[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 19, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10276-H10283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2670, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2000

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Upton moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2670 be instructed 
     to agree to the provisions contained in section 102 of the 
     Senate amendment (relating to repeal of automated entry-exit 
     control system).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
LaFalce) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) is opposed to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) 
opposed to the motion?
  Mr. LaFALCE. I am strongly in support of the motion, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in that case, pursuant to clause 
7(b) under rule XXII, I rise to claim a third of the time since I am in 
opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will divide the time 20 minutes 
for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), 20 minutes for the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and 20 minutes for the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce).
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla).
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion. There is 
no one in this body who represents more territory along a border of the 
United States bordering another country than I do. I have almost 800 
miles of the Texas-Mexico border in my congressional district. It is a 
wonderful area.
  The section that we are discussing today, known as section 110, was 
put into law sometime ago by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), my 
dear friend, with very good intentions. However, as he knows, and other 
Members of this body know, there are many communities along the Mexican 
border and the Canadian border that are terrified that the 
implementation of this program will cause greater congestion at the 
border than we even see today.
  If any of my colleagues were to visit any of the communities along 
the Texas-Mexico border, Laredo, Texas, for example, Eagle Pass, Del 
Rio, El Paso, they will see long lines of traffic and pedestrians 
clogging the border at points of entry. In some cases, in the heat of 
summer, traffic is backed up several hours. It is extremely difficult 
to move traffic, to move commerce back and forth in the spirit of free 
trade that we have, today for example, with Mexico and Canada.
  The chambers of commerce and the people, the good entrepreneurs, the 
small business people, those that are trying to move goods and products 
and services, and shoppers going back and forth across the border have 
enough to deal with now and would greatly be concerned about a new 
system that would be implemented.
  I know that the process that is being discussed and proposed into law 
right now is designed to facilitate traffic. I realize that is the 
intention. But in all practicality, those of us who live along the 
border and know the border communities understand that unless this 
process is refined tremendously, we are greatly concerned that it would 
impede traffic even more than we are seeing now at these ports of 
entry. That is why I strongly support this motion by the gentleman from 
Michigan, who is greatly concerned as well about traffic along the 
Canadian border.
  Again, this is something that even communities that are not right on 
the border, communities that are in existence a few miles inland from 
the northern border with Canada and from the Mexican border on the 
southwest are greatly concerned that this will have a ripple effect 
with communities that would feel the brunt of the additional traffic 
jams and the problems with pedestrians crossing at these checkpoints.
  So I commend the gentleman from Michigan for offering this motion. I 
know that this is probably going to be a motion that will perhaps not 
see the light of day in this session, because the conference report, my 
understanding

[[Page H10277]]

is, is already closed. However, I think it is commendable this issue 
remain out front, because it is very important to all of us on the 
northern border and the southern border who believe so strongly that 
free trade must continue to flow across without any kind of additional 
barriers that may be implemented with section 110.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Upton motion to 
instruct our conferees on the matter of removing section 110 of the 
Immigration and Reform Act of 1996.
  Those of us Texans who border Mexico would like to continue to be the 
front door for commerce, not the back door, and I think that this is a 
great motion. I understand that my good friend, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), has good intentions; but while this might not be the 
appropriate vehicle to do it, I think that it is the right thing to do.
  Congress' intentions in this bill was commendable, but it was added 
at the last minute to the immigration bill to address the problem of 
people overstaying visas. Overstaying visas. Thank God that these 
people are going back. What will happen if we implement this section? 
People are going to be afraid to go back because they are afraid that 
they are going to be incarcerated or picked up.
  I would like to echo what has been said by my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). The people who do business along 
the border have seen long lines of traffic. I think that this is going 
to be an insult to our borders, to the citizens on the borders of 
Canada and Mexico. It is essential that the final appropriations 
conference report include a repeal of section 110 to avoid the problem 
that has been described by my good friend, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla), and has been brought to my attention by the people that 
we talk to.
  Mr. Speaker, the INS say there is no way that they can implement this 
system between now and the year 2000. And American businesses do not 
want to face the prospect of a never-ending string of extensions and 
cannot afford the uncertainty of not knowing what burdens will be 
imposed on them and when.
  I would like to commend the leadership of my good friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), for bringing this up. I know that 
already the real-life implications of section 110 are being felt in 
border communities at this moment, already struggling to direct 
resources to the current infrastructure and enforcement personnel. We 
have billions of dollars in commerce crossing our borders each day, so 
I would like to request my colleagues to vote for the Upton resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague and 
classmate, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), is offering a 
motion to instruct conferees to, quote, ``agree to the provision in the 
Senate bill repealing section 110 of the Immigration Reform Act of 
1996.''
  This motion, however, defies logic. Why? The conference is over. 
There is nothing left on which to instruct the conferees. The Senate 
conferees have already receded to the House bill, which contained no 
provision on section 110. Why should the House recede to the Senate 
when the Senate wants to recede to the House?
  Some claim, and we have heard that in the last few minutes, that 
section 110 will shut down our borders and that we must act now. That 
claim is simply not true. Let me give my fellow Members some of the 
facts.
  Congress overwhelmingly passed the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 
because we recognized that our immigration laws needed to be 
strengthened. Section 110 required the Attorney General to establish an 
automated entry-exit control system for aliens at points of entry to 
the United States.
  Last year, through an agreement negotiated by the leadership, the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act extended the deadline for implementation for 
the land and seaports to March 30, 2001. The extension also included 
the requirement that the system not, repeat, that the system not 
significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other legitimate cross-border 
traffic at land border points of entry.

