bounds. Their unemployment rate is 4 
percent lower than that of the old European Union. So what may have 
given cause for the State Department to be worried initially that the 
Portuguese were going to come over here to live, to get a job, has been 
refuted by the fact that the economy is so strong.
  In terms of Greece, the fact of the matter is that there are more 
Greek Americans going over to live in Greece than there are Greeks 
coming over to live here in the United States. So we have two 
irrefutable facts, they are commonsense facts, and we lay them on top 
of the fact that we enjoy a good relationship with these two countries, 
and it is a terrible thing for our diplomacy to have two of our closest 
allies be rejected from a program which every one of our other allies 
in Europe is a part of.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to talk about refusal rates and Portugal and 
Greece not coming up to par, the fact of the matter is they are just on 
the cusp. And I might add, let us not argue about whether they make the 
standard or not, because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) just 
admitted the standard is faulty.
  The standard is based upon a way of measuring this that is based upon 
the refusal rate and not the overstay rate. The gentleman in his bill 
admits that we need to tell the Attorney General and the State 
Department to move towards this new standard, because the gentleman 
inherently acknowledges that the current standard is faulty.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to offering an amendment with my 
colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pappas) to add Portugal and Greece. I look forward to a fuller debate 
when we get that amendment before the full House.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy) that this faulty data that he refers to is an 
interesting way to describe a requirement that he has in his own 
amendment. I am looking on page 2 of the gentleman's amendment where he 
says such refusal rate for nationals of that country during the 
previous full fiscal year was less than 3 percent. The gentleman is 
using the exact data that he criticizes.
  But the point here is that at least we have the same requirements for 
every country. And the gentleman again talked about the two countries 
were the only countries not in the European Union. I am afraid the 
gentleman reinforces the point that I made a while ago, that we are 
giving special preference to countries because they are European 
countries, and it makes me concerned that we are discriminating against 
other countries that might not be European countries.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt), my good friend and colleague, said he is not going 
to bite on that argument. The fact of the matter is that because I am 
for Greece and Portugal does not mean that I am against Africa, South 
America and Southeast Asia.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the reason that 
I will not budge from that argument is that the gentleman keeps using 
that phrase, that they deserve to get the visa waiver status because 
they are members of the European Union. If the gentleman will refrain 
from using that argument, I will refrain from pointing out that it 
might be discriminatory.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
again yield, let us concede then that Greece and Portugal are two very 
close allies and let us take it from there.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I agree 
with the gentleman that Portugal and Greece are close allies. We have 
many friends there. They are both great countries. Portugal is one of 
my favorite countries. It so happens I have two original oil paintings 
in my home of Portuguese sailing boats. I have a great affinity for 
both of those two countries. But that is not the issue here today.
  The issue is whether we are going to lower our standards and expand 
the program, knowing that such an expansion is going to increase 
illegal immigration in America.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of people here today have tried to make the 
point that this is a so-called arbitrary process whereby we decide what 
countries are in the visa waiver program or not. First of all, I will 
refer my colleagues to the statements by the Attorney General herself, 
as well as by the State Department, as well as by the administration, 
all saying that we do have objective criteria.
  I am a little surprised about that arbitrary charge, because that is, 
quite frankly, an insult to the consular officials who are career 
professionals, who have a lot of technical training and many years of 
experience. They are the individuals who, as I said, are on the front 
lines of trying to determine, when someone applies for a visa, whether 
they are likely to overstay their visa in the United States and, 
therefore, contribute to the growing illegal immigration population in 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, the point is that these consulate officers are not 
flipping a coin to determine who gets in, who does not get in. They 
have this list of criteria that includes such things as whether they 
have family members in their home country that would help them be 
assured that they are going to return home; what the economy is like; 
whether individuals might be fleeing the home country economy that has 
gone sour because there is a better economy in the United States, and 
so on.
  These are objective standards that are consistently and fairly 
applied to every country in the world. And I think it is regrettable 
that many of our allies today are not visa waiver countries. There are 
a lot of other countries that are just a notch away from Portugal and 
Greece, countries and allies like Israel. And I wonder why we have not 
included them if we are going to expand the program just a tiny bit. 
But apparently we are interested just again in those two countries, and 
perhaps because they are members of that sacrosanct European Union.
  Mr. Chairman, I will end on the point that I think we should extend 
the program. We can all agree on that. But we should not expand the 
program because if we do so, then we are going to eliminate that 
screening process when individuals apply for visas from Portugal or 
Greece and, therefore, we are going to be in a position where all one 
needs is a passport to come to the United States, and we are going to 
end up with a lot more people coming in illegally and overstaying their 
period of time.
  I think it is an interesting argument that the individuals make who 
want to expand the program, accusing the program of now being arbitrary 
and yet they also favor an extension of the program to the 2-year 
length of program. If the program is so arbitrary, it seems

[[Page H1491]]

to me they would not support an extension of the program for 2 years, 
but in fact they do.
  Lastly, I just want to make the point, and again we cannot say enough 
about how great those two countries are, but unfortunately what we need 
to do is to encourage those countries to take steps so that they have a 
lower visa refusal rate, rather than lowering the standards and making 
a special dispensation for certain countries. The answer to those 
countries becoming visa waiver countries is to frankly have a better 
record, and they have control over what they do to determine that.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, in the case of Portugal, I mentioned a minute 
ago that they have at least 26,000 individuals from that country who 
are in this country illegally. Those are 26,000 people that have 
overstayed their visas. If Portugal did not even have a visa screening 
program, how many times in that 26,000 would we have illegal 
individuals who were from Portugal who would then come to America? 
There is no answering that.
  But we do have a comparison to make. That is, if we look at all the 
visa countries that we have today, almost all of those countries just 
had 1 or 2 or 3 or 4,000 individuals illegally in the country today. 
Portugal, with this 26,000 with the visa screening process, if we lift 
that screening process and just allow individuals to come with a 
passport only, it is very clear that Portugal, if it became a visa 
waiver country, would have an exponentially larger number of illegal 
aliens in the country than any other visa waiver country. That is why 
the administration opposes any weakening amendments, and that is why I 
think my colleagues should as well.
  Now, in the case of Greece, we ought to be able to decide very 
quickly who has got the better data, and I would be happy to share mine 
with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). Our data is that 
Greece is going in the exact wrong direction. Their record is getting 
worse. The number of individuals who were denied visas this year in 
1997 is greater than the individuals who were denied visas in 1996.
  I have data from the INS and from the State Department which I will 
be happy to share with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), 
but we have one country, that is Portugal, that is going to be 
susceptible to a huge increase of illegal aliens in this country, and 
another country, Greece, where the record is going in the wrong 
direction. The risk is increasing, not decreasing. The figures are 
getting worse, not better. And if the trend would continue, they would 
not even qualify in a year from now for the visa waiver program.
  The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) says he has other data. 
Perhaps in the next minute or two we could exchange data, but mine come 
from the State Department and the INS.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is good because we need a visa 
waiver pilot program. The idea of having a visa waiver program is a 
good idea.

                              {time}  1530

  It is good because we have in this bill the mechanism for making the 
Visa Waiver Program a substantially better program by gathering the 
information that we need on visa overstays, to set up a rational basis 
for which countries can participate in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.
  The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) are going to try to make the bill better by 
extending the bill's coverage to some other countries that ought to be 
included under the existing Visa Waiver Program.
  So what I am recommending to my colleagues is that we support the 
bill, support the manager's amendment that will make it a 2-year 
extension, and support the amendment that is going to be offered by the 
gentlemen from Rhode Island and California so that we make it a better 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Smith) has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) has no time remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me respond to another Dear Colleague. I mentioned the 3 Dear 
Colleagues that seem to say we ought to give preference to Portugal and 
Greece because they are in Europe. This is another Dear Colleague that 
says that the Visa Waiver Program ``discriminates against Greece and 
Portugal.''
  Let me reiterate and say that the Visa Waiver Program does not 
discriminate against anyone, it applies the same standards to every 
country in the world. And again I say, as I mentioned a while ago, to 
reward a couple of countries that have not met the long-established 
criterion that is objectively applied is like saying to a student who 
failed the test, we are going to keep lowering the passing grade until 
we pass you. That is not good for education; it is not good for 
immigration policy.
  In the case of Greece and Portugal, two great, wonderful countries, 
they simply do not qualify. The amendment is not to carve out any kind 
of a special exemption for those countries. As I mentioned a while ago, 
it is interesting to me that the special exemption starts right before 
a number of our other allies, perhaps like Israel is, if we were going 
to expand the program, why not catch all the other allies? But the 
amendment is not to make any special exemption for any special country; 
it is for that country to take the steps itself.
  Again, I double-checked my figures that were in discussion a few 
minutes ago and confirmed the fact that in the case of Greece, their 
record on visa refusals was, in fact, worse in 1997 and in 1996. So 
this amendment that we expect includes one country, Greece, which 
unfortunately has a record that is going in the exact wrong direction.
  The likelihood of illegal immigration is increasing; it is not 
decreasing. And again, why admit a country that is going to increase 
illegal immigration?
  I can understand why that might be in the interest of some of our 
friends in these other countries, but I would like for someone to 
explain for me why it is good for America to increase illegal 
immigration.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I want to say with respect 
to Greece, my colleague said Greece's refusal rate is higher than 
Portugal; yet their overstay rate, according to his statistics, is 
lower. And the point is that it is arbitrary.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time and ask the 
gentleman to point to some figures that I believe he has, and these are 
the refusal rates tabulated by the Department of State; and he will see 
in fiscal year 1996, which is what I am looking at, the Greece visa 
refusal rate was 2.48. In fiscal year 1997, it was 2.81.
  Now, it seems to me that 2.8 is greater than 2.4, and if that is the 
case, then the visa refusal rates were worse in 1997 than 1996. And I 
would stand by my statement, the record is getting worse for Greece, 
not better.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. If the gentleman would yield further, 
according to the INS, their overstay rates are getting lower. So that 
proves the point.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the overstay rate has not been 
current for 5 years. That is why we all agree that we need to extend 
the program for 2 years and get the correct data from the INS. When we 
have the right data, then we will be in a better position. But the data 
that we have is over 5 years old.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas controls 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me conclude by saying once again that today our colleagues are 
seeing a rare alignment of orbits here where we have the Department of 
Justice, the State Department, and the White House itself joining many 
of us

