[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 27 (Tuesday, March 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H797-H810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       ENHANCED BORDER SECURITY AND VISA ENTRY REFORM ACT OF 2002

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree 
to the resolution (H. Res. 376) providing for the concurrence by the 
House with amendments in the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 1885.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 365

       Resolved, That, upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's 
     table the bill H.R. 1885, with the Senate amendment thereto, 
     and to have concurred in the Senate amendment with the 
     following amendments:
       (1) Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to enhance the 
     border security of the United States, and for other 
     purposes.''.
       (2) In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
     amendment of the Senate, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Enhanced 
     Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

                            TITLE I--FUNDING

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations for hiring and training 
              Government personnel.
Sec. 102. Authorization of appropriations for improvements in 
              technology and infrastructure.
Sec. 103. Machine-readable visa fees.

               TITLE II--INTERAGENCY INFORMATION SHARING

Sec. 201. Interim measures for access to and coordination of law 
              enforcement and other information.
Sec. 202. Interoperable law enforcement and intelligence data system 
              with name-matching capacity and training.
Sec. 203. Commission on interoperable data sharing.

                        TITLE III--VISA ISSUANCE

Sec. 301. Electronic provision of visa files.
Sec. 302. Implementation of an integrated entry and exit data system.
Sec. 303. Machine-readable, tamper-resistant entry and exit documents.
Sec. 304. Terrorist lookout committees.
Sec. 305. Improved training for consular officers.
Sec. 306. Restriction on issuance of visas to nonimmigrants who are 
              from countries that are state sponsors of international 
              terrorism.
Sec. 307. Designation of program countries under the Visa Waiver 
              Program.
Sec. 308. Tracking system for stolen passports.
Sec. 309. Identification documents for certain newly admitted aliens.

              TITLE IV--ADMISSION AND INSPECTION OF ALIENS

Sec. 401. Study of the feasibility of a North American National 
              Security Program.
Sec. 402. Passenger manifests.
Sec. 403. Time period for inspections.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN STUDENTS AND EXCHANGE VISITORS

Sec. 501. Foreign student monitoring program.
Sec. 502. Review of institutions and other entities authorized to 
              enroll or sponsor certain nonimmigrants.

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. Extension of deadline for improvement in border crossing 
              identification cards.
Sec. 602. General Accounting Office study.
Sec. 603. International cooperation.
Sec. 604. Statutory construction.
Sec. 605. Report on aliens who fail to appear after release on own 
              recognizance.
Sec. 606. Retention of nonimmigrant visa applications by the Department 
              of State.
Sec. 607. Extension of deadline for classification petition and labor 
              certification filings.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Alien.--The term ``alien'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)).
       (2) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term 
     ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means the following:
       (A) The Committee on the Judiciary, the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate.
       (B) The Committee on the Judiciary, the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (3) Federal law enforcement agencies.--The term ``Federal 
     law enforcement agencies'' means the following:
       (A) The United States Secret Service.
       (B) The Drug Enforcement Administration.
       (C) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (D) The Immigration and Naturalization Service.
       (E) The United States Marshall Service.
       (F) The Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
       (G) The Coastal Security Service.
       (H) The Diplomatic Security Service.
       (I) The United States Postal Inspection Service.
       (J) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
       (K) The United States Customs Service.
       (L) The National Park Service.
       (4) Intelligence community.--The term ``intelligence 
     community'' has the meaning given that term in section 3(4) 
     of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
       (5) President.--The term ``President'' means the President 
     of the United States, acting through the Assistant to the 
     President for Homeland Security, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of State, the Commissioner of Immigration and 
     Naturalization, the Attorney General, the Director of Central 
     Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, the Secretary of Transportation, the 
     Commissioner of Customs, and the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (6) USA PATRIOT Act.--The term ``USA PATRIOT Act'' means 
     the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 
     Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct 
     Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56).

                            TITLE I--FUNDING

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIRING AND 
                   TRAINING GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.

       (a) Additional Personnel.--
       (1) INS inspectors.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, during each of the fiscal years 2002 through 
     2006, the Attorney General shall increase the number of 
     inspectors and associated support staff in the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service by the equivalent of at least 200 
     full-time employees over the number of inspectors and 
     associated support staff in the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act.
       (2) INS investigative personnel.--Subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, during each of the fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2006, the Attorney General shall increase 
     the number of investigative and associated support staff of 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service by the equivalent 
     of at least 200 full-time employees over the number of 
     investigators and associated support staff in the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this subsection, including such sums as may be necessary to 
     provide facilities, attorney personnel and support staff, and 
     other resources needed to support the increased number of 
     inspectors, investigative staff, and associated support 
     staff.
       (b) Waiver of FTE Limitation.--The Attorney General is 
     authorized to waive any limitation on the number of full-time 
     equivalent personnel assigned to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations for INS Staffing.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Department of Justice such sums as may be necessary 
     to provide an increase in the annual rate of basic pay--
       (A) for all journeyman Border Patrol agents and inspectors 
     who have completed at least one year's service and are 
     receiving an annual rate of basic pay for positions at GS-9 
     of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United 
     States Code, from the annual rate of basic pay payable for 
     positions at GS-9 of the General Schedule under such section 
     5332, to an annual rate of basic pay payable for positions at 
     GS-11 of the General Schedule under such section 5332;
       (B) for inspections assistants, from the annual rate of 
     basic pay payable for positions at GS-5 of the General 
     Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, 
     to an annual rate of basic pay payable for positions at GS-7 
     of the General Schedule under such section 5332; and
       (C) for the support staff associated with the personnel 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), at the appropriate GS 
     level of the General Schedule under such section 5332.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations for Training.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary--
       (1) to appropriately train Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service personnel on an ongoing basis--
       (A) to ensure that their proficiency levels are acceptable 
     to protect the borders of the United States; and
       (B) otherwise to enforce and administer the laws within 
     their jurisdiction; and
       (2) to provide adequate continuing cross-training to 
     agencies staffing the United States border and ports of entry 
     to effectively and correctly apply applicable United States 
     laws;

[[Page H798]]

       (3) to fully train immigration officers to use the 
     appropriate lookout databases and to monitor passenger 
     traffic patterns; and
       (4) to expand the Carrier Consultant Program described in 
     section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1225A(b)).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations for Consular 
     Functions.--
       (1) Responsibilities.--The Secretary of State shall--
       (A) implement enhanced security measures for the review of 
     visa applicants;
       (B) staff the facilities and programs associated with the 
     activities described in subparagraph (A); and
       (C) provide ongoing training for consular officers and 
     diplomatic security agents.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Department of State such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out paragraph (1).

     SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN 
                   TECHNOLOGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

       (a) Funding of Technology.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to funds 
     otherwise available for such purpose, there are authorized to 
     be appropriated $150,000,000 to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service for purposes of--
       (A) making improvements in technology (including 
     infrastructure support, computer security, and information 
     technology development) for improving border security;
       (B) expanding, utilizing, and improving technology to 
     improve border security; and
       (C) facilitating the flow of commerce and persons at ports 
     of entry, including improving and expanding programs for 
     preenrollment and preclearance.
       (2) Waiver of fees.--Federal agencies involved in border 
     security may waive all or part of enrollment fees for 
     technology-based programs to encourage participation by 
     United States citizens and aliens in such programs. Any 
     agency that waives any part of any such fee may establish its 
     fees for other services at a level that will ensure the 
     recovery from other users of the amounts waived.
       (3) Offset of increases in fees.--The Attorney General may, 
     to the extent reasonable, increase land border fees for the 
     issuance of arrival-departure documents to offset technology 
     costs.
       (b) Improvement and Expansion of INS, State Department, and 
     Customs Facilities.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the 
     Department of State such sums as may be necessary to improve 
     and expand facilities for use by the personnel of those 
     agencies.