                              {time}  1830

  So section 110 will not shut down the borders.
  I would direct the Members to the actual language of the bill itself 
that I just read. The INS is already conducting technology tests. The 
INS' preliminary results ``indicate that radio frequency technology 
works fast enough to collect entry-exit records in a land border 
environment. Many critics of the entry-exit control said it could not 
be done, no technology was feasible. The tests indicate it can be 
done.''
  In fact, the use of technology promises to expedite legitimate 
traffic at land points, which is exactly what we all want to do, 
expedite that trade in traffic. The deadline for implementation is 18 
months.
  Let us give the INS more time to work on implementation. Repeal is 
clearly not the answer. Let me tell my colleagues why we need section 
110 for the good of the country.
  Two million of the five million illegal aliens in the United States 
entered legally on tourist and business visas and never left. They know 
we have no departure system so they simply enter and then disappear. 
Seventy percent of the illegal drugs smuggled into the United States 
came across our southwestern border.
  Our northern border is also at risk. The Canadian Security 
Intelligence Service reported earlier this year ``Most of the world's 
terrorist groups have established themselves in Canada, attempting to 
gain access to the United States of America.'' Mr. Speaker, that is the 
Canadian Security Intelligence Service itself that just said that.
  Seven border counties in Washington State have been classified 
``high-intensity drug trafficking'' areas, the same designation given 
to Los Angeles, the southwest border, and New York City by Federal law 
enforcers. The Federal drug czar's report on the Northwest high-
intensity traffic areas states, ``The Pacific Northwest increasingly 
appeals to drug traffickers as an entry point for illicit drugs. Having 
a highly developed commercial and transportation infrastructure, the 
area is favored by large-scale drug smugglers from the Far East.''
  An automated entry-exit system will decrease these threats to our 
national security because the entry-exit system will allow the INS to 
compare entrants against databases of law enforcement agencies and the 
Department of State.
  As a result, with an automated entry-exit system, the deterrent value 
of our current system will be significantly enhanced when criminals and 
terrorists learn they must face the prospect of inspections.
  Our interest in facilitating legitimate traffic can be balanced with 
our national security needs to protect our country against visa 
overstayers, drug smugglers, and terrorists. The motion should be 
opposed.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also say that this debate tonight is not about 
trade or traffic. All of us who are involved in this debate, all of us 
who support section 110 want to increase trade and traffic with our 
neighbor to the north. That is why this debate is not about trade and 
traffic. This debate is about trying to reduce illegal immigration, 
stop terrorism, and try to discourage drug smugglers from entering the 
United States.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman in opposing this 
motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Upton) that filed the motion and the others who are in favor of 
this motion to instruct.
  Let me say this: The conference with the Senate is concluded and the 
bill will be filed in a matter of minutes, certainly maybe an hour or 
so or less. So the conference is concluded and we will have the 
conference report on the floor, I hope, tomorrow.

[[Page H10278]]