[[Page H1492]]

in Congress who are Republicans in saying that we need to extend the 
program, but we need to oppose any weakening amendments. The primary 
reason for opposing those weakening amendments is because of the danger 
of increasing illegal immigration in America.
  As I pointed out, unfortunately and regrettably, the country that 
seems to have let a lot of people into the country illegally is 
Portugal, 26,000 today. And that is why the visa screening process is 
in place. If Portugal becomes a Visa Pilot Program and it has an 
exemption for obtaining visas, then we are going to be in a situation 
where it is even easier for individuals from that country to come into 
the United States and stay illegally. That 26,000 figure is simply 
going to explode; we will have more illegal aliens from Portugal than 
any other visa exemption country.
  Second of all, in the case of Greece, then their record is going the 
wrong direction. We should not be going in a direction that is going to 
continue to undermine the integrity of the immigration system.
  One more point about Portugal. We have there, in the State Department 
as well, one of the real concerns that we have and that they have is 
that if Portugal became a visa waiver country, we would see a dramatic 
increase in child smuggling. The reason for that is that Portugal has 
passports that do not have the photographs of children on them; and 
just because a document or a passport is machine readable does not 
require that they have the photographs of the children. And that is one 
reason the State Department has also opposed admission of Portugal as a 
visa waiver state.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply conclude by saying that we should not change 
our standards to accommodate specific countries. We ought to remember 
that we have a very clear analogy here, and that is, if we were a 
teacher, we are not going to change the failure grade 50 to 40 just to 
accommodate a specific student. We should not lower our standards in 
immigration policy just to accommodate a specific country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 2578 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2578

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

     SECTION 1. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF VISA WAIVER PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 217(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act is 
     amended by striking ``1997.'' and inserting ``1999.''.

     SEC. 2. DATA ON NONIMMIGRANT OVERSTAY RATES.

       (a) Collection of Data.--Not later than the date that is 
     180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Attorney General shall implement a program to collect data, 
     for each fiscal year, regarding the total number of aliens 
     within each of the classes of nonimmigrant aliens described 
     in section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) whose authorized period of stay in the 
     United States terminated during the previous fiscal year, but 
     who remained in the United States notwithstanding such 
     termination.
       (b) Annual Report.--Not later than June 30, 1999, and not 
     later than June 30 of each year thereafter, the Attorney 
     General shall submit an annual report to the Congress 
     providing numerical estimates, for each country for the 
     preceding fiscal year, of the number of aliens from the 
     country who are described in subsection (a).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the bill is in order unless 
printed in the portion of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD designated for that 
purpose.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


             Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Smith of Texas:
       Page 2, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF VISA WAIVER PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 217(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act is 
     amended by striking ``1998.'' and inserting ``2000.''.


     Modification to Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be modified in the form at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Strike ``naturalization'' on line 2 and insert ``nationality.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, when the Committee on the Judiciary 
reported out H.R. 2578, the Visa Waiver Pilot Program was set to expire 
on September 30, 1997. The bill proposed to extend the program for 2 
years until September 30, 1999; however, Congress acted in the 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 to 
extend the program until April 30, 1998. Thus, in order that the House 
pass a full 2-year extension as originally planned, this amendment 
would extend the program until April 30, 2000.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I understand that 
there is no objection. I appreciate the support of my colleague, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and encourage my 
colleagues to support it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Pombo

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Pombo:
       Page 2, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. QUALIFICATIONS FOR DESIGNATION AS PILOT PROGRAM 
                   COUNTRY.

       Section 217(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1187(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Qualifications.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (g), a country may not be designated as a pilot program 
     country unless the following requirements are met:
       ``(A) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate.--Either--
       ``(i) the average number of refusals of nonimmigrant 
     visitor visas for nationals of that country during--
       ``(I) the two previous full fiscal years was less than 2.0 
     percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for 
     nationals of that country which were granted or refused 
     during those years; and
       ``(II) either of such two previous full fiscal years was 
     less than 2.5 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant 
     visitor visas for nationals of that country which were 
     granted or refused during that year; or
       ``(ii) such refusal rate for nationals of that country 
     during the previous full fiscal year was less than 3.0 
     percent.
       ``(B) Machine readable passport program.--The government of 
     the country certifies that it has or is in the process of 
     developing a program to issue machine-readable passports to 
     its citizens.
       ``(C) Law enforcement interests.--The Attorney General 
     determines that the United States law enforcement interests 
     would not be compromised by the designation of the 
     country.''.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act to modify and extend the visa 
     waiver pilot program, and to provide for the collection of 
     data with respect to the number of nonimmigrants who remain 
     in the United States after the expiration of the period of 
     stay authorized by the Attorney General.''.

  Mr. POMBO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, just to explain this amendment, what it does 
is it takes the refusal rate from 2 percent to 3 percent. Under that 
change, there are 2 countries that would currently qualify to be 
included in the Visa Waiver Program, those two countries being Portugal 
and Greece.
  The refusal rate, just to explain to my colleagues exactly what that 
is, is that if they go in and apply for a visa,

[[Page H1493]]

if they are refused, that goes into the category in the refusal rate.
  To explain that further, I recently had a friend of mine whose 
parents wanted to come over to this country in order to attend their 
granddaughter's graduation from high school, and they were refused a 
visa from Portugal to come into this country. Even though they own a 
home over there, even though they own a business over there, even 
though they have been to this country in the past and returned, they 
were refused. And because those two people were refused, we now need 
over a hundred other people who need to apply and get approved in order 
to keep the rate under.
  So that is what the refusal rate is. What we are talking about is 
taking it from 2 people in 100 to 3 people in 100 that are refused 
under this arbitrary rate.
  Furthermore, under the current rules, there are only 2 countries 
within the European Union that are exempted from the program, those 
being Greece and Portugal, because of the way that the numbers are 
currently done. I would argue that it is arbitrary in the manner that, 
sure, we are giving the people general guidelines of what they have to 
go by, but they make an arbitrary decision as to whether or not to 
refuse that at that time.
  The chairman, in previous arguments, brought up that this may in some 
way increase crime and terrorism and illegal immigration by allowing 
Portuguese citizens to visit this country and by allowing Greek 
citizens to visit this country. Unfortunately, by some of the Dear 
Colleagues that have been sent out, we would read those and believe 
that somehow Portugal is an exporter of terrorism around the world, 
which I find personally very offensive and my family members find 
personally very offensive; it is not true. Nor is it true that Portugal 
is known as a country that exports babies around the world in some kind 
of child smuggling ring, for God's sake. But according to some of the 
Dear Colleagues that have been passed around here, unfortunately, we 
would believe that that is the case, and it is absolutely untrue and 
unfounded.
  I think it is very unfortunate that anybody would have sent that out. 
But even if it was the case, even if it was the case, according to the 
law, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 
may for any reason, including national security, refrain from waiving 
the visa requirement in respect to nationals of any country who may 
otherwise qualify for the designation at that time.
  So if the Attorney General determines that, for some reason, Portugal 
or Greece should not qualify, that they increase terrorism and child 
smuggling around the world, they can withdraw the ability of Portugal 
to be in the program.
  Furthermore, I do not understand, quite, the logic. There was debate 
previously about illegal immigration and how somehow Portugal, that if 
they are included in this, that that will increase illegal immigration. 
Well, I hate to surprise my colleagues, but we are talking about a 
legal program for people to legally come to the United States for 
tourism or business, to legally come in. We are not talking about 
illegal immigration, see, because people that are going to break the 
law are going to break the law and come in illegally.
  That is what happens. That is how we end up with illegal immigrants 
to this country. What we are talking about here is allowing people to 
follow the rules and legally come into this country and visit their 
relatives or come here on legitimate business purposes. And just by a 
minor change in the current law, we would allow, at this point, people 
from Portugal and Greece to come in.
  But it is not just an amendment for them; it is an amendment for 
anyone who would qualify under that new standard. Today it means 
Portugal and Greece. But if anybody else brings their arbitrary refusal 
numbers down to below 3 percent, they would then qualify to come in.
  We also had data that has come out that says that Portugal has 26,000 
people that have overstayed their visa, that Greece has 5,000 people 
that have overstayed their visa, that are illegally in this country. By 
the quoting from the chairman, the data that we have is 5 years old.

