[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9506-S9510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BORDER IMPROVEMENT AND IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1998

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 342, S. 1360.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1360) to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to clarify and 
     improve the requirements for the development of an automated 
     entry-exit control system, to enhance land border control and 
     enforcement, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
bill, which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, with 
an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting in 
lieu thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Border Improvement and 
     Immigration Act of 1998''.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORTS ON ENTRY-EXIT CONTROL AND USE OF 
                   ENTRY-EXIT CONTROL DATA.

       (a) Annual Reports on Implementation of Entry-Exit Control 
     at Airports.--Not later than 30 days after the end of each 
     fiscal year until the fiscal year in which Attorney General 
     certifies to Congress that the entry-exit control system 
     required by section 110(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended by 
     section 2 of this Act, has been developed, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a report that--
       (1) provides an accurate assessment of the status of the 
     development of the entry-exit control system;
       (2) includes a specific schedule for the development of the 
     entry-exit control system that the Attorney General 
     anticipates will be met; and
       (3) includes a detailed estimate of the funding, if any, 
     needed for the development of the entry-exit control system.
       (b) Annual Reports on Visa Overstays Identified Through the 
     Entry-Exit Control System.--Not later than June 30 of each 
     year, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committees on 
     the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report that sets forth--
       (1) the number of arrival records of aliens and the number 
     of departure records of aliens that were collected during the 
     preceding fiscal year under the entry-exit control system 
     under section 110(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as so amended, with a 
     separate accounting of such numbers by country of 
     nationality;
       (2) the number of departure records of aliens that were 
     successfully matched to records of such aliens' prior arrival 
     in the United States, with a separate accounting of such 
     numbers by country of nationality and by classification as 
     immigrant or nonimmigrant; and
       (3) the number of aliens who arrived as nonimmigrants, or 
     as visitors under the visa waiver program under section 217 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act, for whom no matching 
     departure record has been obtained through the system, or 
     through other means, as of the end of such aliens' authorized 
     period of stay, with an accounting by country of nationality 
     and approximate date of arrival in the United States.
       (c) Incorporation into Other Databases.--Information 
     regarding aliens who have remained in the United States 
     beyond their authorized period of stay that is identified 
     through the system referred to in subsection (a) shall be 
     integrated into appropriate databases of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service and the Department of State, including 
     those used at ports-of-entry and at consular offices.

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN BORDER CROSSING-RELATED VISA 
                   FEES.

       (a) Limitation.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of State may not charge a fee in excess of 
     the following amounts for the processing of any application 
     for the issuance of a visa under section 101(a)(15)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act if the appropriate consular 
     officer has reason to believe that the visa will be used only 
     for travel in the United States within 25 miles of the 
     international border between the United States and Mexico and 
     for a period of less than 72 hours:
       (i) In the case of any alien 18 years of age or older, $45.
       (ii) In the case of any alien under 18 years of age, zero.
       (2) Period of validity of visas for certain minor 
     children.--If a consular officer has reason to believe that a 
     visa issued under section

[[Page S9507]]