  Nevertheless, this is an issue that we have all struggled with. It is 
a tough one. But the motivation behind section 110, of course, as the 
gentleman from Texas has said, is to try to close the biggest loophole 
that we have in illegal immigration. Upwards of 40 percent, I am told, 
of all illegal entries that the country has start out to be legal. They 
come in on a visa and then simply overstay.
  Forty percent of the illegal immigrants in the country came to the 
country in that fashion, and we have no way of checking to see who is 
here on an overstay. This section 110 was an attempt to be able to 
check off of the list those who are simply here overstayed on a visa, 
of course, legally entering with that passport.
  As the gentleman has said, the implementation of the system is 
required by the law to ``not significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or 
legitimate cross-border traffic at land border points of entry.''
  That has to be addressed by the INS as they implement the law. We 
want to work with our colleagues to be sure that we do not disrupt the 
normal legitimate traffic across the borders. It is very important to 
us and, of course, very important to our neighbors, and there is 
technologically, I think, ways that that can be done.
  INS is now examining those ways. Perhaps it is electronic reading of 
a vehicle as it comes across the border. Perhaps it is a fast lane, as 
we have now in Southern California, that allows traffic to bypass the 
regular stop and be read by a machine as they motor past the checkpoint 
at a rapid rate of speed.
  We think there are ways this can be done, all the while achieving the 
goal that we have set; and that is to try to close this enormous 
loophole in the illegal immigration into the country by using the visa 
system and simply overstaying the time on the card.
  I think it can be done. We want to work with our colleagues to make 
that happen. But we hope that the motion to instruct conferees will be 
defeated so that we can proceed to try to close the loophole as we 
recognize the legitimate crossings that take place every hour and every 
day by people who commute either for tourism or business into and out 
of this country.
  So I would hope that we could defeat the motion. I will be happy to 
say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and others who are in 
favor of the motion that we will be happy to work with them on ways to 
get both of our goals achieved.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Commerce, 
State, Justice Committee on Appropriations and my friend and colleague 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) as well for their willingness to 
try to work with us.
  I just want to say that the unintended consequences of section 110 is 
it will shut down the border. We have heard from virtually every 
business group that does trade, particularly in my home State of 
Michigan, with Canada, my friends in other States along that border, as 
well.
  I know that the President met with the Prime Minister of Canada just 
last week. This was the number one issue that they raised. We have 
heard from the U.S. Chamber. We have heard from the National 
Association of Manufacturers. We have heard from American truckers. We 
have heard from the American Association of Export and Importers. We 
have heard from the travel industry.
  We have heard from the National Governors Conference. And I just want 
to say in the letter that we received from many of the governors, they 
cite this: ``Although we support its objective to curb the illegal 
entry of aliens into our country, implementation of an entry-exit 
control mechanism as described by 110 will not only not solve the 
problem but it is also not feasible. Besides causing major delays in 
our land borders and disrupting legitimate cross-border traffic, such a 
control mechanism will also unnecessarily cause a significant 
disruption in economic development, international trade, and commerce 
tourism, and it requires sizable infrastructure investment. The global 
marketplace, driven by on-time delivery, will also be negatively 
impacted. Section 110 has the right intention but indeed it is the 
wrong approach.''
  We have heard from a number of our border-crossing communities. They 
tell us it will take days, 2 or 3 days, for trucks to pass through 
these borders. Yes, it would be nice if we could think that there is 
going to be an automobile and we are going have the right card on it 
and go through the smart lane and register when it comes and goes. But 
who is to tell who is inside that vehicle, whether there are three 
people going across the border and what were their names, whether there 
were four people when they came back?
  It is a system that will cost billions of dollars; and if it is ever 
designed and fully implemented, it still will not work. We need a new 
approach.
  What we are suggesting here is that we repeal, for the time being, 
section 110. We will look at a feasible study. We will look at some 
alternative legislation down the road to replace it if and when it is 
ever ready. But this thing will shut down the border the way that it is 
now, and that is why in a vote in the Senate I think it was unanimous 
to get this thing repealed.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I do not really know where to start here 
because we are at cross purposes. Logic does not make any difference. 
We are coming from emotional standpoints.
  I guess I have to come from the standpoint of being a businessman who 
operated on both sides of the Canadian border. I know what this means. 
I know what the people who I used to work with say it will mean, it is 
one of these obstructionist laws which does not make any sense at all.
  I think what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) is doing is 
absolutely right. Now, if they are down in Texas or they are in another 
part of the country or have a different set of intellectual or 
philosophic approaches, that is one thing. But from a practical 
standpoint, they are making it very difficult. It seems to me that if 
they are in a business or even if they are in the area of international 
relations, what they try to do is to make friends.
  This is not making friends. The Canadians hate it. They scratch their 
heads and wonder what we are trying to do. They are great friends, the 
best friends we have in the world. Whenever we are in trouble, we call 
upon them. It does not make long-term either international or 
diplomatic or tourism or business or any other sense.
  I agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) in terms of 
offering a motion to instruct conferees on the Commerce, Justice, State 
bill. I support him and I support the motivation behind the things that 
he is trying to do. I would hope the rest of us would do the same.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. LaFalce) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. I came 
to this issue about 2\1/2\ or 3 years ago when I became the ranking 
member of the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee and found that most of the decisions that we are making on an 
immigration basis for this country are being made on very, very 
subjective criteria.
  If we are going to have a policy of checking people who come in and 
go out of the country and monitoring that, it seems to me that we have 
got to have an objective way of doing that, and we cannot say to the 
folks on the Mexican border we are going to have one system and say to 
the folks on the Canadian border that we are going to have a completely 
different system.
  So if we are going to have a system, it has got to apply all around 
the borders to all of the entry and exit points. And it seemed it me 
that that was the only way we were going to get this kind of 
subjective, I am going to single them out because they look a different 
way and stop their car because they look a different color, and have a 
consistent set of principles that apply to all of our border entry and 
exit places.
  So I kind of got on this agenda trying to come up with a set of 
consistent criteria that applied everywhere.

                              {time}  1845

  While I am not wedded to the entry-exit control system that is in 
place,

[[Page H10279]]