                              {time}  1545

  How can he bring this out and say that this has any bearing on the 
current status of the people that are coming over here from Greece or 
Portugal into this country today on legitimate legal tourism or 
legitimate legal business activities into this country? By the 
gentleman's own quote, the data is 5 years old and it is inaccurate. It 
is not good data. It really bears no argument in this. We can prove 
anything we want with facts.
  I can bring out my facts that show how many people have come in and 
how many people have gone back and whether or not this program, in the 
facts, can bring Portugal and Greece under this program. But I think 
that the real point is the fairness of whether or not somebody from 
Portugal ought to be able to come into this country just like every 
other European country can, under a tourist visa or a legitimate 
business activity.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) in his effort to bring some fairness back into 
the visa waiver program with respect to Portugal. I also rise in 
support of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas) in his efforts to 
make sure that the visa waiver program is extended to Greece. These 
amendments will make changes that are long overdue in bringing two 
excluded members of the European Union, Portugal and Greece, into the 
visa waiver program.
  The amendment is simple. First, the amendment is about fairness to 
our allies, two countries that have been there for our country 
throughout our history. It is important that we take a step forward in 
promoting this relationship. By doing that, we would bring a closer 
relationship to Portugal and Greece between our countries. These are 
countries that have made extraordinary steps forward in their efforts 
to be considered with the rest of the European Union in qualifying for 
this program.
  Secondly, this amendment, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
said, is about tourism. One would think by the way the opponents of 
this amendment would talk that illegal immigration from Portugal and 
Greece is somehow a drain on our economy. Come to Rhode Island. Come to 
any of the parts of this country where we are seeing lively groups of 
Greek American and Portuguese Americans reside in this country who come 
here for tourism, and you would find a very great economic impetus.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I would simply ask the gentleman, I think he is 
referring to legal immigrants because I assume he is not endorsing 
illegal immigration in America.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. No.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, that 
by the whole tone of this debate, by declaring Portugal and Greece not 
eligible for the visa waiver program, it sends a very chilling effect 
between the United States and our two closest allies that somehow they 
are not up to par, that we do not value them, that they do not meet the 
standard, as the gentleman has said himself in his opening remarks. I 
think that is a very destructive message to be sending to our very 
close allies.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. POMBO. I think it was an important point that the gentleman from 
Texas brought out. We are talking about legal immigration.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. That is true.
  Mr. POMBO. People who are legally coming to this country.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I think it is so important 
that he says that because the fact of the matter is no one should 
confuse this debate for illegal immigration. Yet the way this amendment 
is being portrayed, he would have one believe

[[Page H1494]]

that we are trying to invite illegal immigration. The fact of the 
matter is these people who are coming to the United States to visit 
their families are coming here to this country and participating in our 
economy and growing our economy. Our economy is growing as a result of 
the strong relationship that we have between Greece and Portugal.
  I might add, in addition to that, we need to make sure that we go 
forward with this amendment because it is an amendment about fairness 
and making sure that we have fairness extended to two allies that make 
up a very important part of our geopolitical relationship around the 
world, Portugal and Greece. We should make sure that they are not 
unfairly treated and allowed to join this program because of the nature 
of this program, which even the gentleman from Texas who is supporting 
the bill and opposing this amendment says is a program that is in need 
of improvement.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say that we need to change this 
program. I applaud the efforts in this bill to change the underlying 
premise of this program, which means instead of doing it from a refusal 
rate measure, we are going to go to an overstay rate measure. It is a 
much more accurate measure for what we are trying to do with this 
program. In doing so, I think we will have a much more accurate 
representation of what the true facts are. Then in addition to that, I 
think if we pass this amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Pombo) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas) and myself, we will be going a 
long way in improving relations with two very close allies to the 
United States of America. I think that that is something all of our 
colleagues in this House can certainly stand up and support. Like the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) said, this is about legal 
immigration.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). As my colleagues can see, 
this issue attracts the attention of a wide spectrum of political 
ideologies. This is the case because of the importance of treating the 
citizens of our valued allies like Greece and Portugal with the respect 
this Nation should afford them. I find it wholly ironic that Greece, 
our NATO ally, is trusted with safeguarding our troops, trains with our 
military, utilizes our high technology equipment and has fought with us 
on every conflict this century, yet at the same time our country does 
not seem to think that citizens of Greece are safe or secure enough to 
enter this country without a visa like Germany, France or every other 
nation that is in the European Union except Portugal. This amendment is 
a common sense legislative fix that will protect America's relations 
with its allies and promote tourism and economic activity that follows 
with Greece and Portugal. This Congress should be encouraging tourism 
as a trade industry for us, and the existing 2 percent threshold makes 
it much more difficult for Greeks and Portuguese to visit our great 
country.
  One of the problems this bill fails to take into effect is geography. 
In Greece the U.S. has two consulates, one in Athens and one in 
Thessaloniki. However, Greece is not a country with easy access to all 
its parts. The country is spread out among many islands, and the famous 
mountains of Greece make travel difficult for many. The United States 
does not make it easy to get to the consulate for a visa.
  Moreover, I have been in communications with the U.S. State 
Department this past summer about my perception that we are trying to 
close down the consulate in Thessaloniki. The present facility was 
damaged in an earthquake many years ago and rumors abound about a 
diminished role or shutdown altogether of this consulate in the 
northern part of Greece. There are plans to move to another, less 
noticeable part of the community where the consulate may not even fly 
the U.S. flag. If closed or hours curtailed, the U.S. Government would 
be doing nothing to improve the situation.
  This matter passed by unanimous consent in the other legislative 
body. Although we may generally get frustrated by the actions in the 
Senate, I think the record must reflect that if any one of the 100 
Senators thought this 3 percent threshold was a bad idea, a Senator 
would have objected. No Senator did. They did not because moving this 
waiver from 2 to 3 percent only affects two countries, Portugal and 
Greece.

  I must also note my disappointment at some of the veiled language and 
intimations of the proponents of the status quo. The Greeks and 
Portuguese are not terrorists or criminals, and I resent any attempts 
to suggest that this is the case. Rather, Greeks and Portuguese are 
hardworking, well respected and proud members of the world community. 
U.S. policy should treat them so. Greek Americans and Portuguese 
Americans are the local small businesspeople, families and neighbors 
from every district of this great country, and yes, even Members of 
Congress. They have helped make America the greatest Nation in the 
world. We ought to acknowledge this by passing this amendment.
  Finally, I must note the irony of having this vote today, on Greek 
Independence Day. Later tonight a prescheduled special order on this 
important subject was scheduled. America was founded on the idea of 
democracy from Greece. The poet Shelley once wrote, ``Our laws, our 
literature, our religion, our arts have their roots in Greece.'' 
Failure to pass this amendment would dishonor this statement.
  Rather than divide our American allies and constituencies, let us 
work together and resoundingly pass this well thought out amendment by 
the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think that it 
has been well crafted and it deserves our support. I listened very 
intently, Mr. Chairman, to the words of the gentleman from Texas with 
regard to his opposition to this particular amendment, and the basis, 
the premise of all this is the premise that the rate of refusal from 2 
percent to 3 percent is really something we should not be doing. If my 
colleagues look at that number, if they look at the real definition of 
rate of refusal, they will know that it is very, very subjective. If 
they talk with any of the immigration agencies or authorities, they 
will find that the rate of refusal as such is based upon a lot of times 
the personality of the immigration person or the person looking at the 
passport, allowing that person to come in.
  I had an experience just recently, my office deals with many 
different problems of immigration, where we had one person, a person 
who had a visa, a person went back to their original country, wanted to 
come back into the United States and for some unknown reason was 
refused a visa to come back in. I called just to find out why. The 
reason why? The gentleman just did not have time on the other side, 
this is from the American embassy, to pay attention to that person and 
just did not want to be bothered with it. The person then went to 
another person and got admitted.
  That is what adds to the statistic that the gentleman from Texas is 
basing his opposition for this amendment on, which is totally wrong. It 
is fabricated. It is very, very subjective. But now let us take a look 
at the facts. Look at the facts about Greek Americans who are going 
back to their country of origin, to Greece. It is higher there than 
Greeks coming to America. Take a look at my State of Rhode Island, 
where we and the State of Massachusetts have one of the highest rates 
of immigration from Portugal. These people are hardworking, dedicated 
individuals who really have made a difference for our State and our 
country. What we are doing is we are saying to them, because of a 
subjective judgment by a bureaucrat on the other side, we are going to 
dismiss the opportunity for family members to come over on a short-term 
visa to visit their family, to visit this country and increase tourism 
to our States and our country.
  This is wrong. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas) said, it 
is wrong on the basic principles that we have founded our country. It 
is wrong on the basic principles of democracy. What we should be doing 
is providing a reasonable access for our allies, for

