[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.
____________________