whatever system we put in place, if it is going to be effective, cannot 
be selectively applied using one standard at the Mexican border and 
another standard at the Canadian border.
  It is exactly what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) 
indicated that I think is troubling about this. He would like to have, 
and some people would like to have, and I should not attribute motives 
to him because I know his motives are always good, but there are people 
who would like to have a completely different set of rules applicable 
to the Canadian border than are in application at the Mexican border. 
You simply cannot do that and have a rational system of immigration in 
this country.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully have to stand in opposition 
to this direction to the conferees. Let me just compliment the 
gentleman from North Carolina, because I think there is this issue of 
we need to start finding reasons to continue the issue of addressing 
illegal immigration and drug smuggling. The trouble is we can always 
find problems with implementing any program.
  I live and grew up within a mile of the largest port of entry in the 
world, the Tijuana-San Diego port of entry. Technology has been a major 
asset at not only controlling the immigration in the drug issue but 
actually encouraging the legal crossings. We have electronic systems 
there to where businesspeople and individuals who cross the border 
extensively can electronically tag in when they are coming and when 
they are going. There is a special lane set up for that. The fact is 
this technology should be applied universally, not just in San Diego, 
not just in Mexico but also at every entry.
  I ask that we continue with control of our borders, not retreat from 
them. Let us not retreat from our responsibilities at the border.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the role of government is to attempt to solve problems, 
but the intent of the government should be to solve the problems with 
reasonable solutions. The point here is not just whether or not we 
should do this. The point is coming up with a solution that works.
  The section 110 that is being implemented simply will not work in 
Michigan. Now, I have no idea whether it would work well in San Diego 
or other border crossing points. But the immensity of the problem in 
Michigan is hard to describe unless you have been there and watched. In 
a major metropolitan area, we have the Ambassador Bridge with 12 
million vehicles crossing per day, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, 9 
million vehicles, and up in Port Huron, the Blue Water Bridge with 5.5 
million vehicles crossing.
  Now, when we talk about the amount of trade crossing that border, it 
exceeds $1 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border 
every day, counting between the U.S. and Canada. We have more trade 
crossing over the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, trade between Canada 
and the U.S., we have more crossing there than we have with the entire 
nation of Japan. That gives you some idea of the immensity of the 
problem and why we need a special solution.
  If we are trying to reach a solution for this problem, we have to 
have a different type of solution to fit that situation in that 
congested metropolitan area dealing with that much traffic and that 
much trade flowing over one single artery. And so the plea is that we 
do adopt this motion. It is absolutely essential. Because if the 
purpose of section 110 is to try to solve the problem, it fails. If the 
attempt is to create a roadblock to trade with Canada, it succeeds. We 
do not want that kind of success. We want a solution to the problem and 
something that works. Please vote for this motion to instruct.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has 
indicated that this provision in the law was passed overwhelmingly in 
1996. I would concede the fact that the immigration changes of 1996 
were passed overwhelmingly, although I opposed the bill, but I also 
would argue that there were only a handful of individuals in the entire 
United States Congress, or the world, who were aware of section 110 in 
particular. It was not until months or a year later that an awareness 
of section 110 developed. The author may have been aware, but nobody 
else was voting for that 1996 law because of that specific provision.
  Now, with respect to section 110, notice what it calls for, the 
documentation--the documentation--of all aliens entering and departing 
the United States. Now, we have never had such a requirement. They say, 
``Oh, well, there is technology being developed.'' Technology is being 
developed that can read license plates and so you might be able to 
document vehicles entering and departing the United States through 
technology, but to my knowledge no technology has been developed or is 
on the radar screen that is going to read the name, address, phone 
number, et cetera of every individual within a vehicle entering or 
leaving the United States. That is why every single person of any 
expertise who has testified on this issue said it would create 2- to 3-
day delays at the borders rather than 2 to 3-minute delays at the 
border as might now be experienced. In effect what it would do is shut 
down the borders. In effect what it would do, section 110, if 
implemented, is create a great wall. We have heard of the Berlin Wall, 
we have heard of the Great Wall of China. We would now have the Great 
Canadian Wall and the Great Mexican Wall.
  With respect to the arguments of the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt), I should point out to him, it is too bad that he was not 
here to listen to the eloquent arguments in opposition to section 110 
and in favor of the gentleman from Michigan's resolution offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Ortiz) because this would affect Mexico at least as much as it would 
affect Canada, and we want to deal with the problems on both our 
borders.
  Now, what is the problem that they intend to get at? Well, it is a 
shifting problem that they attempt to get at. On the one hand, it is 
overstays, and then maybe it is drug smuggling and then maybe it is 
terrorism. The fact of the matter is that this is not going to get at 
any of those problems. This is going to divert the resources that we 
have, and 99 percent of those resources will have to be spent on 
nonproblems when they should be spent on the real problems.

  There is another problem, too: planning for the future. Every year 
along the border, millions and millions of dollars are being invested 
in infrastructure. This is true in Buffalo, New York; it is true in 
Niagara Falls, New York; it is true in Seattle, you name it. It is true 
across the entire southern border, also. How do you plan when you have 
this Damoclean sword over your head called section 110 that says you 
must document all aliens entering and departing the United States? What 
infrastructure do you build on your side of the border to deal with 
individuals departing the United States when you have no physical 
infrastructure right now to deal with individuals departing the United 
States and you certainly do not have any human resources now or 
prospectively in the future to deal with them?
  It is unfortunate that we have to take this issue up on a motion to 
instruct conferees in an appropriations bill because it would be much 
preferable if this House of Representatives could work its will as the 
United States Senate has done on five separate occasions. On five 
separate occasions when the issue came before the United States Senate, 
they have voted, I believe unanimously in each and every instance, to 
repeal section 110, but we have not been afforded the opportunity to 
vote on a clear-cut repeal of section 110, and so we must resort to 
whatever device we possibly can. Is this the best device? Of course 
not. But then give us the right to vote on a clean bill repealing 
section 110. Let us take it up on the suspension calendar if need be. 
But make it be a clear, simple issue, repeal of section 110 or not. It 
would pass overwhelmingly. It would pass overwhelmingly. That is why it 
is not being allowed on the floor.
  I urge everyone, should we be able to vote on this resolution, to 
vote for it,