     SEC. 103. MACHINE-READABLE VISA FEES.

       (a) Relation to Subsequent Authorization Acts.--Section 
     140(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 
     Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (3).
       (b) Fee Amount.--The machine-readable visa fee charged by 
     the Department of State shall be the higher of $65 or the 
     cost of the machine-readable visa service, as determined by 
     the Secretary of State after conducting a study of the cost 
     of such service.
       (c) Surcharge.--The Department of State is authorized to 
     charge a surcharge of $10, in addition to the machine-
     readable visa fee, for issuing a machine-readable visa in a 
     nonmachine-readable passport.
       (d) Availability of Collected Fees.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, amounts collected as fees described 
     in this section shall be credited as an offsetting collection 
     to any appropriation for the Department of State to recover 
     costs of providing consular services. Amounts so credited 
     shall be available, until expended, for the same purposes as 
     the appropriation to which credited.

               TITLE II--INTERAGENCY INFORMATION SHARING

     SEC. 201. INTERIM MEASURES FOR ACCESS TO AND COORDINATION OF 
                   LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER INFORMATION.

       (a) Interim Directive.--Until the plan required by 
     subsection (c) is implemented, Federal law enforcement 
     agencies and the intelligence community shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, share any information with the Department 
     of State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     relevant to the admissibility and deportability of aliens, 
     consistent with the plan described in subsection (c).
       (b) Report Identifying Law Enforcement and Intelligence 
     Information.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report identifying 
     Federal law enforcement and the intelligence community 
     information needed by the Department of State to screen visa 
     applicants, or by the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     to screen applicants for admission to the United States, and 
     to identify those aliens inadmissible or deportable under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (2) Repeal.--Section 414(d) of the USA PATRIOT Act is 
     hereby repealed.
       (c) Coordination Plan.--
       (1) Requirement for plan.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the President 
     shall develop and implement a plan based on the findings of 
     the report under subsection (b) that requires Federal law 
     enforcement agencies and the intelligence community to 
     provide to the Department of State and the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service all information identified in that 
     report as expeditiously as practicable.
       (2) Consultation requirement.--In the preparation and 
     implementation of the plan under this subsection, the 
     President shall consult with the appropriate committees of 
     Congress.
       (3) Protections regarding information and uses thereof.--
     The plan under this subsection shall establish conditions for 
     using the information described in subsection (b) received by 
     the Department of State and Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service--
       (A) to limit the redissemination of such information;
       (B) to ensure that such information is used solely to 
     determine whether to issue a visa to an alien or to determine 
     the admissibility or deportability of an alien to the United 
     States, except as otherwise authorized under Federal law;
       (C) to ensure the accuracy, security, and confidentiality 
     of such information;
       (D) to protect any privacy rights of individuals who are 
     subjects of such information;
       (E) to provide data integrity through the timely removal 
     and destruction of obsolete or erroneous names and 
     information; and
       (F) in a manner that protects the sources and methods used 
     to acquire intelligence information as required by section 
     103(c)(6) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     403-3(c)(6)).
       (4) Criminal penalties for misuse of information.--Any 
     person who obtains information under this subsection without 
     authorization or exceeding authorized access (as defined in 
     section 1030(e) of title 18, United States Code), and who 
     uses such information in the manner described in any of the 
     paragraphs (1) through (7) of section 1030(a) of such title, 
     or attempts to use such information in such manner, shall be 
     subject to the same penalties as are applicable under section 
     1030(c) of such title for violation of that paragraph.
       (5) Advancing deadlines for a technology standard and 
     report.--Section 403(c) of the USA PATRIOT Act is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2 years'' and inserting 
     ``one year''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``18 months'' and 
     inserting ``six months''.

     SEC. 202. INTEROPERABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE DATA 
                   SYSTEM WITH NAME-MATCHING CAPACITY AND 
                   TRAINING.

       (a) Interoperable Law Enforcement and Intelligence 
     Electronic Data System.--
       (1) Requirement for integrated immigration and 
     naturalization data system.--The Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service shall fully integrate all databases 
     and data systems maintained by the Service that process or 
     contain information on aliens. The fully integrated data 
     system shall be an interoperable component of the electronic 
     data system described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Requirement for interoperable data system.--Upon the 
     date of commencement of implementation of the plan required 
     by section 201(c), the President shall develop and implement 
     an interoperable electronic data system to provide current 
     and immediate access to information in databases of Federal 
     law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community that 
     is relevant to determine whether to issue a visa or to 
     determine the admissibility or deportability of an alien.
       (3) Consultation requirement.--In the development and 
     implementation of the data system under this subsection, the 
     President shall consult with the Director of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and any such 
     other agency as may be deemed appropriate.
       (4) Technology standard.--
       (A) In general.--The data system developed and implemented 
     under this subsection, and the databases referred to in 
     paragraph (2), shall utilize the technology standard 
     established pursuant to section 403(c) of the USA PATRIOT 
     Act, as amended by section 201(c)(5) and subparagraph (B).
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 403(c) of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act, as amended by section 201(c)(5), is further 
     amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, including 
     appropriate biometric identifier standards,'' after 
     ``technology standard''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2) --

       (I) by striking ``Integrated'' and inserting 
     ``Interoperable''; and
       (II) by striking ``integrated'' and inserting 
     ``interoperable''.

       (5) Access to information in data system.--Subject to 
     paragraph (6), information in the data system under this 
     subsection shall be readily and easily accessible--
       (A) to any consular officer responsible for the issuance of 
     visas;
       (B) to any Federal official responsible for determining an 
     alien's admissibility to or deportability from the United 
     States; and
       (C) to any Federal law enforcement or intelligence officer 
     determined by regulation to be responsible for the 
     investigation or identification of aliens.
       (6) Limitation on access.--The President shall, in 
     accordance with applicable Federal laws, establish procedures 
     to restrict access to intelligence information in the data 
     system under this subsection, and the databases referred to 
     in paragraph (2), under circumstances in which such 
     information is not to be disclosed directly to Government 
     officials under paragraph (5).
       (b) Name-Search Capacity and Support.--

[[Page H799]]

       (1) In general.--The interoperable electronic data system 
     required by subsection (a) shall--
       (A) have the capacity to compensate for disparate name 
     formats among the different databases referred to in 
     subsection (a);
       (B) be searchable on a linguistically sensitive basis;
       (C) provide adequate user support;
       (D) to the extent practicable, utilize commercially 
     available technology; and
       (E) be adjusted and improved, based upon experience with 
     the databases and improvements in the underlying technologies 
     and sciences, on a continuing basis.
       (2) Linguistically sensitive searches.--
       (A) In general.--To satisfy the requirement of paragraph 
     (1)(B), the interoperable electronic database shall be 
     searchable based on linguistically sensitive algorithms 
     that--
       (i) account for variations in name formats and 
     transliterations, including varied spellings and varied 
     separation or combination of name elements, within a 
     particular language; and
       (ii) incorporate advanced linguistic, mathematical, 
     statistical, and anthropological research and methods.
       (B) Languages required.--
       (i) Priority languages.--Linguistically sensitive 
     algorithms shall be developed and implemented for no fewer 
     than 4 languages designated as high priorities by the 
     Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney 
     General and the Director of Central Intelligence.
       (ii) Implementation schedule.--Of the 4 linguistically 
     sensitive algorithms required to be developed and implemented 
     under clause (i)--

       (I) the highest priority language algorithms shall be 
     implemented within 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (II) an additional language algorithm shall be implemented 
     each succeeding year for the next three years.