     101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to a 
     child under 18 years of age will be used only for travel in 
     the United States within 25 miles of the international border 
     between the United States and Mexico for a period of less 
     than 72 hours, then the visa shall be issued to expire on the 
     date on which the child attains the age of 18.
       (b) Delay in Border Crossing Restrictions.--Section 
     104(b)(2) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 is amended by striking ``3 years'' 
     and inserting ``4 years''.
       (c) Processing in Mexican Border Cities.--The Secretary of 
     State shall continue until at least October 1, 2000, to 
     process applications for visas under section 101(a)(15)(B) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act at the following cities 
     in Mexico located near the international border with the 
     United States: Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, Ciudad Acuna, Piedras 
     Negras, Agua Prieta, and Reynosa.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BORDER CONTROL 
                   AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE IMMIGRATION 
                   AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) INS.--In order to enhance enforcement and inspection 
     resources on the land borders of the United States, enhance 
     investigative resources for anticorruption efforts and 
     efforts against drug smuggling and money-laundering 
     organizations, process cargo, reduce commercial and passenger 
     traffic waiting times, and open all primary lanes during peak 
     hours at major land border ports of entry on the Southwest 
     and Northern land borders of the United States, in addition 
     to any other amounts appropriated, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated for salaries, expenses, and equipment for the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service for purposes of 
     carrying out this section--
       (A) $113,604,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       (B) $121,064,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (C) such sums as may be necessary in each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       (b) Fiscal Year 1999.--
       (1) INS.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under subsection (a)(2)(A) for fiscal year 1999 for the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service, $15,090,000 shall be 
     available until expended for acquisition and other expenses 
     associated with implementation and full deployment of 
     narcotics enforcement and cargo processing technology along 
     the land borders of the United States, including--
       (A) $11,000,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging to be distributed to border patrol 
     checkpoints;
       (B) $200,000 for 10 ultrasonic container inspection units 
     to be distributed to border patrol checkpoints;
       (C) $240,000 for 10 Portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communications System (TECS) terminals to be distributed to 
     border patrol checkpoints;
       (D) $1,000,000 for 20 remote watch surveillance camera 
     systems to be distributed to border patrol checkpoints;
       (E) $180,000 for 36 AM radio ``Welcome to the United 
     States'' stations located at permanent border patrol 
     checkpoints;
       (F) $875,000 for 36 spotter camera systems located at 
     permanent border patrol checkpoints; and
       (G) $1,600,000 for 40 narcotics vapor and particle 
     detectors to be distributed to border patrol checkpoints.
       (c) Fiscal Year 2000 and Thereafter.--
       (1) INS.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under this section for the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service for fiscal year 2000 and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     $1,509,000 shall be for the maintenance and support of the 
     equipment and training of personnel to maintain and support 
     the equipment described in subsection (b)(1), based on an 
     estimate of 10 percent of the cost of such equipment.
       (d) New Technologies; Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may use the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated for equipment under this 
     section for equipment other than the equipment specified in 
     this section if such other equipment--
       (A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment 
     specified; and
       (ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that 
     is the same or less than the equipment specified; or
       (B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment 
     authorized.
       (2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, the Attorney General may reallocate an 
     amount not to exceed 10 percent of the amount specified for 
     equipment specified in this section.
       (e) Peak Hours and Investigative Resource Enhancement.--
       (1) INS.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under this section for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, 
     $98,514,000 in fiscal year 1999 and $119,555,000 for fiscal 
     year 2000 shall be for--
       (A) a net increase of 535 inspectors for the Southwest land 
     border and 375 inspectors for the Northern land border, in 
     order to open all primary lanes on the Southwest and Northern 
     borders during peak hours and enhance investigative 
     resources;
       (B) a net increase of 100 inspectors and canine enforcement 
     officers for border patrol checkpoints;
       (C) 100 canine enforcement vehicles to be used by the 
     Border Patrol for inspection and enforcement, and to reduce 
     waiting times, at the land borders of the United States;
       (D) a net increase of 40 intelligence analysts and 
     additional resources to be distributed among border patrol 
     sectors that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug 
     or narcotics distribution and transportation centers for 
     intensification of efforts against drug smuggling and money-
     laundering organizations;
       (E) a net increase of 68 positions and additional resources 
     to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Justice to enhance investigative resources for anticorruption 
     efforts; and
       (F) the costs incurred as a result of the increase in 
     personnel hired pursuant to this section.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS FOR BORDER CONTROL AND 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES 
                   CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       Given that the Customs Service is cross-designated to 
     enforce immigration laws and given the important border 
     control role played by the Customs Service, it is the sense 
     of the Senate that authorization for appropriations should be 
     granted to the Customs Service similar to those granted to 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service under section 6.