[[Page H1495]]

those people who have helped us time and time again, in all the world 
wars who have fought for us and helped us. But we are turning our backs 
on them because of some bureaucratic, subjective decision. This is 
wrong. Pass this amendment. Pass it now.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Pombo-Kennedy 
amendment to H.R. 2578. This amendment is narrowly drawn. It would 
raise the visa waiver program refusal rate from 2 to 3 percent. This 
would allow citizens of Greece and Portugal to travel to the United 
States for 90 days without a visa.
  There has been a lot of incorrect information that has been 
circulated about this amendment. This amendment is not about 
immigration but rather about tourism and commerce. It would allow 
people from Greece and Portugal to travel to the United States, whether 
for business or pleasure, without getting a visa, just as those 
countries allow people from our country to come to their countries. 
Tourism from these countries would increase dramatically and help and 
benefit the American economy.
  In fact, the first year that Argentina was in the program, tourism 
from that country to the United States grew by 11.5 percent. I am 
fortunate to represent Astoria, Queens, which is one of the largest 
Hellenic American communities in the United States. I know that they 
would like for their families to be able to come and visit them here in 
the United States without having to get a visa, just as they are able 
to travel to Greece without a visa.
  It is very appropriate that this amendment is before us today, 
because this is the 177th anniversary of Greek independence. Greece is 
one of our oldest and strongest allies. They have fought by our side in 
every war this century. Their ideas of democracy and individual 
liberties became the foundation of our government. It is time that we 
extend to them the same courtesy that they extend to us. I strongly 
support this amendment. It is narrowly drawn. It will help tourism in 
this country.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the arguments being applied on the House 
floor as I stand in support of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Patrick Kennedy) and his amendment today is essentially this: The 
question of how immigration has served this Nation during the last many 
years, and what I am struck by in terms of this debate is that while we 
are asking for a narrow solution, I think it draws us to the broader 
argument of what immigration does for America.
  In the instances of Portugal and Greece where, by the way, the United 
States Senate has already swiftly acted on this initiative, we are not 
only talking about great allies, but we are talking about people who 
regularly visit and then regularly and faithfully return. The truth is 
that for many of us who have large Greek constituencies or large 
Portuguese American constituencies, not only is it an opportunity for 
families to reunite for brief periods of time, but also I think is an 
opportunity to once again extend the argument that America warmly 
welcomes and receives the idea and notion of what immigration has meant 
in our history.
  I have stood on this floor in debate in the past over the issue of 
immigration, and happen to believe, as one whose grandparents were 
immigrants to this Nation, that immigrants and immigration serves the 
purpose of this Nation very well. Technology allows for more instant 
communication, and now there is the opportunity here to allow Greek and 
Portuguese visitors to America to come with more regularity. In both 
instances, I think it is an example not only of cooperation but how in 
the long run this boosts the American economy.
  When the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) asked me today to 
join this debate I was enthusiastic about doing it, based upon the 
constituencies that I have had a chance to represent now for more than 
2 decades in Springfield. We are still a Nation that honors the notion 
of immigration. It is hard work, it is principle, it is dedication, it 
is faith and family and friend that these people still celebrate. They 
could give all of us a lesson in patriotism and hard work.
  We should adopt the amendment that is offered here today that the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) is proposing, and we should 
do it with enthusiasm and we should do it on behalf of those millions 
of Americans who have come to this shore in the past, only to improve 
the circumstance with which we all live.
  I am pleased to add my voice in support of this proposal.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment to raise the visa 
refusal rate from 2 percent to 3 percent to allow citizens of Portugal 
and Greece to participate in the visa waiver pilot program. Since 1998, 
travelers from 26 countries have enjoyed this program's privileges. 
These visitors have been allowed to travel to the United States for 90 
days without a visa. Portugal and Greece are the only countries in the 
European Union whose citizens must have visas in order to travel to the 
United States. This requirement, Mr. Chairman, is outdated and requires 
modification.
  In my district, from Worcester to Fall River, we have strong 
Portuguese American and Greek American communities. Members of these 
communities should be able to welcome visitors from their countries of 
origin, whether for business or travel, without burdensome 
administrative delays. During times of celebration or crisis, families 
should not have to face the uncertainty of the visa process. 
Participation in the visa waiver program is based on annual refusal 
rates of visa applications. For the past 2 years, the refusal rates for 
Greece and Portugal have declined considerably and will meet the 
proposed 3 percent level.
  INS reports also indicate no documented increase in illegal 
immigration from these countries since 1996, and additional safeguards 
to prevent abuse will be enforced if this bill is adopted today.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Pombo-Kennedy-
Frank-Pappas amendment which is so important to the Greek and 
Portuguese families, not only in my district but throughout the 
country. This is an important amendment, it is the right thing to do, 
and I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to add my voice, together with those of my 
colleagues that have spoken here this afternoon and who are in the 
Hellenic and Portuguese Caucus, for offering this necessary amendment.
  I firmly believe that the visa waiver program is important to allow 
citizens of eligible countries to enter the United States temporarily 
without a visa, whether it be for business meetings or simply to visit 
with their families.
  Mr. Chairman, every country in the European Union participates in 
this waiver program; that is, with the exception of Portugal and 
Greece. It is a bit ironic that while we may applaud both countries for 
their booming economies and their low unemployment, we deny them 
participation in this program that helps tourism and facilitates travel 
to the United States.
  For example, Mr. Chairman, last year the first year that Argentina 
was in the visa waiver program, tourism from that country to the United 
States increased by 11.5 percent. I think that we can expect the same 
type of results if we move forward in the way that has been suggested 
here.
  I am a bit perplexed about the argument of those who would oppose, 
including Greece and Portugal, this visa waiver program. We do not 
believe that citizens of those countries are a threat to our public 
safety, certainly; we do not believe that they would increase illegal 
immigration; and we do not think there is any evidence of either of 
those events occurring.
  We can all agree that the number of people that have overstayed their 
visas otherwise might be a serious problem, and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service has the authority to identify people who have 
done so, but refusing both Greece and Portugal entrance into the visa 
waiver program, based on

[[Page H1496]]

inaccurate and out-of-date information, strikes me as discriminatory, 
unfair, and simply bad public policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent a large number of people of Greek and 
Portuguese origin from Lynn to Peabody, Massachusetts, to Newburyport 
and Ipswich and Haverhill; and all the way through our district, people 
are proud of their heritage, and many feel slighted by this country's 
exclusion of them from the visa waiver program merely because the 
number of people in those countries who are refused a visa may be 
slightly more than the current rigid 2 percent refusal rate. These 
people have worked hard, and the countries have worked hard to bring 
those rates down and to decrease the overstay rates.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that we should not continue to deny these 
allies and these people the opportunity to have members of their 
family, people with business interests coming in for the requisite 
period of time.
  I strongly support the Pombo-Kennedy-Frank amendment that would raise 
the refusal rate to 3 percent. It will allow Portugal and Greece to 
participate in the program, will hopefully encourage other countries to 
improve their overstay and refusal rates, and the amendment simply 
affords these countries the fair treatment to which they are entitled 
and the rewards that their hard work and improving their overall 
economies and lowering their overstay rates have brought. It is time we 
recognize this hard work, Mr. Chairman, and I ask us and urge our 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess the House is about to vote on the theory of the 
infallibility of the bureaucracy. The chairman of the subcommittee 
believes that when visa applications come, they are decided with a 
degree of precision and exactitude rarely equaled in American 
government. They are apparently perfect within a very small margin of 
error. Indeed, none of us has yet found a pollster in our own elections 
who could come closer to exactitude than the gentleman from Texas 
thinks can be found in the consular offices.
  Now I think highly of the Consular Corps, I just do not get them 
quite as high as the gentleman from Texas, who appears to have gotten 
them celestial in their perfection and absence of error. People make 
mistakes. What we have is a situation where residents of countries 
strongly allied to our own, countries that share our democratic 
commitment, countries which have living amongst us relatives and 
friends, innocent citizens, clearly innocent citizens of those 
countries, are to be penalized because of errors that second parties 
make about third parties.
  Now I understand the gentleman from Texas talked about overstays. Let 
us be very clear. If there are people who are overstaying, and the 
invincible bureaucratic officials know about it, why do they not make 
them go home? We are not protecting people who are here illegally. 
Nothing in this amendment diminishes one iota of the authority of the 
State Department and the Justice Department and anybody else they want 
to borrow to send the overstays home.
  The question is this: I represent an area in southeastern 
Massachusetts 2,000 miles from the Azores. A large number of American 
citizens came from the Azores. They have friends and relatives in the 
Azores, as close to them as Denver is. They go back and forth to visit. 
People come for weddings, for funerals, for family events. There are 
charter flights that go back and forth. If one lives in one of the 
islands in the Azores, and the islands are spread out, which does not 
have a full-time consular official, and there is an emergency that 
comes up, someone dies, sadly, or there is some other need for you to 
come right away, maybe someone is ill and they are going to come sit 
with the children for awhile, these are the kinds of interactions we 
are talking about. They have got to go and get a visa. Why do they have 
to go and get a visa, which they would not if they lived in any of the 
other European countries? Because some other people may have been 
trying to do something which a consular official did not like, so you 
are punished.
  We are talking about increasing the rate from 2 percent to 3 percent. 
It is simply not credible that 2 percent as opposed to 3 percent is 
some important qualitative difference. The gentleman from Texas 
apparently feels that 2 percent, that is absolutely the most, although 
I must say I guess neither the gentleman from Texas nor I were here 
when we first enacted this, and I would hate to be one of the residents 
of those countries who would have had to depend on him to enact the 
whole program in the first place. But the point is that it is there, 
and we are now saying at 2 percent, they come in at 3 percent, they 
cannot. What that means is if 97.8 percent of the people who apply are 
applying legitimately, and no errors are made, then they still have to 
go through the visa waiver situation.
  Remember the visa waiver program does not mean they sneak in here 
unknown. We have records of who is here. We have every right we have 
under the bill to deal with overstays. The gentleman from Texas has in 
his legislation language saying let us get the data on overstays. Our 
amendment does not change it.
  What our amendment says is this: There are a large number of American 
citizens of Greek and Portuguese ancestry who have friends and 
relatives with whom they would like to be able to visit, exchange 
visits, et cetera. Why, why would the House want so strongly to make it 
hard on them? What kind of determined attachment to bureaucratic norms 
insists on denying these overwhelmingly decent people a little 
convenience and a little ease? Is this great country threatened in some 
way with instability, with chaos, with economic ruin because we would 
go from 2 percent to 3 percent, allowing two fairly small countries in 
population to have a more easy interchange?
  As the gentleman from California pointed out, people are trying to 
smuggle themselves in here. They do not need to get visas. This is not 
affected by that. And I understand the State Department does not want 
it, the Justice Department does not want it. No, bureaucrats do not 
want a lot of things that we do want. That is why we have the lawmaking 
power, and not them. That is why we make the decision about what is 
decent and what is compassionate.
  So on the one hand, we have the citizens of this country who want a 
little ease and a little flexibility in seeing their relatives.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The time of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, and on the other hand you 
have an insistence on attachment to unyielding, undeviating fealty to 
the notion of bureaucratic perfection. That is hardly worth inflicting 
this degree of inconvenience on so many decent Americans and their 
relatives.
  I hope the amendment is adopted.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Committee for 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close the debate by 
bringing us home to what the issue is that we are debating. We are 
debating going from 2 people in 100 being refused a visa to come to the 
United States as a tourist or on legitimate business purposes, and to 
go from 2 people out of 100 to 3 people out of 100 being refused and 
being refused on, I would argue, an arbitrary basis as to whether or 
not they meet an arbitrary standard that is set up by the person 
sitting across a desk from them.
  Now I have not come at this with somewhat of a unique perspective 
from most of my colleagues, and I will fully admit I am the only 
Portuguese Member of the House of Representatives, of Portuguese 
descent. My grandparents immigrated here from Portugal, and I am very 
proud of that. But I can tell my colleagues that there is a difference 
between whether or not my relatives can come over on a tourist visa or 
not, and that does mean something to me and my family, and I think that 
this is a very important amendment.

