Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 35 (Wednesday, March 25, 1998)

[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.

____________________