       (3) Adequate user support.--The Secretary of State and the 
     Attorney General shall jointly prescribe procedures to ensure 
     that consular and immigration officers can, as required, 
     obtain assistance in resolving identity and other questions 
     that may arise about names of aliens seeking visas or 
     admission to the United States that may be subject to 
     variations in format, transliteration, or other similar 
     phenomenon.
       (4) Interim reports.--Six months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit a report to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress on the progress in 
     implementing each requirement of this section.
       (5) Reports by intelligence agencies.--
       (A) Current standards.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Director of Central 
     Intelligence shall complete the survey and issue the report 
     previously required by section 309(a) of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. 403-3 
     note).
       (B) Guidelines.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of Intelligence shall 
     issue the guidelines and submit the copy of those guidelines 
     previously required by section 309(b) of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. 403-3 
     note).
       (6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     the provisions of this subsection.

     SEC. 203. COMMISSION ON INTEROPERABLE DATA SHARING.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the President shall 
     establish a Commission on Interoperable Data Sharing (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Commission''). The purposes of 
     the Commission shall be to--
       (1) monitor the protections described in section 201(c)(3);
       (2) provide oversight of the interoperable electronic data 
     system described in this title; and
       (3) report to Congress annually on the Commission's 
     findings and recommendations.
       (b) Composition.--The Commission shall consist of nine 
     members, who shall be appointed by the President, as follows:
       (1) One member, who shall serve as Chair of the Commission.
       (2) Eight members, who shall be appointed from a list of 
     nominees jointly provided by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (c) Considerations.--The Commission shall consider 
     recommendations regarding the following issues:
       (1) Adequate protection of privacy concerns inherent in the 
     design, implementation, or operation of the interoperable 
     electronic data system.
       (2) Timely adoption of security innovations, consistent 
     with generally accepted security standards, to protect the 
     integrity and confidentiality of information to prevent 
     against the risks of accidental or unauthorized loss, access, 
     destruction, use modification, or disclosure of information.
       (3) The adequacy of mechanisms to permit the timely 
     correction of errors in data maintained by the interoperable 
     data system.
       (4) Other protections against unauthorized use of data to 
     guard against the misuse of the interoperable data system or 
     the data maintained by the system, including recommendations 
     for modifications to existing laws and regulations to 
     sanction misuse of the system.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Commission such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this section.

                        TITLE III--VISA ISSUANCE

     SEC. 301. ELECTRONIC PROVISION OF VISA FILES.

       Section 221(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1201(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (2) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``(a)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary of State shall provide to the Service 
     an electronic version of the visa file of an alien who has 
     been issued a visa to ensure that the data in that visa file 
     is available to immigration inspectors at the United States 
     ports of entry before the arrival of the alien at such a port 
     of entry.''.

     SEC. 302. IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTEGRATED ENTRY AND EXIT DATA 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) Development of System.--In developing the integrated 
     entry and exit data system for the ports of entry, as 
     required by the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data 
     Management Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-215), the 
     Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall--
       (1) implement, fund, and use a technology standard under 
     section 403(c) of the USA PATRIOT Act (as amended by sections 
     201(c)(5) and 202(a)(3)(B)) at United States ports of entry 
     and at consular posts abroad;
       (2) establish a database containing the arrival and 
     departure data from machine-readable visas, passports, and 
     other travel and entry documents possessed by aliens; and
       (3) make interoperable all security databases relevant to 
     making determinations of admissibility under section 212 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182).
       (b) Implementation.--In implementing the provisions of 
     subsection (a), the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     and the Department of State shall--
       (1) utilize technologies that facilitate the lawful and 
     efficient cross-border movement of commerce and persons 
     without compromising the safety and security of the United 
     States; and
       (2) consider implementing the North American National 
     Security Program described in section 401.

     SEC. 303. MACHINE-READABLE, TAMPER-RESISTANT ENTRY AND EXIT 
                   DOCUMENTS.

       (a) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     State, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
     (NIST), acting jointly, shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a comprehensive report assessing the 
     actions that will be necessary, and the considerations to be 
     taken into account, to achieve fully, not later than October 
     26, 2003--
       (A) implementation of the requirements of subsections (b) 
     and (c); and
       (B) deployment of the equipment and software to allow 
     biometric comparison of the documents described in 
     subsections (b) and (c).
       (2) Estimates.--In addition to the assessment required by 
     paragraph (1), each report shall include an estimate of the 
     costs to be incurred, and the personnel, man-hours, and other 
     support required, by the Department of Justice, the 
     Department of State, and NIST to achieve the objectives of 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than October 26, 2003, the 
     Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall issue to 
     aliens only machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas and 
     travel and entry documents that use biometric identifiers. 
     The Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall jointly 
     establish biometric identifiers standards to be employed on 
     such visas and travel and entry documents from among those 
     biometric identifiers recognized by domestic and 
     international standards organizations.
       (2) Readers and scanners at ports of entry.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than October 26, 2003, the 
     Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     State, shall install at all ports of entry of the United 
     States equipment and software to allow biometric comparison 
     of all United States visas and travel and entry documents 
     issued to aliens, and passports issued pursuant to subsection 
     (c)(1).
       (B) Use of readers and scanners.--The Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, shall utilize 
     biometric data readers and scanners that--
       (i) domestic and international standards organizations 
     determine to be highly accurate when used to verify identity; 
     and
       (ii) can read the biometric identifiers utilized under 
     subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1).
       (3) Use of technology standard.--The systems employed to 
     implement paragraphs (1) and (2) shall utilize the technology 
     standard established pursuant to section 403(c) of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act, as amended by section 201(c)(5) and 
     202(a)(3)(B).
       (c) Technology Standard for Visa Waiver Participants.--
       (1) Certification requirement.--Not later than October 26, 
     2003, the government of each country that is designated to 
     participate in the visa waiver program established under

[[Page H800]]

     section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall 
     certify, as a condition for designation or continuation of 
     that designation, that it has a program to issue to its 
     nationals machine-readable passports that are tamper-
     resistant and incorporate biometric identifiers that comply 
     with applicable biometric identifiers standards established 
     by the International Civil Aviation Organization. This 
     paragraph shall not be construed to rescind the requirement 
     of section 217(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (2) Use of technology standard.--On and after October 26, 
     2003, any alien applying for admission under the visa waiver 
     program shall present a passport that meets the requirements 
     of paragraph (1) unless the alien's passport was issued prior 
     to that date.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section, including reimbursement to international and 
     domestic standards organizations.