                              {time}  1615

  I think that it is fair. All I am asking my colleagues to do is to 
allow people

[[Page H1497]]

to come in for legitimate reasons. We are not talking about illegal 
immigration. We are not even talking about legal immigration. We are 
talking about people coming into this country as tourists. We are 
talking about people coming into this country for legitimate business 
reasons. That is what we are talking about.
  How this could possibly explode the illegal immigration into this 
country? How this could possibly explode terrorism into our country is 
beyond me, and I fail to follow anyone's logic who tries to make that 
argument.
  What I ask my colleagues to do is to support a very simple amendment 
which would say that we are taking the refusal rate from two people in 
100 to three people in 100. That would result in Greece and Portugal 
being included in the Visa Waiver Program. I ask my colleagues' 
support.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues a story. On the upper east 
side of New York City, there is a textile shop. Its windows are nailed 
shut, and they are opaque with grime. Pedro, who is 10, and his sister, 
Amora, who is 8, labor in a single, dingy room 6 days a week.
  This is part of a child-smuggling ring that entices children from 
Portugal to come to America. The children are promised an education, 
the parents are promised money, and neither promise is kept.
  Six months before, a smuggler had flown to Lisbon to pick up Pedro 
and Amora. They were two of two dozen children that he had brought to 
the United States. This was possible because Portugal had become a visa 
waiver country and only a passport was now required to enter the United 
States.
  While many countries require passports to have the photos of 
children, Portugal does not. Because of this and the ease with which 
Portuguese passports can be counterfeited, Pedro and Amora and the 
others were easily smuggled into the U.S. That is one reason why the 
State Department and the Department of Justice and the White House and 
many of us do not want this amendment to pass. We do not want smugglers 
to condemn Pedro and Amora to those sweatshops.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to correct some misimpressions that may have 
been given in the short time that I have left. First of all, this 
debate is not about immigration. There are many aspects of immigration 
that are good for America. It is not about the countries of Greece and 
Portugal. They are wonderful countries, and someday, if they meet the 
criteria and meet the standards without lowering the standards, I hope 
they become visa countries.
  It is not about individuals who are illegal aliens who are in this 
country today. The gentleman from Massachusetts actually has a greater 
faith than I do in the bureaucracy, because he seemed to imply that if 
someone was in the country illegally, they would be deported by the 
INS. In point of fact, only one out of 100 illegal aliens in the United 
States is ever deported by the INS.
  The other problem mentioned was the difficulty of obtaining passports 
or visas in Portugal. Portugal is one of the few countries that has 
same-day service for walk-in applicants. It is one of the few countries 
that guarantees a return by mail within 3 days of those applications 
for visas.
  Another misstatement that was erroneously made was the fact that the 
Senate already has adopted this. In point of fact, the Senate bill says 
that no new country can become a member of the Visa Waiver Program 
until we have a determination of visa overstay rates. We know that that 
time is at least 2 years away, and that that is why it is in conformity 
with the 2-year extension that we have in the bill at hand.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am happy to yield just very briefly because I 
have more I would like to say.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the 
gentleman join me in acknowledging that the gripping story he began 
with was, of course, an invention, has not happened, and was in fact 
mythic. Now, the gentleman is entitled to employ myth, but the story 
about what happened because Portugal is not in the Visa Waiver Program, 
since it is not in the program----
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, because my 
story had a point.
  Yes, it was apocryphal, but yes, the point was that it could occur if 
Portugal was a visa waiver country. And I am not going to yield because 
I need to finish some comments I would like to make.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem with Portugal and Greece is not the fact 
that they are not great countries. The problem, as recognized by the 
State Department and the Department of Justice and the White House, is 
that we should not lower our standards just to accommodate these 
specific countries. They can improve their records themselves. Then 
they can be admitted to the Visa Waiver Program.
  In the case of Portugal, we have a country that already has 26,000 
people in this country illegally, and that is with the visa screening 
process because they are not part of the Visa Waiver Program. If they 
become part of the Visa Waiver Program, how many more times that 26,000 
illegal folks are we going to have in this country from Portugal?
  The point is, we do not know, but it could be in the hundreds, and 
that is why, clearly, if we have a Visa Waiver Program in Portugal, we 
are going to contribute significantly, in fact, to the illegal 
population in America. Undeniably, if Portugal becomes a visa waiver 
country, there will be more illegal aliens from that country than any 
other visa waiver country.
  In the case of Greece, again I repeat the point I made a while ago, 
that the record for Greece is worsening. The number of individuals who 
were denied their visas in fiscal year 1997 is greater than the number 
denied in fiscal year 1996. Their record is going exactly the wrong 
direction. Why we want to reward that country when their record is 
worsening, I do not know. But in any case, we should not weaken our 
standards.
  Now, in the case of Portugal, and again it is a great, great country, 
but unfortunately, with their passport the way it is today, it does 
lend itself, as the State Department and Justice Department have told 
us and we have seen demonstrated from cables, it does lend itself to 
having its passports counterfeited; and it does lend itself to child 
smuggling simply because they do not have photographs of children. All 
that is required is the name and age. It is very, very easy for 
individuals to smuggle over the children from Portugal.
  So, again, Mr. Chairman, the debate is not about whether people of 
Portugal or Greece are great people. That is undeniable. It is 
undeniable that these are great countries. But it is also undeniable 
that we are going to increase our illegal immigration problem in 
America if we lower the standards and admit countries so that they no 
longer have to obtain visas if they are coming to America.
  It is also undeniable that if we lower these standards, we are going 
to increase the temptation for individuals to smuggle children into the 
country as well. It is also undeniable that if we pass this amendment, 
we are going to be admitting one country that will contribute to our 
illegal immigration problem and another country that has a record going 
in the exact wrong direction when it comes to lowering visa fraud 
rather than increasing it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment, support the underlying bill, and join the administration and 
many of us who are concerned about illegal immigration.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Texas acknowledging that he was being, as he said, apocryphal, a 
very nice word for ``made up.'' His incident that he began with is 
totally made up.
  It is a little bit apocryphal, too, when he talks about the passport, 
because under this bill, to become eligible for visa waiver, you would 
have to change the passport to make it machine readable. So the current 
Portuguese passport would not be the