                           Amendment No. 3481

              (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator Abraham has a substitute amendment at the desk, 
and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] for Mr. Abraham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3481.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3481) was agreed to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to remark on final passage 
of an important piece of legislation, the Border Improvement and 
Immigration Act of 1998. I am very pleased that we have been able to 
work together to produce a bill that the Senate can pass by unanimous 
consent.
  The substitute amendment makes a number of improvements on the 
committee-reported version. I have worked particularly closely with 
Senators Gramm and Kyl to include provisions that would provide 
authorization for significant additional resources for the inspections 
and drug enforcement operations of the United States Customs Service at 
the land borders. These resources would help ease traffic and trade 
back-ups and would detect and deter drug trafficking. It is my hope 
that they be deployed on a fair basis among the northern and the 
southern border ports.
  Senator Kyl and I have also worked closely with the State Department 
and with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to make sure that 
modifications were made in the implementation of border crossing 
improvements so that local communities, particularly in Arizona, would 
not be unduly harmed by laws and regulations that could not be 
implemented without keeping travelers from visiting, shopping, and 
doing business in the United States.
  I spoke at length on this legislation in the Judiciary Committee, and 
that Committee produced a full report on the difficulties that would be 
faced if Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 were not modified. I do not want to repeat 
myself here, but would like to comment briefly on some of the key 
issues.
  The legislation first addresses the so-called Section 110 problem. 
Section 110 of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act requires the INS to develop, by September 30, 1998, 
an automated entry and exit control system to document the entry and 
departure of ``every alien'' arriving in and leaving the United States. 
The problem is that the term ``every alien'' could be interpreted to 
cover all aliens entering at land borders and seaports, which are 
points of entry where entry-exit control has not been in place. My 
legislation exempts land borders and seaports from coverage of the 
system, and instead requires the Attorney General to submit a detailed 
feasibility report to Congress on what full entry-exit control would 
involve, what it would cost, and what burdens it would impose on our 
States and our constituents. This is simply a sensible and responsible 
approach.
  The other provisions in the bill include reporting requirements on 
data obtained from the entry-exit control system that would be in 
operation at

[[Page S9508]]