[[Page H10280]]

to vote with the unanimous vote of the Senate, with the administration, 
with the perspective of the Canadians, with the perspective of the 
Mexicans, with the perspective of virtually every single association 
that has addressed the issue and with the interest of those who truly 
do want to spend their time, energy, resources and money in an 
effective fight against overstays, in an effective fight against drug 
smuggling and in an effective fight against terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, let me assure my colleagues that their fears are 
unfounded and simply not justified. I would turn their attention again 
to the specific language in the bill, that it would not be implemented 
and I will repeat that for emphasis once again, it will not be 
implemented if it would impede trade or traffic. So all these scare 
stories of hours of wait, all the fearmongering is really on the wrong 
subject because the bill would never be implemented because of the 
language in the bill saying it would not be if there were any 
diminution of trade or traffic. The experts, Mr. Speaker, tell us that 
such a system is workable and the experts I quoted a while ago have 
confirmed that.
  Mr. Speaker, finally I want to point out that such a system would 
benefit both countries because citizens of both Canada and the United 
States have well-grounded fears of terrorism, illegal immigration and 
drug smugglers. In fact, just this week there was a poll taken in 
Canada that for the first time ever showed that immigration concerns, 
particularly in regard to illegal immigration, was now the number two 
priority of Canadian citizens. In that case, I think that they join 
American citizens in being concerned about a legitimate problem. This 
section 110 will in fact enable us to stop terrorists, reduce illegal 
immigration and reduce drug smugglers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Deal).
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time. I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct and simply 
would compliment the conferees for hopefully keeping in section 110.
  We are all aware of the illegal immigration problem on our southern 
border, but we are also becoming increasingly aware of the problem on 
our northern border. We have read the stories of the boatloads of 
Chinese who are landing there with the hopes of crossing the Canadian 
border into the United States.
  For those who simply say it is an illegal immigration problem, the 2 
million or more of the 5 million illegally in this country are 
estimated to be overstays of visas that were lawfully granted to them. 
So overstay is a problem because they recognize that once they get 
here, the INS has no effective way of being sure that they leave.
  To those who say that they do not like section 110, I would simply 
say provide us with a better alternative. The answer is not simply to 
abolish what is now in the law, waiting for its implementation, and 
that has been extended by the way, but to simply say, ``Okay, if you 
don't like our solution to it, give us a better one.'' Do not just 
simply throw up your hands and say we cannot do anything about it. The 
American public wants us to solve the problem.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and ask unanimous consent that he 
be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just want to 
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). He has been a leader 
in this effort, helping to line up cosponsors in our effort to repeal 
this on our bill, more than 114, I believe, at this point. We certainly 
have appreciated his work on that side of the aisle and with our 
friends on this issue. We thank him for that time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Metcalf).
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed section 110 in 1996, I do not 
believe most Members knew exactly what the effect would be. Perhaps it 
was necessary on the southern border. But if we allow this provision to 
take effect on the northern border, the delays at border crossings 
could be disastrous. The Immigration and Naturalization Service simply 
lacks the technology to carry out the requirements of section 110 
without causing unmanageable congestion at the border due to the border 
checks.

                              {time}  1900

  Already plans are being made to develop and destroy huge and large 
portions of the historic Peace Arch Park in my district in order to 
make way for the infrastructure necessary for the implementation of 
section 110. Congress needs to repeal this provision as soon as 
possible.
  Now, I understand the need to control immigration. In fact, I believe 
that protection of our borders ought to be one of our Government's 
highest priorities. But section 110, as it stands, is not the answer. 
It will create needless delays and provide no law enforcement in 
return.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this motion.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
proposal.
  First of all, I was a cosponsor of the Illegal Immigration Reform Act 
of 1996, and what we are hearing tonight is a proposal to gut that very 
important piece of legislation. This should be called the ``open border 
legislation.'' This is what this vote is all about. This vote, all the 
horror stories that we have heard tonight about what is going to happen 
if section 110 is implemented are all conjecture. This is all 
conjecture. It is one thing to come to the floor of the House and say, 
vote a certain way based on a horror story of something that's 
happening, some piece of legislation that's gone astray. It is another 
thing to come to the floor and conjecture that there is going to be 
some sort of problem.
  Let me tell my colleagues what is going to happen if we do eliminate 
section 110. What is going to happen is millions of people are going to 
be coming into our country illegally who would not otherwise be able to 
come into this country. Colleagues, tell me what the horror story is. 
That is not conjecture. That is, if we take a look at what is going on 
at the border, what we can predict from what is happening to 
immigration in this country.
  I do not know what is happening in my colleagues' States, but in 
California we have still have a massive flow of illegal immigration 
that is undermining our education system, taking our health care system 
apart, our criminal justice system is going down; all of these things 
because we have a flood of illegal immigrants coming into this country.
  There is nothing wrong with strengthening our borders and trying to 
find a technological way of doing it so that we do not disrupt traffic, 
and that is what 110 says. It simply says let us develop technology so 
we can control the flow of illegals into our borders, but at the same 
time try to find a technological answer so it does not disrupt the flow 
of honest traffic between the countries.
  What is wrong with that? I will tell my colleagues what is wrong with 
that. We got a bunch of people in this country for one reason or 
another who want to have illegals come into this country, perhaps as a 
profit for the low wages they can pay these people.
  Let us not vote for a provision that will open our borders to every 
kind of illegal immigrant, whether it is from Canada or Mexico. Yes, if 
there are more delays at the Mexican border, all right, let us try to 
make it efficient at both borders, but for Pete's sake let us not open 
it up so that those many, many illegal aliens from China that are 
landing in Canada can just surge down into the United States, and that 
is what will result if we take 110 out. We are not going to have any 
hope, we are not going to have any chance of getting control of our 
borders because we are saying do not even try to find a technological 
answer to this problem.
  This is an open border vote, and I would say vote against it. We want 
to