     SEC. 304. TERRORIST LOOKOUT COMMITTEES.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of State shall require a 
     terrorist lookout committee to be maintained within each 
     United States mission.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of each committee established 
     under subsection (a) shall be--
       (1) to utilize the cooperative resources of all elements of 
     the United States mission in the country in which the 
     consular post is located to identify known or potential 
     terrorists and to develop information on those individuals;
       (2) to ensure that such information is routinely and 
     consistently brought to the attention of appropriate United 
     States officials for use in administering the immigration 
     laws of the United States; and
       (3) to ensure that the names of known and suspected 
     terrorists are entered into the appropriate lookout 
     databases.
       (c) Composition; Chair.--The Secretary shall establish 
     rules governing the composition of such committees.
       (d) Meetings.--The committee shall meet at least monthly to 
     share information pertaining to the committee's purpose as 
     described in subsection (b)(2).
       (e) Periodic Reports.--The committee shall submit quarterly 
     reports to the Secretary of State describing the committee's 
     activities, whether or not information on known or suspected 
     terrorists was developed during the quarter.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to implement 
     this section.

     SEC. 305. IMPROVED TRAINING FOR CONSULAR OFFICERS.

       (a) Training.--The Secretary of State shall require that 
     all consular officers responsible for adjudicating visa 
     applications, before undertaking to perform consular 
     responsibilities, receive specialized training in the 
     effective screening of visa applicants who pose a potential 
     threat to the safety or security of the United States. Such 
     officers shall be specially and extensively trained in the 
     identification of aliens inadmissible under section 212(a)(3) 
     (A) and (B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
     interagency and international intelligence sharing regarding 
     terrorists and terrorism, and cultural-sensitivity toward 
     visa applicants.
       (b) Use of Foreign Intelligence Information.--As an ongoing 
     component of the training required in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of State shall coordinate with the Assistant to the 
     President for Homeland Security, Federal law enforcement 
     agencies, and the intelligence community to compile and 
     disseminate to the Bureau of Consular Affairs reports, 
     bulletins, updates, and other current unclassified 
     information relevant to terrorists and terrorism and to 
     screening visa applicants who pose a potential threat to the 
     safety or security of the United States.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to implement 
     this section.

     SEC. 306. RESTRICTION ON ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO NONIMMIGRANTS 
                   FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE SPONSORS OF 
                   INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

       (a) In General.--No nonimmigrant visa under section 
     101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(15)) shall be issued to any alien from a country that 
     is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the 
     Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United 
     States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to 
     the safety or national security of the United States. In 
     making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary 
     of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of 
     State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the 
     heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are 
     applicable to the nationals of such states.
       (b) State Sponsor of International Terrorism Defined.--
       (1) In general.--In this section, the term ``state sponsor 
     of international terrorism'' means any country the government 
     of which has been determined by the Secretary of State under 
     any of the laws specified in paragraph (2) to have repeatedly 
     provided support for acts of international terrorism.
       (2) Laws under which determinations were made.--The laws 
     specified in this paragraph are the following:
       (A) Section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export Administration Act of 
     1979 (or successor statute).
       (B) Section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act.
       (C) Section 620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

     SEC. 307. DESIGNATION OF PROGRAM COUNTRIES UNDER THE VISA 
                   WAIVER PROGRAM.

       (a) Reporting Passport Thefts.--As a condition of a 
     country's initial designation or continued designation for 
     participation in the visa waiver program under section 217 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187), the 
     Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall consider 
     whether the country reports to the United States Government 
     on a timely basis the theft of blank passports issued by that 
     country.
       (b) Check of Lookout Databases.--Prior to the admission of 
     an alien under the visa waiver program established under 
     section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1187), the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall 
     determine that the applicant for admission does not appear in 
     any of the appropriate lookout databases available to 
     immigration inspectors at the time the alien seeks admission 
     to the United States.

     SEC. 308. TRACKING SYSTEM FOR STOLEN PASSPORTS.

       (a) Entering Stolen Passport Identification Numbers in the 
     Interoperable Data System.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning with implementation under 
     section 202 of the law enforcement and intelligence data 
     system, not later than 72 hours after receiving notification 
     of the loss or theft of a United States or foreign passport, 
     the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as 
     appropriate, shall enter into such system the corresponding 
     identification number for the lost or stolen passport.
       (2) Entry of information on previously lost or stolen 
     passports.--To the extent practicable, the Attorney General, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall enter into 
     such system the corresponding identification numbers for the 
     United States and foreign passports lost or stolen prior to 
     the implementation of such system.
       (b) Transition Period.--Until such time as the law 
     enforcement and intelligence data system described in section 
     202 is fully implemented, the Attorney General shall enter 
     the data described in subsection (a) into an existing data 
     system being used to determine the admissibility or 
     deportability of aliens.

     SEC. 309. IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS FOR CERTAIN NEWLY ADMITTED 
                   ALIENS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General shall ensure that, immediately upon 
     the arrival in the United States of an individual admitted 
     under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1157), or immediately upon an alien being granted 
     asylum under section 208 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1158), the 
     alien will be issued an employment authorization document. 
     Such document shall, at a minimum, contain the fingerprint 
     and photograph of such alien.

              TITLE IV--ADMISSION AND INSPECTION OF ALIENS

     SEC. 401. STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF A NORTH AMERICAN 
                   NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The President shall conduct a study of the 
     feasibility of establishing a North American National 
     Security Program to enhance the mutual security and safety of 
     the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
       (b) Study Elements.--In conducting the study required by 
     subsection (a), the officials specified in subsection (a) 
     shall consider the following:
       (1) Preclearance.--The feasibility of establishing a 
     program enabling foreign national travelers to the United 
     States to submit voluntarily to a preclearance procedure 
     established by the Department of State and the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service to determine whether such 
     travelers are admissible to the United States under section 
     212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182). 
     Consideration shall be given to the feasibility of expanding 
     the preclearance program to include the preclearance both of 
     foreign nationals traveling to Canada and foreign nationals 
     traveling to Mexico.
       (2) Preinspection.--The feasibility of expanding 
     preinspection facilities at foreign airports as described in 
     section 235A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1225). Consideration shall be given to the feasibility of 
     expanding preinspections to foreign nationals on air flights 
     destined for Canada and Mexico, and the cross training and 
     funding of inspectors from Canada and Mexico.
       (3) Conditions.--A determination of the measures necessary 
     to ensure that the conditions required by section 235A(a)(5) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225a(a)(5)) 
     are satisfied, including consultation with experts recognized 
     for their expertise regarding the conditions required by that 
     section.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the 
     findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such