airports, provisions to fix some serious problems that are being 
experienced on the Southern border with the issuance of the new 
biometric ``laser visas''--which I know is of great concern to Senator 
Kyl and others on the Southern border--and authorization for additional 
Customs and INS resources for border inspections and enforcement.
  I will say a bit more about the Section 110 problem because that is 
the provision that is most important to me. Implementing Section 110 at 
the land borders is essentially impossible at the moment. No one--not 
INS, not the State Department, and not anyone in Congress--has come up 
with a feasible way of implementing such a system at the land borders.
  At a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
just last week, testimony was heard from a private sector technology 
company that developing feasible technology to implement Section 110 
would require ``substantial'' time, ``ultimately long lead times'', and 
``significant resources,'' none of which the company could specify with 
any precision given the absolutely monumental nature of the task. 
Commenting on the sheer size of the database that would be needed to 
contain the number of visitor entry and exit records that would in 
theory be collected and entered into the system by the INS, Ann Cohen, 
Vice President of the EDS Corporation, testified, ``to put some 
perspective on the magnitude of this number, the information in this 
system at the end of one year would be equal to the amount of data 
stored in the U.S. Library of Congress.''
  In the Senate, we heard testimony at an earlier subcommittee hearing 
that if this system were implemented with just a 30-second inspection 
required for every border crosser, backups at the Ambassador Bridge in 
Detroit would immediately exceed 24 hours. That would be unbearable, 
and the border would effectively be closed. The impact would be 
immediate and would be staggering. The U.S. automobile industry alone 
conducts $300 million in trade with Canada everyday. I learned in 
Michigan that there are 800 employees of the Detroit Medical Center who 
commute from Canada every day and who would no longer be available to 
provide medical care to Michiganians. Tourism would be seriously 
harmed, families with members on each side of the land borders would be 
harmed, and our international relations with Canada and Mexico would 
likewise be seriously damaged.
  To add to this, Congress did not have the chance to fully consider 
the question of entry-exit control at the land borders, as opposed to 
just at airports, because the final language of Section 110 appeared 
for the first time only in the Conference Report. Senator Simpson and 
Chairman Smith acknowledged in letters to the Canadian Embassy 
following passage of the 1996 Act that they did not intend Section 110 
to impose additional documentary burdens on Canadian border crossers.
  The outpouring against this provision has been enormous. I would like 
to just mention a few. The approach this legislation takes is supported 
by the National Governors Association, the Republican Governors 
Association, Americans for Better Borders, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, the American 
Trucking Association, Ford, Chrysler, and GM, the Travel Industry 
Association of America, and many, many businesses, State and local 
governments and other organizations.
  It is not enough to delay implementation of this requirement. The 
Governors and others have spoken loud and clear against delaying the 
effective date of this requirement on the grounds that the States, 
businesses, and families who would be affected by this would have no 
idea what would be imposed on them when. This is not a case of 
pressuring the INS or anyone else to come up with a plan that will 
work. The fact is that the only ones who will be pressured are my 
constituents--and many of my colleagues' constituents--and that is 
unacceptable.
  Once we get the report from the Attorney General, we can consider all 
the options and make a collective decision of where and how we would 
like entry-exit control to be implemented. But it would simply be 
preposterous and irresponsible for us to keep a requirement in the law 
when we cannot say how it could possibly be met in any way and at what 
cost.
  Finally, as the Judiciary Committee noted in its report on the 
legislation, Section 110 has ``nothing to do with stopping terrorists 
or drug traffickers.'' I appreciate very much my colleagues' 
understanding of this issue, and their support of a rational approach 
that comprehends the important distinctions between hindering 
beneficial trade, travel, and tourism and taking affirmative steps to 
conquer illegal drug trafficking or other activities at the land 
borders. I am also pleased that this legislation includes additional 
law enforcement resources so that these important law enforcement 
issues can be addressed in the right way. This truly is a border 
improvement bill in all senses.
  I owe a particular gratitude to all of my colleagues who cosponsored 
the legislation, particularly those who worked with me from the outset, 
including Senators Kennedy, D'Amato, Leahy, Grams, Dorgan, Collins, 
Murray, and Snowe. I very much appreciate their efforts and support.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President. I am pleased that after many months of 
debate, the Senate has finally passed S. 1360 today. This bill, ``The 
Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1998,'' will ensure that free 
trade and tourism continue to flourish along our nation's borders. It 
will preserve the status quo for our friendly neighbors to the north 
and will provide us with the necessary time to study and develop an 
appropriate way to monitor our nation's borders and sea ports.
  I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of S. 1360 and have spoken 
repeatedly about the need for this remedy. Without this type of 
legislation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service might be 
obligated to begin implementing an enormously expensive automated 
entry-exit monitoring system at all of our nation's borders this fall 
without having the opportunity to study the situation and develop a 
workable system. The passage of this legislation means the Attorney 
General will now have one year to study and report to Congress on the 
feasibility of various means of tracking the entry and exit of 
immigrants crossing our country's land borders.
  Over the past year, I have worked hard to ensure that this 
legislation does not negatively impact the thousands of people and the 
millions of dollars of trade which cross our borders each day. This 
bill preserves the integrity of our open border with Canada and ensures 
that no additional burden is placed upon Canadians who plan to shop or 
travel in the United States. Mexican nationals will also have 
additional time under this bill to acquire new border crossing cards 
and will be able to obtain border crossing cards for their children 
under age 15 at a reduced cost. Vermonters and others who cross our 
nation's land borders on a daily basis to work or visit with family or 
friends in Canada and Mexico should be able to continue to do so 
without additional border delays.
  The Border Improvement Act also takes a more thoughtful approach to 
modifying U.S. immigration policies than that contained in section 110 
of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
(``IIRIRA''). By requiring an automated system for monitoring the entry 
and exit of ``all aliens'', section 110 would subject Canadians, and 
others who are not currently required to show documentation, to 
unprecedented border checks at U.S. points of entry. This sort of 
tracking system would be enormously costly to implement along the 
borders, especially since there is no current infrastructure in place 
to track the departure of individuals leaving the United States at our 
land borders or sea ports. Section 110, as currently worded, would also 
lead to excessive and costly traffic delays for those living and 
working near the borders. That is why I am so pleased that we were able 
to pass this legislation today to remedy this situation.
  Instead of requiring the INS to implement such a costly and 
burdensome border tracking system with little forethought, S. 1360 
mandates that the Attorney General conduct a study over the next year 
of the feasibility of various automated monitoring systems. This study 
will include an assessment of the potential costs and impact of any new 
automated monitoring system