[[Page H10281]]

control illegal immigration, not encourage it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I, too, rise in opposition to this measure, and I suggest, to use an 
oft-quoted phrase and to paraphrase that anyway that it does seem that 
the supporters of this proposal doth protest too much. They bring to 
our attention what they believe to be the calamitous events that would 
occur if we actually simply began to check people when they come into 
this country and when they leave this country; and they suggest 
enormous calamities would occur as a result of that. Our economy would 
essentially shut down, businesses would end, there would be lines at 
the borders for thousands of miles.
  I mean it goes on and on and on. But I really do not think that is 
their real problem.
  I have to tell my colleagues that surely there are people who are 
concerned about the impact of it, but I also believe frankly what the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) suggested here a minute 
ago, and that was that there are other reasons that people are 
concerned about this, and that is that it would have the effect of 
limiting illegal immigration into the United States. That is the real 
issue here we are dealing with. It is not just how much problem there 
would be infrastructurally at the borders, Mr. Speaker. It is whether 
or not we are going to be able to control our own borders.
  Is that not the responsibility of every country on the planet? Do we 
not, should we not be able to determine who comes into this country and 
for how long? And if the answer to that is yes, in my colleagues' 
hearts if it is yes, then is it not appropriate to do so in the manner 
in which it is described in 110? It is the least intrusive manner. It 
is the best we can possibly do to make sure that there is an objective 
way of analyzing who comes and who leaves, and it is just the opposite 
of the gentleman's concerns about being subjective.
  This applies a technological fix to this problem. It is not just 
leaving it up to someone at the border to determine what they think 
this person looks like and whether they should be checked. This 
actually provides the objective determination.
  So, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues really are concerned about that, if 
that is truly in their hearts what they are trying to do is to make 
sure we provide objective analysis to people coming and going, then 
they must support this proposal and oppose the motion to instruct.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would just like to respond to the gentleman from Colorado that in 
Michigan we have more traffic that crosses the Ambassador Bridge than 
goes to Japan in terms of exports, and in fact at the Ambassador Bridge 
some 24,000 vehicles cross that bridge every day, over a thousand 
vehicles an hour, and giving an optimistic estimate of about 2 minutes 
per border crossing if this system became implemented. It has been 
estimated that this would result in 17 hours of delay for every hour's 
worth of traffic. We cannot stand that, and the Midwest cannot stand 
that, and that is one of the reasons why we are pursuing this motion to 
instruct the conferees to try and repeal section 110 and allow a vote 
to do so.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, let me just sort of make an outreach to my 
colleagues along the Canadian border. I know their concern. I have 
business people that are concerned about the possible impacts of 110, 
and that is something we should work together to make sure does not 
cause a calamity, does not block commerce; but to retreat at this time 
from a commitment that we have made to the American people that this is 
an issue that needs to be addressed, that this country should know who 
is in the country and who has left the country and who has entered this 
country, that is not too much to ask for.
  Now I know the gentleman from Michigan is worried about this adverse 
impact of immigration control along the border, and I ask all of us to 
work together in addressing the issue that right now people get jobs, 
get social benefits, and can vote in the United States without ever 
having to prove that they are legally in the country or a U.S. citizen, 
and in fact there is no way for a local official to be able to check on 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for all of my colleagues along the Canadian border 
who are so upset about the possibility of border control to join with 
us at having some internal enforcement. But I am saying that our port 
of entry has problems. We have 45 minutes to an hour wait sometimes 
when it is outrageously during a weekend; but the fact is that 
technology is the answer in many of these situations and before, and I 
ask my colleagues the next time they drive to Dulles to look off to 
their right and see people driving through.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to conclude by reading reports that point to some of the 
immigration problems we have on our northern border and also point to 
why we need an immigration system that includes an entry-exit system.
  USA Today reported on July 20 in a front page story about the 
northern border several recent arrests have brought home the 
possibility that terrorists are establishing themselves in Canada 
because of that government's easy-going attitude toward asylum, then 
slipping into the U.S.A. There has been an upswing in alien smuggling 
and drug crimes. Also the INS has testified that as southwest border 
enforcement continues to stiffen and the price charged for smuggling 
escalates, many choose the alternative of illegally entering the United 
States from Canada. Entry controls will make alien and drug smuggling 
along our northern border much more difficult.
  On May 21, 1999, the Detroit News reported the growing problem of 
illegal immigrants flying to Toronto and then crossing the border into 
Michigan. A 1998 report from the National Drug Intelligence Center, 
quote, ``warned that marijuana exports from Canada to the U.S. were 
becoming a significant problem and the drug smugglers in the U.S. are 
exchanging British Columbian marijuana pound for pound for cocaine. 
U.S. officials believe that the vast majority of drug smugglers make 
their way into the United States without detection.'' ``If we are 
getting 1 to 2 percent at the border, we are being lucky, said Tom 
Kelly, who worked as a resident in charge of the U.S. Drug Enforcement 
Agency in Blaine, Washington.