[[Page H1498]]

same. It would have to become machine readable.
  The fact is that if there is an overstay problem, that should be 
dealt with by enforcement. And this notion that somehow there are these 
thousands of Portuguese children waiting to be smuggled, in fact, 
exists only in the apocryphal imagination of the gentleman from Texas.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from North 
Carolina yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I just wanted 
to correct the gentleman from Massachusetts. The amendment actually 
says that the countries only have to be in the process of developing a 
machine readable passport, not that they actually have to have one so 
we still have the problem with counterfeiting passports, and we still 
have the problem with child smuggling as well.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, let us just make it clear 
here, the idea is, the Attorney General still has discretion to reject 
these countries based upon any concerns that she may have with respect 
to these issues that, I might say, are ancillary.
  You are talking process now with the machine. What we are talking is 
substance. We are talking about letting families come over here when 
their family members have a family event. If it is a happy event, they 
come over for that.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from North 
Carolina yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I was not talking process. I was talking real 
people, real children who might be smuggled, real illegal aliens.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, the gentleman from Texas was talking 
apocryphal real people.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. No. We were talking about individuals where there 
is a real threat.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman from Texas was talking 
about apocryphal real people.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. If you want to, the State Department has received 
a number of these cables that go into the problem in great detail.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? 
Let us get clear here.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, let me just say here very 
quickly, if there is a problem, as the gentleman said, then that is a 
problem that needs to have law enforcement. If there is a problem with 
the fact that these people need to have the visa overstay enforced, 
that should be enforced. But the fact of the matter is, that does not 
negate the primary reason for this amendment.
  And the primary reason for this amendment is to let two allies, 
Greece and Portugal, who have large numbers of family members here in 
the United States of America, be able to come over on a visitor's visa 
or a business visa for a temporary period of time, for 90 days or less, 
and not have to go through a bureaucratic process.
  It means that we have got to let our families rejoin for family 
occasions and business people to come over for tourist reasons. And let 
us not confuse the gentleman's being hung up on bureaucratic procedure 
as a reason to preempt us from passing this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me just put this in 
perspective here.
  I am in favor of this amendment. The reason I am in favor of it is 
that the whole notion of a visa refusal rate, if you understand that, 
means almost nothing, because if 100 people show up in an INS office 
and/or in a consular office, and two out of that 100 are refused a 
visa, then you have a 2 percent refusal rate. If three out of 100 are 
denied a visa, then you have a 3 percent refusal rate.
  If the consular officer in that office is sitting there, and they 
have a criterion that says, I do not like people who look poor, or I do 
not like people who look black, or I do not like people who look a 
particular way, then the refusal rate may be 98 percent. It could be 
100 percent.
  The point I am making is that that is an irrational basis, a 
subjective basis, for setting up our whole Visa Waiver Program in the 
first place. So whether it is 2 percent or 3 percent, I cannot get all 
bent out of shape about it.
  This amendment would move it from 2 percent to 3 percent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, what everybody ought to 
focus on is that in this bill is the mechanism to move us from this 
visa refusal rate process, which is irrational, to a visa overstay 
process, which is a rational basis for determining whether a country 
ought to participate in the Visa Waiver Program.
  Because once these people get into the country, if they do not go 
home, then I get real bent out of shape about that. When the time 
comes, they ought to be required to go home. And the visa overstay 
information would allow us to measure that and get to a rational basis. 
Right now, we have no rational basis.
  So I do not have any problem whatsoever from moving the threshold 
from two out of 100 to three out of 100, because I know that there are 
some countries that are being denied 50 out of 100 on no rational basis 
whatsoever, in some cases, 75 out of 100 on no rational basis 
whatsoever.
  We ought to support this amendment, pass this bill. Let us get the 
visa overstay information we need to implement a rational Visa Pilot 
Program, and we will all be a lot happier. People throughout the world 
will be a lot happier because we will have a rational basis for having 
a program.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  First of all, I want to speak in strong support of both the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy), who I always like to speak in favor of, and I speak in favor 
of this particular amendment.
  I think it is important for us to recognize that the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), who has offered this bill, is trying to deal with a 
fundamental problem we have with immigration, and that is that the vast 
majority of illegal immigration has come into the country because of 
visa overstays; and that is why I did not vote for a lot of the 
legislation that came out as so-called ``immigration reform'' last 
year, because it did not deal with the fundamental issue.
  I think that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) ought to be 
congratulated for the efforts that he is making to try and deal with 
this important issue.
  I just think that the particular oversight in this bill needs to be 
straightened out. If, in fact, we are dealing with visa overstays, I 
think we have to reform the process, but if we do not deal with visa 
overstays and we just deal with some bureaucrat that is sitting in some 
embassy somewhere around the world who is saying, this particular 
individual does not qualify, and we add up all of those circumstances 
and one gets a 2 percent denial rate and one gets a 3 percent denial 
rate and, therefore, we are going to eliminate the ability of these 
countries to go back and forth to see their families. I will tell my 
colleagues, every single Member of Congress has had to get on the phone 
at one time, and in my case, many, many times, with some bureaucrat 
sitting in some embassy somewhere around the world because some family 
has a very legitimate right to come to America and is being denied 
because some bureaucrat does not think they have every ``T'' crossed 
and ``I'' dotted.
  We are not talking about vast numbers of illegal immigrants coming 
into America using this process. We are talking about a 1 percent 
difference; and that 1 percent difference is an opportunity for 
families to be reunited, it

[[Page H1499]]

is an opportunity to increase trade. We should deal with the fact that 
we in America make money off of immigration. This is a money-maker for 
the United States of America. It is a money-maker for the taxpayers, it 
is a money-maker for the Federal Government.
  If the problem is the underlying issue of people that come here and 
stay illegally, then let us deal with that. We deal with that issue by 
dealing with overstays. And we ought to be tough on overstays, and if 
we have a bill and legislation that comes in here and gets tough with 
people that are breaking the law, I will support it. But let us not do 
it arbitrarily, because for some reason we do not want to get into 
opening up the bill; and then we are going to hurt people from only 2 
countries, from Portugal and Greece.
  Two of our Nation's proudest immigrant populations come from both 
Portugal and Greece. They have done so much to not only settle the 
United States of America, but make phenomenal contributions to our 
culture. We walk this very Capitol Building and see how many Greek and 
Portuguese immigrants are up on our walls.
  This democracy is founded upon the Greek democracy, and for us to be 
breaking that tie and saying we are going from 3 percent to 2 percent, 
so therefore, we are going to make every Greek immigrant go through 
some massive bureaucracy is a ridiculous point of bureaucratic nonsense 
that I cannot believe that the gentleman from Texas, who is as clear-
thinking and as forward-thinking as he is, would possibly oppose this 
amendment. Because I know that he fundamentally has already said, as I 
heard him in my office, he said that in fact he agrees that this bill 
should be stipulated to deal with the overstay issue, and he recognizes 
that the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo), their amendment only deals with this issue 
because it has to do with the visa denial rate.
  There is a huge difference between a visa denial rate and a visa 
overstay. Let us deal with the issue.
  I would just hope that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) might 
consider amending his opposition to this amendment and accept it and be 
done with it before we get to bringing everybody over here for a vote. 
I think that this is good legislation; I think it will help the bill, 
and I would be happy to see him see the light.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pombo-Kennedy amendment, 
although as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) who just 
spoke so eloquently highlighted the real problem, and the problem is 
that we are dealing with trying to just simply solve a problem with the 
existing formula by raising the 2 percent to 3 percent to take care of 
the Portuguese and the Greeks.
  I am a member of the Portuguese caucus, so I rise to support this 
amendment on 2 scores: Because it is important, it is fair, it is just; 
because I feel that these 2 groups are entitled to this support.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue that brings me to the floor to discuss this 
whole matter of visa waiver, however, is the very, very huge problem 
that I have with the Asian constituency that I must deal with almost 
daily. And there the issue of denials of visa, visa applications to 
come to America for whatever reason, are mind-boggling.
  Almost every day I am writing letters to the embassies asking them 
for compassion, for consideration, for allowing people to come to 
Hawaii to visit a terminally ill parent; and they are virtually denied 
without really very much consideration, for economic reasons primarily, 
not enough earnings, no ownership of property, they do not own 
businesses.
  But even in some cases where they own businesses and have very large 
personal wealth, they are still not permitted to come in. So the denial 
rate that occurs in many of these countries is a real problem as a 
prejudice in opening up opportunities for them to travel.
  My State enjoys a very large multicultural society, and so we have 
people from all over the world who live in Hawaii. It just is simply 
unfair that in the Asian area so few of these individuals even with 
very solid and strong economic backgrounds are not able to come to 
visit.
  As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) indicated, the 
visitor industry is an important industry. I call upon the people who 
belong to the tourist caucus to understand the importance of allowing 
people into the country to visit. Why is it that we are so afraid of 
the people coming in to visit, to spend their dollars, to enjoy 
themselves? Well, there is practically a band, a barrier to the 
entrance of these individuals from Asia at the current time, and it is 
a real difficult problem.
  Mr. Chairman, what I am confronted with, with a great deal of pain 
and anxiety, is that the denials go to very, very compassionate 
situations, like somebody terminally ill. I have a doctor's 
certificate, I present that, and it is still not any good. When the 
person has already died and they are awaiting funeral services, the 
family is still not even allowed to come in to attend the funeral, and 
it is a very, very sad time. This is what we are talking about when we 
talk about visa denials.
  So while we would have wanted to come to the floor, my colleague, the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and myself, to urge the 
extension of the Kennedy-Pombo amendment to include Korea, very strong 
allies, very supportive; we have committed ourselves to the defense of 
the people of South Korea, yet they have great difficulty in entering 
the United States for business, for pleasure, to visit their relatives, 
or to attend even funerals and to attend to people who are sick within 
their families. It is just extremely unfair.
  Mr. Chairman, we were hoping for some way in which we could 
demonstrate that the denials of visas in Korea were becoming very, very 
low, and that they would qualify under this 3 percent factor. But as we 
all know in this House, there has been a complete rupture of the 
economy of many of the Asian countries, and they are suffering very, 
very gravely because of these difficulties. As a result, more and more 
people are being denied visa opportunities and opportunities to come 
for business or pleasure or whatever, and as a result, we would 
probably not be able to prevail under the 3 percent current level.