[[Page H801]]

     sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

     SEC. 402. PASSENGER MANIFESTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 231 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1221(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (i); and
       (3) by inserting after ``Sec. 231.'' the following new 
     subsections: ``(a) Arrival Manifests.--For each commercial 
     vessel or aircraft transporting any person to any seaport or 
     airport of the United States from any place outside the 
     United States, it shall be the duty of an appropriate 
     official specified in subsection (d) to provide to an 
     immigration officer at that port manifest information about 
     each passenger, crew member, and other occupant transported 
     on such vessel or aircraft prior to arrival at that port.
       ``(b) Departure Manifests.--For each commercial vessel or 
     aircraft taking passengers on board at any seaport or airport 
     of the United States, who are destined to any place outside 
     the United States, it shall be the duty of an appropriate 
     official specified in subsection (d) to provide an 
     immigration officer before departure from such port manifest 
     information about each passenger, crew member, and other 
     occupant to be transported.
       ``(c) Contents of Manifest.--The information to be provided 
     with respect to each person listed on a manifest required to 
     be provided under subsection (a) or (b) shall include--
       ``(1) complete name;
       ``(2) date of birth;
       ``(3) citizenship;
       ``(4) sex;
       ``(5) passport number and country of issuance;
       ``(6) country of residence;
       ``(7) United States visa number, date, and place of 
     issuance, where applicable;
       ``(8) alien registration number, where applicable;
       ``(9) United States address while in the United States; and
       ``(10) such other information the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, and the Secretary 
     of Treasury determines as being necessary for the 
     identification of the persons transported and for the 
     enforcement of the immigration laws and to protect safety and 
     national security.
       ``(d) Appropriate Officials Specified.--An appropriate 
     official specified in this subsection is the master or 
     commanding officer, or authorized agent, owner, or consignee, 
     of the commercial vessel or aircraft concerned.
       ``(e) Deadline for Requirement of Electronic Transmission 
     of Manifest Information.--Not later than January 1, 2003, 
     manifest information required to be provided under subsection 
     (a) or (b) shall be transmitted electronically by the 
     appropriate official specified in subsection (d) to an 
     immigration officer.
       ``(f) Prohibition.--No operator of any private or public 
     carrier that is under a duty to provide manifest information 
     under this section shall be granted clearance papers until 
     the appropriate official specified in subsection (d) has 
     complied with the requirements of this subsection, except 
     that in the case of commercial vessels, aircraft, or land 
     carriers that the Attorney General determines are making 
     regular trips to the United States, the Attorney General may, 
     when expedient, arrange for the provision of manifest 
     information of persons departing the United States at a later 
     date.
       ``(g) Penalties Against Noncomplying Shipments, Aircraft, 
     or Carriers.--If it shall appear to the satisfaction of the 
     Attorney General that an appropriate official specified in 
     subsection (d), any public or private carrier, or the agent 
     of any transportation line, as the case may be, has refused 
     or failed to provide manifest information required by 
     subsection (a) or (b), or that the manifest information 
     provided is not accurate and full based on information 
     provided to the carrier, such official, carrier, or agent, as 
     the case may be, shall pay to the Commissioner the sum of 
     $300 for each person with respect to whom such accurate and 
     full manifest information is not provided, or with respect to 
     whom the manifest information is not prepared as prescribed 
     by this section or by regulations issued pursuant thereto. No 
     commercial vessel, aircraft, or land carrier shall be granted 
     clearance pending determination of the question of the 
     liability to the payment of such penalty, or while it remains 
     unpaid, and no such penalty shall be remitted or refunded, 
     except that clearance may be granted prior to the 
     determination of such question upon the deposit with the 
     Commissioner of a bond or undertaking approved by the 
     Attorney General or a sum sufficient to cover such penalty.
       ``(h) Waiver.--The Attorney General may waive the 
     requirements of subsection (a) or (b) upon such circumstances 
     and conditions as the Attorney General may by regulation 
     prescribe.''.
       (b) Extension to Land Carriers.--Not later than two years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     conduct a study regarding the feasibility of extending the 
     requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 231 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1221), as amended 
     by subsection (a), to any commercial carrier transporting 
     persons by land to or from the United States. The study shall 
     focus on the manner in which such requirement would be 
     implemented to enhance the national security of the United 
     States and the efficient cross-border flow of commerce and 
     persons.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to persons arriving in, or departing 
     from, the United States on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 403. TIME PERIOD FOR INSPECTIONS.

       (a) Repeal of Time Limitation on Inspections.--Section 
     286(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1356(g)) is amended by striking ``, within forty-five minutes 
     of their presentation for inspection,''.
       (b) Staffing Levels at Ports of Entry.--The Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service shall staff ports of entry at such 
     levels that would be adequate to meet traffic flow and 
     inspection time objectives efficiently without compromising 
     the safety and security of the United States. Estimated 
     staffing levels under workforce models for the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service shall be based on the goal of 
     providing immigration services described in section 286(g) of 
     such Act within 45 minutes of a passenger's presentation for 
     inspection.

            TITLE V--FOREIGN STUDENTS AND EXCHANGE VISITORS

     SEC. 501. FOREIGN STUDENT MONITORING PROGRAM.

       (a) Strengthening Requirements for Implementation of 
     Monitoring Program.--
       (1) Monitoring and verification of information.--Section 
     641(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Aliens for whom a visa is required.--The Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall 
     establish an electronic means to monitor and verify--
       ``(A) the issuance of documentation of acceptance of a 
     foreign student by an approved institution of higher 
     education or other approved educational institution, or of an 
     exchange visitor program participant by a designated exchange 
     visitor program;
       ``(B) the transmittal of the documentation referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) to the Department of State for use by the 
     Bureau of Consular Affairs;
       ``(C) the issuance of a visa to a foreign student or an 
     exchange visitor program participant;
       ``(D) the admission into the United States of the foreign 
     student or exchange visitor program participant;
       ``(E) the notification to an approved institution of higher 
     education, other approved educational institution, or 
     exchange visitor program sponsor that the foreign student or 
     exchange visitor participant has been admitted into the 
     United States;
       ``(F) the registration and enrollment of that foreign 
     student in such approved institution of higher education or 
     other approved educational institution, or the participation 
     of that exchange visitor in such designated exchange visitor 
     program, as the case may be; and
       ``(G) any other relevant act by the foreign student or 
     exchange visitor program participant, including a changing of 
     school or designated exchange visitor program and any 
     termination of studies or participation in a designated 
     exchange visitor program.
       ``(4) Reporting requirements.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the deadline for registering for classes for an academic term 
     of an approved institution of higher education or other 
     approved educational institution for which documentation is 
     issued for an alien as described in paragraph (3)(A), or the 
     scheduled commencement of participation by an alien in a 
     designated exchange visitor program, as the case may be, the 
     institution or program, respectively, shall report to the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service any failure of the 
     alien to enroll or to commence participation.''.
       (2) Additional requirements for data to be collected.--
     Section 641(c)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372(c)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) the date of entry and port of entry;
       ``(F) the date of the alien's enrollment in an approved 
     institution of higher education, other approved educational 
     institution, or designated exchange visitor program in the 
     United States;
       ``(G) the degree program, if applicable, and field of 
     study; and
       ``(H) the date of the alien's termination of enrollment and 
     the reason for such termination (including graduation, 
     disciplinary action or other dismissal, and failure to re-
     enroll).''.
       (3) Reporting requirements.--Section 641(c) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1372(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Reporting requirements.--The Attorney General shall 
     prescribe by regulation reporting requirements by taking into 
     account the curriculum calendar of the approved institution 
     of higher education, other approved educational institution, 
     or exchange visitor program.''.
       (b) Information Required of the Visa Applicant.--Prior to 
     the issuance of a visa under subparagraph (F), subparagraph 
     (M), or, with respect to an alien seeking to attend