[[Page S9509]]

on trade and travelers along the country's land borders and seaports. 
An entry-exit monitoring system at our nation's airports will still be 
implemented within the next two years.
  The Border Improvement Act also authorizes additional funds to ensure 
that adequate staffing and the newest equipment is available for INS 
and Customs agents along both borders. S. 1360 authorizes nearly $120 
million in fiscal year 1999 for INS enforcement and inspection 
equipment and personnel, and an additional $160 million for the U.S. 
Customs Service to acquire similar equipment and hire additional 
agents. The Customs Service is authorized to hire 535 inspectors and 60 
special agents along the Southwest border and 375 inspectors along the 
Northern border. The INS is authorized to hire 535 and 375 inspectors 
for the Southwest and Northern border, respectively, under this bill. 
These additional resources will help these agencies in their 
investigations of drug and alien smuggling and should reduce traffic 
waiting times along the borders.
  Overall, the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1998 is a 
sensible means of correcting the problematic language in section 110 of 
the IIRIRA while ensuring better tracking of aliens who overstay their 
visas.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, tonight the United States Senate has 
prevented a disaster on the Northern border of the United States by 
passing S. 1360, the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997. I 
am proud to be a co-sponsor.
  On September 28, 1996, the Senate passed the Omnibus Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, a 749-page bill with twenty-four separate titles. 
One small section of that bill, buried deep in the text, has been the 
subject of much consternation in northern New York. The provision, 
known as Section 110, requires the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service to develop a system to document the entry and departure of 
every alien entering and leaving the United States. Contrary to 
Congressional intent, the legislative language does not recognize the 
current practice of allowing most Canadian and American nationals to 
cross the border without registering any documents. Such an oversight 
is not uncommon in this type of omnibus bill that is hurried to passage 
in the final days of a legislative session.
  If implemented, an automated entry-exit control system along the 
northern border would likely result in long delays at the border, 
hampering tourism and trade. This is not an inconsequential matter. The 
United States-Canadian trade relationship is the world's largest, 
totaling $272 billion in 1995. Compare this to $256 billion in trade 
with the entire European Union and $188 billion in trade with Japan 
during that same period.
  The unnecessary border crossing delays which would surely result from 
the implementation of Section 110 would negatively affect our dynamic 
trading relationship with our Northern neighbor and would wreak havoc 
with the flow of traffic at the border. Each year, more than eight 
million trucks cross the eastern United States-Canada border carrying a 
variety of goods to market. Additionally, the Eastern Border 
Transportation Coalition has estimated that 57 million cars crossed 
that region in 1995. Sixty percent of these were day trips--people 
crossing the border to go to school or work, attend cultural events, 
shop, visit friends, and the like. The remaining forty percent of auto 
border crossings were by vacationers making significant contributions 
to both nations' economies. Might I note that visitors from the U.S. 
comprise the largest single group of vacationers in Canada and 
Canadians are the largest single non-U.S. group of vacationers in 
Florida.
  It was not the intent of Congress to interfere with the vibrant 
trading relationship that we enjoy with our Canadian friends. On 
December 18, 1996, Representative Lamar S. Smith and then-Senator Alan 
K. Simpson sent a letter to Canadian Ambassador Raymond Chretien to 
assure him of this fact, writing that ``we did not intend to impose a 
new requirement for border crossing cards or I-94's on Canadians who 
are not presently required to possess such documents.'' Thankfully, 
tonight this ambiguity has been resolved by this body.
  By passing this bill and exempting land border crossings from the 
automated entry-exit control system created under Section 110, we have 