  And on June 8, 1998, the United Press International reported that a 
joint investigation between U.S. and Canadian law enforcement officials 
culminated in the seizure of $3.7 million worth of drugs. And finally 
on August 14, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that the United 
States is considering placing Canada on the illicit drug black list 
because, quote, ``Canada has assumed a major role in the global trade 
and illicit drugs, and substantial amounts of marijuana and heroin are 
being smuggled into the United States via Canada.''
  Mr. Speaker, I also could go on for a long time on examples of over-
stayers and terrorists, but let me very briefly say that two of the 
aliens convicted in the World Trade Center bombing overstayed their 
non-immigrant visas. Those convicted in the CIA employee killing have 
done the same thing. Several terrorists entered the United States 
without inspection coming across the Canadian border, for example, the 
individual who was later arrested in New York City for planning to bomb 
the city subway system and so forth.
  In fact, the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General 
concluded that his easy entry into Canada and his ability to remain in 
Canada despite at least two criminal convictions and repeated attempts 
to enter the United States illegally highlight the difficulty in 
controlling illegal immigration into the United States.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I think we have agreement on two subjects tonight. 
One is that we want to stop illegal immigration, reduce drug smuggling, 
and stop terrorists. The other is that we do not want to do anything to 
impede trade or traffic with our neighbor to

[[Page H10282]]

the north, Canada, and that is exactly why last year under suspension I 
inserted language in the bill to make sure that we would not impede 
trade or traffic.
  So all this fear, all these straw men, all these red herrings, 
everything else about that we are going to delay entry into the United 
States from Canada is simply no factual basis simply because we have 
language to protect against that. Again, the debate is not about trade. 
We all agree that we need trade with Canada. The debate is about how 
best to reduce illegal immigration, drug smuggling and terrorists; and 
we have expert testimony saying that we have just the proper system to 
do that.
  Finally, I want to make the point that when we talk about illegal 
immigration, we are never going to be able to get a handle on almost 
half the problem of illegal immigration, visa over-stayers, unless we 
have an entry-exit system. We are never going to have a workable visa 
waiver system unless we have such an entry-exit system, and we are 
never going to be able to have a guest worker program unless we have an 
entry-exit system.
  So let us not be fearful. Let us look for ways to implement a system 
that is not going to impede trade or traffic and that will benefit both 
countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  I would also like to ask my friend for sure, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Smith), that I would love to add his name as a cosponsor of our 
bill because in fact what it does is that it replaces section 110 with 
a feasibility study, and when and if a feasibility study could be 
proven that would work, we will be glad to take a look at it, but until 
then this section 110 will shut down traffic, particularly in the 
border that I know best, the Canadian-U.S. border. And as I have been a 
member of the U.S.-Canadian Interparliamentary Group the last number of 
years, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), my colleague who 
spoke in favor of my motion earlier tonight, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce), a number of other Members, this is the number one 
issue. We know, our two countries know, that we cannot exist as we do 
today with the trade opportunities that both countries are having and 
have this section 110 come into place.