[[Page H802]]

     an approved institution of higher education, subparagraph (J) 
     of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)), each alien applying for such visa 
     shall provide to a consular officer the following 
     information:
       (1) The alien's address in the country of origin.
       (2) The names and addresses of the alien's spouse, 
     children, parents, and siblings.
       (3) The names of contacts of the alien in the alien's 
     country of residence who could verify information about the 
     alien.
       (4) Previous work history, if any, including the names and 
     addresses of employers.
       (c) Transitional Program.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and until such time as the system 
     described in section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act (as amended by subsection 
     (a)) is fully implemented, the following requirements shall 
     apply:
       (A) Restrictions on issuance of visas.--A visa may not be 
     issued to an alien under subparagraph (F), subparagraph (M), 
     or, with respect to an alien seeking to attend an approved 
     institution of higher education, subparagraph (J) of section 
     101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(15)), unless--
       (i) the Department of State has received from an approved 
     institution of higher education or other approved educational 
     institution electronic evidence of documentation of the 
     alien's acceptance at that institution; and
       (ii) the consular officer has adequately reviewed the 
     applicant's visa record.
       (B) Notification upon visa issuance.--Upon the issuance of 
     a visa under section 101(a)(15) (F) or (M) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F) or (M)) to an 
     alien, the Secretary of State shall transmit to the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service a notification of the 
     issuance of that visa.
       (C) Notification upon admission of alien.--The Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service shall notify the approved 
     institution of higher education or other approved educational 
     institution that an alien accepted for such institution or 
     program has been admitted to the United States.
       (D) Notification of failure of enrollment.--Not later than 
     30 days after the deadline for registering for classes for an 
     academic term, the approved institution of higher education 
     or other approved educational institution shall inform the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service through data-sharing 
     arrangements of any failure of any alien described in 
     subparagraph (C) to enroll or to commence participation.
       (2) Requirement to submit list of approved institutions.--
     Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General shall provide the Secretary of 
     State with a list of all approved institutions of higher 
     education or other approved educational institutions that are 
     authorized to receive nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15) 
     (F) or (M) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(15)(F) or (M)).
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this subsection.

     SEC. 502. REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES 
                   AUTHORIZED TO ENROLL OR SPONSOR CERTAIN 
                   NONIMMIGRANTS.

       (a) Periodic Review of Compliance.--The Commissioner of 
     Immigration and Naturalization, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Education, shall conduct periodic reviews of the 
     institutions certified to receive nonimmigrants under section 
     101(a)(15) (F), (M), or (J) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F), (M), or (J)). Each 
     review shall determine whether the institutions are in 
     compliance with--
       (1) recordkeeping and reporting requirements to receive 
     nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15) (F), (M), or (J) of 
     that Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F), (M), or (J)); and
       (2) recordkeeping and reporting requirements under section 
     641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372).
       (b) Periodic Review of Sponsors of Exchange Visitors.--
       (1) Requirement for reviews.--The Secretary of State shall 
     conduct periodic reviews of the entities designated to 
     sponsor exchange visitor program participants under section 
     101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)).
       (2) Determinations.--On the basis of reviews of entities 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall determine whether 
     the entities are in compliance with--
       (A) recordkeeping and reporting requirements to receive 
     nonimmigrant exchange visitor program participants under 
     section 101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)); and
       (B) recordkeeping and reporting requirements under section 
     641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372).
       (c) Effect of Failure To Comply.--Failure of an institution 
     or other entity to comply with the recordkeeping and 
     reporting requirements to receive nonimmigrant students or 
     exchange visitor program participants under section 
     101(a)(15) (F), (M), or (J) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) (F), (M), or (J)), or 
     section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372), may, at the 
     election of the Commissioner of Immigration and 
     Naturalization or the Secretary of State, result in the 
     termination, suspension, or limitation of the institution's 
     approval to receive such students or the termination of the 
     other entity's designation to sponsor exchange visitor 
     program participants, as the case may be.

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 601. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR IMPROVEMENT IN BORDER 
                   CROSSING IDENTIFICATION CARDS.

       Section 104(b)(2) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is 
     amended by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``6 years''.

     SEC. 602. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STUDY.

       (a) Requirement for Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility and 
     utility of implementing a requirement that each nonimmigrant 
     alien in the United States submit to the Commissioner of 
     Immigration and Naturalization each year a current address 
     and, where applicable, the name and address of an employer.
       (2) Nonimmigrant alien defined.--In paragraph (1), the term 
     ``nonimmigrant alien'' means an alien described in section 
     101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(15)).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results of the study under 
     subsection (a). The report shall include the Comptroller 
     General's findings, together with any recommendations that 
     the Comptroller General considers appropriate.

     SEC. 603. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

       (a) International Electronic Data System.--The Secretary of 
     State and the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, 
     in consultation with the Assistant to the President for 
     Homeland Security, shall jointly conduct a study of the 
     alternative approaches (including the costs of, and 
     procedures necessary for, each alternative approach) for 
     encouraging or requiring Canada, Mexico, and countries 
     treated as visa waiver program countries under section 217 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act to develop an 
     intergovernmental network of interoperable electronic data 
     systems that--
       (1) facilitates real-time access to that country's law 
     enforcement and intelligence information that is needed by 
     the Department of State and the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service to screen visa applicants and 
     applicants for admission into the United States to identify 
     aliens who are inadmissible or deportable under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.);
       (2) is interoperable with the electronic data system 
     implemented under section 202; and
       (3) performs in accordance with implementation of the 
     technology standard referred to in section 202(a).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the 
     Attorney General shall submit to the appropriate committees 
     of Congress a report setting forth the findings of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a).

     SEC. 604. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose 
     requirements that are inconsistent with the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement or to require additional documents for 
     aliens for whom documentary requirements are waived under 
     section 212(d)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(4)(B)).

     SEC. 605. ANNUAL REPORT ON ALIENS WHO FAIL TO APPEAR AFTER 
                   RELEASE ON OWN RECOGNIZANCE.

       (a) Requirement for Report.--Not later than January 15 of 
     each year, the Attorney General shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report on the total 
     number of aliens who, during the preceding year, failed to 
     attend a removal proceeding after having been arrested 
     outside a port of entry, served a notice to appear under 
     section 239(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1229(a)(1)), and released on the alien's own 
     recognizance. The report shall also take into account the 
     number of cases in which there were defects in notices of 
     hearing or the service of notices of hearing, together with a 
     description and analysis of the effects, if any, that the 
     defects had on the attendance of aliens at the proceedings.
       (b) Initial Report.--Notwithstanding the time for 
     submission of the annual report provided in subsection (a), 
     the report for 2001 shall be submitted not later than 6 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 606. RETENTION OF NONIMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATIONS BY THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

       The Department of State shall retain, for a period of seven 
     years from the date of application, every application for a 
     nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) in a form that 
     will be admissible in the courts of the United States or in 
     administrative proceeding, including removal proceedings 
     under such Act, without regard to whether the application was 
     approved or denied.