prevented what could have been a catastrophe at the Canadian border.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, S. 1360, the ``Border Improvement and 
Immigration Act of 1998'' sponsored by Senator Abraham requires an 
entry-exit system at air ports by the year 2000 and requires a 
feasibility study of an entry-exit system for land and sea ports within 
a year. However, it does not address all the problems for which Section 
110 of the 1996 Act was intended. I hope that during conference, we can 
improve the bill by mandating a workable deadline for creating an 
entry-exit system at all land and sea ports.
  Section 110 of the 1996 Immigration Act requires an automated entry-
exit system by October 1, 1998. It also requires the Attorney General 
to identify visa overstays, making the system an integrated part of 
data collection by the INS.
  The purpose of Section 110 in current law is to fix the problem which 
exists now. INS says that in FY96, over 24 million non-immigrants came 
into the U.S. INS also says that they are ``unable to calculate 
overstay rates on nonimmigrants in general or for particular 
nationalities.'' INS also told my staff that they ``do not have an 
estimate'' of the average length of overstay for nonimmigrants or know 
the ``destinations of nonimmigrants''.
  The purpose of Section 110 is to make sure INS has the ability, by 
building an integrated data system at all ports of entry--including 
air, sea and land ports of entry, in order to know who is coming into 
the country and who is leaving and more importantly, who is breaking 
the law by overstaying.
  INS estimates that there are over 5 million illegal aliens in this 
country and 41% of the illegal alien population is due to visa 
overstays--that these aliens failed to depart. (source: 1996 
Statistical Yearbook of INS).
  In the 1997 report, the INS Inspector General concluded that 
currently, INS has no real ability to identify the characteristics of 
the visa overstays which could be used in developing an enforcement 
strategy that effectively targets visa overstays. It also found that 
capturing entry-exit information only at airports reveals information 
about 10% of the nonimmigrants in this country who come through 
airports. The other 90% come and leave through sea and land ports and 
therefore, are unknown if there is no entry-exist system at those 
ports.
  INS' inability to identify visa overstays has greater significance 
when we add the fact that there are over 4- 5-million border crossing 
cards which have been issued since 1940's.
  Having an integrated entry-exit system at the land borders is 
critical in keeping track of all nonimmigrants, those with visas and 
border crossing cards, providing valuable information for law 
enforcements, not only to deport visa overstays but in prosecuting 
those drug runners who provide a critical link into the heartland of 
America.
  Time has come to fully implement the 1996 Immigration Act. I hope 
that during conference, we can find a workable deadline for INS to 
create an entry-exit system at both sea and land ports. Doing a 
feasibility study is helpful in planning the implementation but without 
tough mandates to install entry-exit systems--while drug runners go 
back and forth freely at the Southwest border without law enforcement's 
knowledge, and while potential terrorists slip in easily through the 
Canadian border--is not the intent of Section 110 when Congress passed 
the 1996 Immigration Act last year.
  Thank you Mr. President and I ask unanimous consent that this 
statement be printed in the Record after the text of S. 1360.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment, 
as amended, be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was 
read the third time.

[[Page S9510]]

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2920, the House companion 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to its 
consideration, all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text 
of S. 1360, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof. I further ask that 
the bill be read a third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this measure appear 
at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 2920), as amended, was considered read the third time 
and passed.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I finally ask unanimous consent that S. 1360 be placed 
back on the calendar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________