                              {time}  1915

  Therefore, it needs to be refined in a major way, and that is why we 
are suggesting it be repealed.
  I would also thank my Senator, Spencer Abraham, the leader of this 
effort in the Senate. He has done a terrific job in making sure that 
that is passed, as my colleague from New York indicated, five times, I 
believe, by unanimous vote. My governor, John Engler, has led the 
effort of the National Governors Association in drafting this strong 
letter in support of what we are trying to do tonight and has certainly 
helped the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of 
Manufacturers and lots of groups around the country that are very 
interested in this.
  At the end of the day here, we are going to be denied a vote on a 
procedural effort and that is sad, because I do believe that we could 
win on this issue had we been allowed to have a vote of the full House 
on this issue that would certainly be bipartisan. Though they have been 
able to have the vote in the Senate, we have not been able to have the 
vote in the House. Unless by some chance, as I look to my friend from 
Kentucky, they do not file today or tomorrow; we would love to have 
this vote. We have alerted the leadership that this cannot stand, that 
this has to be resolved, that we need a vote to repeal this. Again, I 
think our side can win.
  I would ask my colleagues to join me in instructing the conferees 
before they report this bill out to join with us in repealing section 
110 and receding to the Senate.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to 
Instruct Conferees which seeks to include the Senate language of the 
Commerce Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act of 1999 that 
would end exit controls at land borders and seaports. This provision of 
controls, known as Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigration Act of 1996, would likely place an undue burden on trade at 
our nations' borders. For South Texas, which has emerged as the premier 
gateway to trade not only to Mexico, but also to the Americas, this 
extra step of gathering data and inspecting records could hamper needed 
growth and economic development without providing a commensurate level 
of security or law enforcement value.
  The stated goals of Section 110 are to increase immigration 
enforcement and security through better record keeping. While 
advocating what appears to be a worthy system, policy makers failed to 
provide us the resources we would need to implement this new law. To 
implement this law properly would require an immigration data base for 
comparing records; technology for rapid implementation of the law; and 
new facilities for inspection of out bound traffic. None of these 
currently exist. The result: without these new resources, we are left 
with unprecedented gridlock at Texas border crossings, disrupting 
trade, commerce, tourism, and other legitimate cross-border traffic.
  Although Section 110 was supposed to be put in place on September 30, 
1998, the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) put off 
implementing the new system for land and sea ports because it 
recognized it did not have the resources to do it. They have now set a 
new target date for March 2001, but I doubt they will be able to start 
by then either. The task is too enormous.
  We need to step back and examine our priorities. First, we must check 
people and goods seeking to enter the United States. We do not have 
adequate resources now to check who comes in, let alone who goes out. 
Let's address this priority before creating new, unworkable 
requirements. Second, we need to work toward a seamless border that 
fosters international trade. We need to provide the US Customs Service 
with more and better high tech equipment and increase the number of 
Customs agents.
  I recently testified before the Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee, 
urging them to give Customs the resources it needs to address these 
priorities. To help solve the Section 110 problem, I joined on a bill 
that would give the INS two more years before starting the outbound 
checks at airports, eliminate the requirement for land and sea ports, 
and require the Attorney General to study what it would really cost to 
implement this new system.
  Beyond the rhetoric, Section 110 would cost us too much at a time 
when other high priority needs are unmet. Let's solve one problem 
before creating another. We need to get back on track before we become 
our own trade and economic growth enemy.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the immigration reform 
bill in 1996, no one in this body thought they were voting for a bill 
that would tie up our borders with Mexico and Canada.
  But that's exactly what happened.
  Section 110 of the bill was interpreted as requiring Canadian and 
Mexican citizens to obtain entry and exit documents when traveling to 
the United States--even though the authors of the bill acknowledged 
that was not its purpose.
  For communities at the border, Section 110 of the immigration bill is 
a disaster waiting to happen: clogged bridges, tunnels and roads, 
impacting commerce and tourism.
  I know that at the Blue Water Bridge at Port Huron in Michigan, 
delays can already lead to hours waiting in line at our border with 
Canada. But improvements are being made to relieve the congestion.
  All the efforts that have been made to improve our borders will be 
for naught if the visa requirement is implemented.
  We don't need an onerous, unnecessary requirement that will further 
congest our borders.
  That's why we should repeal Section 110.
  The Senate version of the Commerce Justice State bill does just that. 
It should be included in the conference report.
  Tourism, trade, and border communities will be devastated if Section 
110 is not repealed. This is our chance to make it right.
  We can patrol our border effectively if we give the INS and Customs 
Service the resources they need to do their jobs well. But Section 110 
will not help.
  Let's use the opportunity we have today to correct this major flaw. 
Support the Motion to Instruct.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Upton, for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of this 
motion to instruct conferees. Section 110 of the 1996 Immigration 
Reform Act mandated the implementation of an entry-exit control system 
at our land borders. While this sounds

[[Page H10283]]

like a good idea in theory, I believe that this provision was inserted 
with little or no examination of the possible consequences. This year 
the Senate included common sense language that would repeal section 110 
in its version of the fiscal year 2000 Commerce, Justice State 
Appropriations bill. This motion would instruct the House conferees to 
accept the Senate language.
  I am very concerned that section 110, if implemented, would cause 
massive delays and gridlock at the US-Canadian border, causing massive 
disruptions of tourism, commerce and traffic in Western New York and 
throughout the United States. Some studies have shown that 
implementation of section 110 would cause such massive delays that 
border crossings would be reduced by 50 percent or more. Border delays 
of an hour could be increased to upwards of 17 hours. Ladies and 
gentleman, I submit to you this would have a devastating impact on the 
US economy, as Canada is our largest trading partner.
  While I am sensitive to the concerns of the proponents of section 
110, who believe that this provision is necessary to stem the tide of 
illegal immigrants and illegal drugs into the United States, I do not 
believe that section 100 would be a solution to either of these 
problems.
  Section 110 would have serious adverse impact on the United States 
economy and specifically, the economy of the Western New York and 
Northern border regions. I urge my colleagues to support this motion 
which is vital to the well-being of my congressional district.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the motion to instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The question is on 
the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed to a time later designated 
by the Speaker.

                          ____________________