  So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the efforts of the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Pombo), and I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I hope that 
the people who are guiding this debate will accept this amendment as 
just and fair and look to further changes in the law in the next 
session.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pombo/Kennedy/Frank/Pappas 
amendment to H.R. 2578, the Visa Waiver Pilot Program Act. This 
amendment simply allows Greece and Portugal--and only Greece and 
Portugal--to participate in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.
  Let me make it clear that I have the highest respect for my colleague 
and friend from Texas, Chairman Lamar Smith. As a fellow subcommittee 
chairman, I know the rigors and demands of directing a panel, which 
contains an array of divergent views. It was his strong and determined 
leadership that allowed the House to pass historic and much needed 
reform of our nation's immigration laws in the 104th Congress.
  We have an honest difference of opinion about whether Greece and 
Portugal should be allowed to participate in the Visa Waiver Pilot 
Program. Rather than rehashing the same arguments and issues that have 
already been debated, I want to focus on Greek citizens and why they 
want to participate in this program.
  My staff in Clearwater, Florida, informed me that they have been 
approached by individuals who have faced difficulty entering the United 
States when a loved one has passed away. Currently, Greek citizens have 
to go to one of two U.S. consulates in Greece to initiate the 
application process to obtain a travel visa.
  The simple logistics of travel are, in many cases, prohibitive to 
Greek citizens seeking temporary entry into the United States. The 
entire process can often take two weeks or more and requires 
considerable cost and effort.
  I am dismayed that, in some arguments against this amendment, it has 
been insinuated that terrorism and domestic crime will increase in the 
United States if Greece and Portugal are permitted to participate in 
this program. It is important to note that Greece and

[[Page H1500]]

Portugal are the only member nations of the European Union to be 
excluded from the program and whose citizens must obtain a visa to 
enter the United States. Ironically, Americans do not need a visa to 
enter Greece.
  Some of my colleagues believe that allowing Greece to participate in 
this program would lead to increased illegal immigration, because 
individuals would overstay their visas. In fact, the number of 
immigrants from Greece and Portugal who settle in the United States 
each year is not significantly higher than the number of Americans who 
establish residence in these countries.
  I want to make one final point. It is my understanding that Chairman 
Smith opposes this amendment because he believes the two percent 
refusal rate is a fair and equitable level.
  In my judgment, we are quibbling about numbers, and very small 
numbers at that. The other body passed legislation which raises the 
refusal rate threshold to three percent. It unanimously approved an 
amendment to allow Greece and Portugal to participate in the Visa 
Waiver Pilot Program. We should do the same.
  Tonight, I am conducting a special order in this chamber to 
commemorate the 177th Anniversary of Greek Independence Day. Today 
marks the day when Greece began restoring its democratic heritage after 
nearly four centuries of foreign oppression. I can tell you personally, 
as the son of Greek immigrants, that the Greeks share a love of the 
United States which may be unparalleled abroad. Greece and the United 
States share a common bond: an intense desire for freedom and 
democracy. It was, in fact, the ancient Greeks who forged the ideas 
upon which our nation was founded.
  Greece has been our staunch ally for many years. We should 
reciprocate that treatment and approve the Pombo/Kennedy/Frank/Pappas 
amendment to H.R. 2578.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by Mr. Pombo. This amendment would increase the visa 
refusal rate from 2% to 3% which would allow Greece and Portugal to 
participate in the tourist visa waiver program. As of now, these two 
countries are the only two members of the European Union not included 
in the program. However, U.S. citizens visiting Greece, do not need a 
visa.
  This is inappropriate treatment for a country like Greece which is 
one of the United States' best allies. Greece is one of only three 
countries outside the British Empire which has fought with the U.S. in 
every war this century. In fact, one out of nine Greeks gave their 
lives as American allies fighting the Axis powers and during the 
communist civil war which followed. Our nations' close relationship 
continues today.
  Greece is and always has been a close friend and ally of the U.S. 
Bringing Greece into the visa waiver program would strengthen our ties. 
It would also be an appropriate gesture of good will for today, Greek 
Independence Day, to a country that gave this country the precious gift 
of democracy.
  The Senate voted to end this program for Greece by increasing the 
refusal rate from 2% to 3% for the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Now we in 
the House should do the same.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pombo 
amendment to H.R. 2578, the Visa Waiver Reauthorization Act.
  This amendment would admit a slightly wider circle of countries to 
the program--those with a visa refusal rate of 3% or less--a level 
which I believe is more than justified.
  In 1986, the Visa Waiver Pilot Program was authorized essentially on 
a ``trial run'' basis, under the very stringent control of a 2% visa 
refusal rate--averaged over two years--with no one year having a rate 
over 2.5%.
  The visa waiver saves our embassies and consulates enormous amounts 
of time and appropriated funds. In 26 countries, our consular staffs 
are freed from processing visas in stable areas where there are 
virtually no visa refusals anyway. The visa waiver has made money for 
the United States by greatly boosting tourism and sparing visitors the 
inconvenience of traveling to a consulate and going through the red 
tape of applying for a visa that would likely be approved anyway.
  Congress has recognized the success and benefits of this program and 
has repeatedly reauthorized the visa waiver program over the years. Yet 
I feel that Congress is just waking up to the fact that the program is 
overly strict in its means of measuring who can participate and who 
cannot.
  The visa refusal rate is a poor indicator of a country's ability to 
participate responsibly in the U.S. visa waiver arrangement. Consular 
officers have far-reaching powers to deny visas. Indeed, a federal 
employment case recently brought to light that the consular officers in 
Sao Paulo, Brazil were expected to rely heavily on an applicant's race, 
appearance or manner in denying visas, which obscured whether the 
applicants actually and a motivation to return home on time.
  To be fair to the State Department, I concede that consular officers 
cannot read minds or predict the future. They cannot know in advance 
whether or not a visa applicant will violate our immigration laws. But 
this uncertainty leads them to err too much on the side of caution and 
deny visas that may be a bit borderline.
  A far more accurate indicator for whether a country should be 
eligible for visa waiver program is whether foreign visitors do in 
fact, overstay or violate our immigration laws.
  For this reason, I applaud the provision in the main bill requiring 
the INS to collect data on persons who overstay their 90-day visa 
waiver period. This should be the benchmark, not a mere hunch on the 
part of a consular officer.
  Mr. Chairman, I support raising the disqualification rate to 3% at 
this time. This will bring in Greece and Portugal now, and--I hope--
South Korea before long.
  My state of Hawaii has seen many affluent Korean tourists--and tour 
groups as well--who are quite interested in visiting Hawaii--and the 
West Coast as well--but who are discouraged by the visa process. 
Australia, and other countries get these precious travel dollars, 
because the South Koreans can enter there without a visa.
  South Korea's tourism market is estimated at about billion dollars a 
year. The average visitor spends more than $2,000 in the U.S., not 
including airfare. The strong demand for U.S. visas has not escaped the 
notice of airlines and the rest of the travel and tourism industry. 
Like the European countries that do participate, the U.S. and South 
Korea have close historical ties, a military alliance, and a very 
strong trade relationship. In fact, South Korea is our sixth largest 
trading partner.
  Much has been said about Greece and Portugal being the only European 
Union countries that are still ineligible for visa waivers. Allow me to 
point out that the refusal rate of 2% means that Japan is the only East 
Asian country now able to participate in the program. South Korea, 
whose visa refusal rates have been 3.75% and 2.87% in the last two 
fiscal years, will not be brought under the program, even if this 
amendment to raise the bar to 3% is adopted.
  Despite that, Mr. Chairman, I feel this amendment is a step in the 
right direction, and I urge its passage.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 360, 
noes 46, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 70]

                               AYES--360

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder

[[Page H1501]]


     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--46

     Aderholt
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Berry
     Blunt
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Canady
     Collins
     Combest
     Deal
     Emerson
     Fawell
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Granger
     Green
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     Lewis (KY)
     McCollum
     Pease
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Sanford
     Shadegg
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stump
     Taylor (MS)
     Watts (OK)
     White

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Brown (FL)
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Conyers
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kleczka
     McDade
     McDermott
     Millender-McDonald
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Royce
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Towns
     Waters
     Yates

                              {time}  1701

  Messrs. LEWIS of Kentucky, ADERHOLT, BAESLER, McCOLLUM, BARR of 
Georgia and GILCHREST changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. NEUMANN, ROHRABACHER and ENGLISH of Pennsylvania changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Are there further 
amendments?
  There being no further amendments, under the rule the committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the Chair, Mr. Snowbarger, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2578) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend the visa 
waiver pilot program, and to provide for the collection of data with 
respect to the number of nonimmigrants who remain in the United States 
after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney 
General, pursuant to House Resolution 391, he reported the bill back to 
the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  (Mr. GINGRICH asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