     SEC. 607. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CLASSIFICATION PETITION 
                   AND LABOR CERTIFICATION FILINGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 245(i)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)) is amended--

[[Page H803]]

       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``on or before April 30, 
     2001; or'' and inserting ``on or before the earlier of 
     November 30, 2002, and the date that is 120 days after the 
     date on which the Attorney General first promulgates final or 
     interim final regulations to carry out the amendments made by 
     section 607(a) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
     Reform Act of 2002; or''; and
       (B) in clause (ii) by striking ``on or before such date; 
     and'' and inserting ``before August 15, 2001;'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) who, in the case of a beneficiary of a petition for 
     classification described in subparagraph (B)(i) that was 
     filed after April 30, 2001, demonstrates that--
       ``(i) the familial relationship that is the basis of such 
     petition for classification existed before August 15, 2001; 
     or
       ``(ii) the application for labor certification under 
     section 212(a)(5)(A) that is the basis of such petition for 
     classification was filed before August 15, 2001;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (114 Stat. 2762A-142 et 
     seq.), as enacted into law by section 1(a)(2) of Public Law 
     106-553.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 365, the 
resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) opposed to the motion?
  Mr. NADLER. No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.
  Mr. TANCREDO. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I claim the time of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to speak in opposition.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Did not the Chair recognize me following his 
statement and I asked unanimous consent pursuant to that recognition?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado was on his feet, 
and the Chair recognizes for the 20 minutes, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in that case I will ask the gentleman from 
Wisconsin if he will split the time with the minority party.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman from New York yield?
  Mr. NADLER. Certainly.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Because this bill is fairly complicated, Mr. 
Speaker, I have a statement that may be a little bit more than 10 
minutes, but I am happy to cede whatever time I have left to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Since September 11, we have learned how deeply vulnerable our 
immigration system is to exploitation by aliens who wish to harm 
Americans. H.R. 1885 contains House-passed language of H.R. 3525 that 
makes needed changes to our immigration laws to fight terrorism and to 
prevent such exploitation. It has strong bipartisan support in the 
other body. The House has already passed the core of this legislation 
by wide margins. On May 21, 2001, the House passed a 245(i) extension 
by a vote of 336 to 43. On December 19, 2001, the House passed the 
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act by voice vote.
  I will outline some of this bill's most significant provisions. Most 
importantly, by October 2003, the legislation requires the Attorney 
General and Secretary of State to issue machine-readable, tamper-
resistant visas that use standardized biometric identifiers. This will 
serve a number of important goals. First, it will allow INS inspectors 
at ports of entry to determine whether a visa properly identifies a 
visa holder and thus combat identity fraud. Second, it will make visas 
harder to counterfeit. Third, in conjunction with the installation of 
scanners at ports of entry to read the visas, the INS can track the 
arrival and departure of aliens and generate a reliable measure of 
aliens who overstay their visas. As we have all learned, some of the 
September 11 terrorists were staying in the United States on expired 
visas.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1885 extends the same biometric identifier 
requirements to passports from visa-waiver program countries. The 
necessity for this was demonstrated when our military found blank 
European passports in abandoned al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan. We must 
ensure that passports presented to the INS inspectors are not 
counterfeit, altered, or being used by imposters.
  The bill thus requires that aliens seeking to enter the United States 
under the visa-waiver program with passports issued after October of 
2003 must possess tamper-resistant, machine-readable passports with the 
same biometric identifiers as our visas.
  The bill also requires that within 72 hours after notification by a 
foreign government of a stolen passport, the Attorney General shall 
identify its identification number into a data system accessible to INS 
inspectors at ports of entry. In addition, the Secretary of State and 
Attorney General shall consider, in deciding whether to keep a country 
in the visa-waiver program, whether its government reports to us on a 
timely basis the theft of its blank passports.
  Building upon the enhanced data-sharing requirements of the USA 
Patriot Act, the bill directs our law enforcement agencies and 
intelligence community to share information with the State Department 
and the INS relevant to the admissibility and deportability of aliens. 
This information will be made available in an electronic database which 
will be searchable based on the linguistically sensitive algorithms 
that account for variations in name spellings and transliterations. 
This will result in lookout lists that are much more thorough and 
prevent terrorists who threaten our Nation from obtaining U.S. visas or 
entering our country.
  As the Border Patrol succeeds in controlling the border, more aliens 
take a chance at penetrating the ports of entry, placing an ever-
increasing strain on the limited staff of INS inspectors. Likewise, INS 
investigations units have long been denied adequate personnel. The bill 
helps fill these critical gaps. It authorizes appropriations to hire at 
least 200 full-time inspectors and at least 200 full-time investigators 
each year through fiscal year 2006.
  Another long-standing problem at the INS is the low pay for Border 
Patrol agents and INS inspectors. This has led many trained Border 
Patrol agents and inspectors to leave the INS for other law enforcement 
agencies offering better pay, such as the air marshals. Something is 
wrong when former Border Patrol agents make up 75 percent of the first 
air marshals class. This bill authorizes appropriations to increase the 
pay of Border Patrol agents and inspectors in order to help the INS 
retain its best people.
  The bill provides that aliens from countries that sponsor 
international terrorism cannot receive nonimmigrant visas until it has 
been determined that they do not pose a threat to the safety of 
Americans or the national security of the U.S.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. embassies and consulates abroad will be required to 
establish terrorist lookout committees that meet monthly in order to 
ensure that the names of known terrorists are routinely and 
consistently brought to the attention of consular officials, America's 
first line of defense.
  With the same goal in mind, the bill requires that all consular 
officers responsible for adjudicating visa petitions receive 
specialized training and effective screening of visa applicants who 
pose a potential threat to the safety and security of the United 
States.

  The bill strengthens the foreign student tracking system by requiring 
that it track the acceptance of aliens by educational institutions, the 
issuance of visas to the aliens, and then admission into the United 
States of the aliens, the notification of education institutions of the 
admission of aliens

[[Page H804]]

slated to attend them, and the enrollment of the aliens at the 
institutions. No longer will terrorists be able to enter the U.S. on 
student visas with the INS never knowing that they failed to show up at 
school.
  The bill requires that each commercial vessel or aircraft arriving in 
the U.S. provide, prior to arrival at the port of entry, manifest 
information about each passenger and crew member. Starting in 2003, the 
information will have to be provided electronically. Prearrival of 
manifests allow much of the INS's screening work to be done before 
arrival. This not only speeds processing for arriving passengers, but 
gives INS inspectors more time to conduct background checks on and to 
interview passengers.
  Finally, the bill requires the President to conduct a study of the 
feasibility of establishing a North American National Security Program 
to enhance the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, 
and Mexico.
  Finally, H.R. 1885 contains a compromise reached with the other body 
on the future of section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 
No one will be entirely satisfied with this compromise; however, it 
reflects a judicious balancing of the many divergent and deeply held 
views Members hold on 245(i).
  When Congress passed the LIFE Act in December 2000, we made a promise 
to give U.S. citizens and permanent residents at least 4 months time to 
file immigrant visa petitions for their relatives using section 245(i). 
This promise was not fulfilled because the INS was typically unable to 
issue implementing regulations until March 2001.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow qualifying illegal aliens to unify 
section 245(i) as long as they have had green card petitions filed on 
their behalf by the earlier of November 30, 2002, or 4 months after the 
date the Attorney General issues implementing regulations. It also 
requires that aliens must have entered into the family relationships 
qualifying them for permanent residence by August 14, 2001. With this 
compromise, we have signaled that 245(i) will not become a permanent 
part of our immigration law and that aliens should not base their 
future actions on the assumption that it will be. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin, as is usually the case, did an 
excellent job in explaining the aspects of this particular piece of 
legislation. What he said was, for a long period of time, that we are 
dealing with an act that has been referred to as the Enhanced Border 
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. He spent 90 percent of the time 
explaining what that act is all about, and enhancing the visa 
protection provisions of the law is something with which I 
wholeheartedly agree. As a matter of fact, this particular part of the 
bill is something with which the entire House agreed because we passed 
it already. This part of the bill is done. It is finished. It passed 
this House by voice vote and went over to the Senate some time ago.
  So then what are we dealing with here? It is not, in fact, the 
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act, because that is done, it 
is finished, it is over with. What we are really doing here, and the 
only reason why we are here today, is to provide amnesty, amnesty for 
people who are here illegally. That is why we are on the floor today. 
It is not for the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act.