          Announcement of Passing of Congressman Steve Schiff

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty to inform the House 
that earlier today, Steve Schiff, our colleague, died in Albuquerque. 
All of my colleagues know he fought a very, very long and very 
courageous struggle against cancer.
  I had an opportunity to talk just a few minutes ago with his wife, 
and the family is bearing up very, very well. His staff has been 
wonderful in a very difficult situation for over a year, and has done 
really courageous work in representing Steve and representing the 
district.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join me in a moment of 
silent prayer for Steve and his family, and then afterwards I will 
comment further.
  Amen.
  Let me just say, that Mrs. Schiff indicated they will decide later on 
this evening whether the funeral will be on Friday or on Monday. 
Obviously, the House will suspend for the purposes of the funeral, and 
we will invite Members who care to go, to go and join the family at 
that time.
  It is a very sad time for all of us, and I think that those of us who 
knew Steve well knew the integrity, the decency, the love for this 
country that he brought to the job of Representative, the degree to 
which he gave all of us honor in the way in which he served. And I know 
that all of my colleagues will want to reach out in their own way to 
the Schiff family and to the people of New Mexico and, in particular, 
as I said a minute ago, to the very fine staff who has just truly done 
heroic work over the last year under the most difficult possible 
circumstances.
  I know that my colleagues will want to join in prayers for Mrs. 
Schiff and for the immediate family. We will report more as we learn 
more.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I know on this side of the aisle, we join all 
of our colleagues on that side of the aisle. All of us, in losing a 
colleague, share the sadness and share the concern for our colleague's 
family.
  Mr. Speaker, another one of our colleagues is grieving this day as 
well, as many probably know. The family of the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) lost their son, 30 years of age, last night and buried him 
this afternoon. So as we pray for our colleague and for the Schiff 
family, if we could remember the Cardin family as well, I know they 
would appreciate it. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) 
for yielding.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for briefing us and I thank the House for its 
attention.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would announce that following 
final passage of this bill, a resolution will be offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read the third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 407, 
noes 0, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 71]

                               AYES--407

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps

[[Page H1502]]


     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Brown (FL)
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Conyers
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kleczka
     McDermott
     Millender-McDonald
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Royce
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Towns
     Waters
     Yates

                              {time}  1726

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend 
the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify and extend the visa 
waiver pilot program, and to provide for the collection of data with 
respect to the number of nonimmigrants who remain in the United States 
after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney 
General.''
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 2578, the legislation just considered and passed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up from 
the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1178) to amend the Immigration 
and Nationality Act to extend the visa waiver pilot program, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of S. 1178 is as follows:

                                S. 1178

       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 ``Visa Waiver Pilot Program 
     Reauthorization Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

       (a) Designation of Pilot Program Countries.--Section 217(c) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Designation of Pilot Program Countries.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of State, in consultation 
     with the Attorney General, may designate any country as a 
     pilot program country if it meets the requirements of 
     paragraph (2). In order to remain a pilot program country in 
     any subsequent fiscal year, a country shall be redesignated 
     as a pilot program country by the Attorney General in 
     accordance with the requirements of paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Qualifications.--The Secretary of State may not 
     designate a country as a pilot program country unless the 
     following requirements are met:
       ``(A) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate for previous 2-
     year period.--The average number of refusals of nonimmigrant 
     visitor visas for nationals of that country during the two 
     previous full fiscal years was less than 3.0 percent of the 
     total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of 
     that country which were granted or refused during those 
     years.
       ``(B) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate for each of 2 
     previous years.--The average number of refusals of 
     nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country 
     during either of such two previous full fiscal years was less 
     than 3.5 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor 
     visas for nationals of that country which were granted or 
     refused during that year.
       ``(C) Machine-readable passport program.--The government of 
     the country certifies to the Secretary of State's and the 
     Attorney General's satisfaction that it issues machine-
     readable and highly fraud-resistant passports to its 
     citizens.
       ``(D) Law enforcement interests.--The Attorney General 
     determines that the United States' law enforcement interests 
     would not be compromised by the designation of the country.
       ``(E) Illegal overstay and disqualification.--For any 
     country with an average nonimmigrant visa refusal rate during 
     the previous two fiscal years of greater than 2 and less than 
     3 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas 
     for nationals of that country which were granted or refused 
     during those years, and for any country with an average 
     number of refusals during either such year of greater than 
     2.5 and less than 3.5 percent, the Attorney General shall 
     certify to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives that the sum of--
       ``(I) the total of the number of nationals of that country 
     who were excluded from admission or withdrew their 
     application for admission at a port of entry during such 
     previous fiscal year as a nonimmigrant visitor, and
       ``(II) the total number of nationals for that country who 
     were admitted as nonimmigrant visitors during such previous 
     fiscal year and who violated the terms of such admission,
     is less than 2 percent of the total number of nationals of 
     that country who applied for admission as nonimmigrant 
     visitors during such previous fiscal year.
       ``(3) Continuing and subsequent qualifications.--The 
     Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     State, shall assess the continuing and subsequent 
     qualification of countries designated as pilot program 
     countries and shall redesignate countries as pilot program 
     countries only if the requirements specified in this 
     subsection are met. For each fiscal year (within the pilot 
     program period) after the initial period the following 
     requirements shall apply:
       ``(A) Countries previously designated.--(i) Except as 
     provided in subsection (g) of this section, in the case of a 
     country which was a pilot program country in the previous 
     fiscal year, the Attorney General may not redesignate such 
     country as a pilot program country unless the sum of--

[[Page H1503]]

       ``(I) the total of the number of nationals of that country 
     who were excluded from admission or withdrew their 
     application for admission during such previous fiscal year as 
     a nonimmigrant visitor, and
       ``(II) the total number of nationals of that country who 
     were admitted as nonimmigrant visitors during such previous 
     fiscal year and who violated the terms of such admission,
     was less than 2 percent of the total number of nationals of 
     that country who applied for admission as nonimmigrant 
     visitors during such previous fiscal year.
       ``(ii) In the case of a country which was a pilot program 
     country in the previous fiscal year, the Attorney General may 
     not redesignate such country as a pilot program country 
     unless the Attorney General has made a precise numerical 
     estimate of the figures under clauses (i)(I) and (i)(II) and 
     reports those figures to the Committees on the Judiciary of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives within 30 days 
     after the end of the fiscal year. As of September 30, 1999, 
     any such estimates shall be based on data collected from the 
     automated entry-exit control system mandated by section 110 
     of Public Law 104-708.
       ``(iii) In the case of a country which was a pilot program 
     country in the previous fiscal year and which was first 
     admitted to the visa waiver pilot program prior to September 
     30, 1997, the Attorney General may not redesignate such 
     country as a pilot program country unless the country 
     certifies that it has issued or will issue as of a date 
     certain machine-readable and highly fraud-resistant passports 
     and unless the country subsequently complies with any such 
     certification commitments.
       ``(B) New countries.--In the case of a country to which the 
     clauses of subparagraph (A) do not apply, such country may 
     not be designated as a pilot program country unless the 
     following requirements are met:
       ``(i) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate in previous 2-year 
     period.--The average number of refusals of nonimmigrant 
     visitor visas for nationals of that country during the two 
     previous full fiscal years was less than 3.0 percent of the 
     total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of 
     that country which were granted or refused during those 
     years.
       ``(ii) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate in each of the 2 
     previous years.--The average number of refusals of 
     nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country 
     during either of such two previous full fiscal years was less 
     than 3.5 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor 
     visas for nationals of that country which were granted or 
     refused during that year.
       ``(iii) Commencement of authorized period for qualifying 
     countries.--No country qualifying under the criteria in 
     clauses (i) and (ii) may be newly designated as a pilot 
     program country prior to October 1, 1998.
       ``(C) Reporting requirements for other countries.--For 
     every country from which nonimmigrants seek entry into the 
     United States, the Attorney General shall make a precise 
     numerical estimate of the figures under subparagraph (A)(i) 
     (I) and (II) and report those figures to the Committees on 
     the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     within 30 days after the end of the fiscal year.
       ``(4) Initial period.--For purposes of paragraph (3), the 
     term `initial period' means the period beginning at the end 
     of the 30-day period described in section 2(c)(1) of the Visa 
     Waiver Pilot Program Reauthorization Act of 1997 and ending 
     on the last day of the first fiscal year which begins after 
     such 30-day period.''.
       (b) Authorized Pilot Program Period.--Section 217(f) of 
     that Act is amended by striking ``September 30, 1997'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 2000''.
       (c) Development of Automated Entry Control System.--(1) As 
     of the date of enactment of this Act, no country may be newly 
     designated as a pilot program country until the end of the 
     30-day period beginning on the date that the Attorney General 
     submits to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a certification that the 
     automated entry-exit control system described in paragraph 
     (2) is operational.
       (2) The automated entry-exit control system is the system 
     mandated by section 110 of Public Law 104-208 as applied at 
     all ports of entry excluding the land borders.

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON AUTOMATED ENTRY-EXIT CONTROL SYSTEM.

       (a) Within six months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General shall report to the Committees on 
     the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     on her plans for and the feasibility of developing an 
     automated entry-exit control system that would operate at the 
     land borders of the United States and that would--
       (1) collect a record of departure for every alien departing 
     the United States and match the records of departure with the 
     record of the alien's arrival in the United States; and
       (2) 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.
       (b) Such report shall assess the costs and feasibility of 
     various means of operating such an automated entry-exit 
     control system; shall 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 shall estimate the 
     length of time that would be required for any such system to 
     be developed and implemented at the land borders.


                  Motion Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I offer a 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. SMITH of Texas moves to strike out all after the 
     enacting clause of the Senate bill, S. 1178, and insert in 
     lieu thereof the text of the bill, H.R. 2578, as passed by 
     the House.

  The motion was agreed to.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed.
  The title of the Senate bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify and extend the visa 
waiver pilot program, and to provide for the collection of data with 
respect to the number of nonimmigrants who remain in the United States 
after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney 
General.''
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  A similar House bill (H.R. 2578) was laid on the table.

                          ____________________