                              {time}  1445

  It is done. It is being held up by one Member on the other side. That 
is their problem, not ours.
  This will not enhance our ability to get that law passed; this only 
makes it much more difficult because, of course, this does exactly the 
wrong thing. Regardless of how narrowly we try to define the scope of 
this amnesty act, it is in fact still amnesty. What we are telling the 
world and telling people who are here, came here legally, waded through 
the process, did all the right things, what we are telling them is, Do 
you know what? You are a bunch of suckers for doing it.
  What we are telling every single person all around the world who is 
in line, waiting, filling out the applications, going to the embassies 
and doing it right, what we are telling them is, You are a bunch of 
suckers. Here is the way to get into the United States and to get in 
the line for citizenship: Sneak in. Stay under the radar screen, get 
married, and even a bogus marriage document will do; because believe 
me, plenty of those developed, sham marriages, the last time we did 
this; Get a job, or at least present to the INS some indication that 
you have been employed; all of these things. Just do this, sneak in 
under the radar, stay here long enough, and do not worry, we will give 
you amnesty. That is what we are doing in this bill. That is the real 
purpose of the bill.
  As I say, all the rest of this stuff we have already passed. We are 
here for only one purpose, to grant amnesty. Again, we have done it. We 
did it in 1986. I assure the Members that the result of this will not 
be to have just simply the legally residing citizens of the country and 
all the rest of the folks who our hearts can go out for, it will not be 
to give them a better chance at the American dream. What it will do is 
exactly the opposite thing we want to accomplish here.
  We want people to come into the United States legally. That is why we 
set up a system. Admittedly, it is a flawed system, because it is 
turned over to the Mickey Mouse agency of the Federal Government we 
call the INS. But it is, nonetheless, the system we have established, 
that in order to come to the United States, they must have our 
permission. They come by visa or come in under some other status, but 
they do so legally.
  After all, we purport to be a nation of laws; we say that all the 
time. But this is absolutely the antithesis of that. This is saying, 
Break the law, come here illegally, and we will in fact reward you for 
it. This is why we have to vote no on this resolution, because it has 
absolutely nothing to do with enhanced border security and visa entry 
reforms. We have already passed it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler), and I ask unanimous consent that he may be 
permitted to yield portions of that time to other Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1885 combines the Enhanced Border Security and Visa 
Entry Reform Act with a short extension of section 245(i) of the 
immigration laws.
  I plan to support this legislation, in part because the border 
security piece will strengthen the security of our borders and enhance 
our ability to deter potential terrorists while balancing the needs of 
law enforcement. We have been vigilant in protecting the civil rights 
upon which this Nation depends.
  As for section 245(i), we should be extending it permanently. 
Instead, this bill provides only a modest extension. In fact, what the 
bill gives with one hand it actually takes away with the other. While 
it appears to extend section 245(i) until November 30, 2002, many 
people will not qualify because of the additional requirement that 
eligibility for section 245(i) be established prior to August 15, 2001, 
last year. Unfortunately, this bill is insufficient in time and stingy 
in scope.
  If the last extension is any guide, H.R. 1885 will cause great panic 
among immigrants, and create an opportunity for fraudulent immigration 
advisors or ``notarios.''
  In contrast, a full restoration of section 245(i) to what it was 
before 1998 would allow the thousands of law-abiding immigrants who are 
on the brink of becoming permanent residents to apply for their green 
cards while in the United States. It would allow wives, husbands, and 
children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to stay together in 
the United States, rather than being forced to leave the country, 
sometimes for years, to apply for their green card.
  I cannot understand how anyone who claims to support family values, 
who thinks that it is useful for children to have two parents together, 
not one here and one in another country for

[[Page H805]]

several years, could oppose the permanent extension of section 245(i).
  Section 245(i) is not an amnesty for immigrants, it is simply a 
device to ensure that while permanent residents married to American 
citizens, people who have completed all their requirements, are waiting 
for the bureaucracy of the INS to complete their work, they not be 
forced to leave their families and go abroad for months or years.
  If the administration and House leadership are serious about helping 
immigrants and are serious about our relationship with Mexico, then we 
should be passing immigration laws that do far more than this bill 
does; at the very least, a permanent extension, not a mere 2-year 
extension of section 245(i).
  While I support this legislation, we should be considering a full 
restoration of section 245(i). We will continue to push for such an 
extension until the administration and the leadership of the House 
agree to it and we accomplish full restoration of section 245(i).
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1885. I 
supported H.R. 3525 when we focused on border security, but H.R. 1885, 
with its amnesty, reminds me of a bowl of ice cream, and I am an ice 
cream liker. H.R. 3525 was a bowl of ice cream. When they added the 
amnesty provisions to it, they rammed a hot poker into that bowl of ice 
cream, and it all melted and it was not fit to eat.
  H.R. 1885 rewards law-breakers. They can walk across the Rio Grande, 
they can walk across the Canadian border, and thousands who have waited 
in line, they should be told, You should not have waited. You should 
not have tried to follow the law. Avoid the interview in your native 
country, just walk on in. Breaking the law does not matter.
  If we pass this today and it passes the other body and becomes law, 
they will say, Uncle Sam is on our side. In the southwestern United 
States, there are some who take the position that, We did not cross the 
border, the border crossed us.
  I want to preserve our borders as they are today. I do not want to go 
back to pre-1845. If we pass legislation like this, the southwestern 
United States could become like Quebec. We do not need separatist 
movements in this country, we need to stand for the United States of 
America as it is today.
  I urge Members to defeat H.R. 1885.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes, the balance 
of my time, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the one important feature of this legislation which I 
support and which makes it stand out from all of the other provisions 
is that which has to do with tightening up on those who have overstayed 
their visas. As we know, many of the terrorists who hit the World Trade 
Center and the Pentagon were people who were identified later as having 
overstayed their visas, so that by itself attracts me to support this 
piece of legislation.
  But I have another reason why I may vote against this, even though I 
am one of the best friends that Mexico has and that the border control 
advocates have in this entire question; that is, I have a personal 
pique with the Government of Mexico.
  Right after September 11, I think in October, when our economy was 
reeling with the adverse effects of those attacks, OPEC, and I am 
talking about OPEC, they decided to cut production of oil, meaning 
higher prices down the line for the American consumer. They did this in 
the face of an economy that was losing strength by the minute.
  Now, I took heart when Mexico decided not to go along with OPEC, and 
I began to applaud our neighbor to the south. Then, all of a sudden, 
there was a change, and Mexico decided to join with OPEC against the 
United States in cutting oil production. The price rises that we see 
right now happening at the pump are a direct result of the OPEC-guided 
decision with which Mexico joined, and will bring about massive 
dislocation to our gas prices in the next few months.
  This plays heavily with me in the final determination of this issue.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant but in absolute opposition to the 
legislation we debate here today. My friend, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), made the salient point, echoed by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode): Border security 
measures have been passed in previous legislation. The operative 
provision we are dealing with in this House at this time is amnesty.
  There is a fundamental disconnection, and I welcome my friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) speaking of family values. Yes, 
everyone, regardless of political philosophy or partisan stripe, should 
champion family values. But then, should we also champion a disdain for 
the law? For here is what is transpiring today: This will reward 
illegal immigrants by granting them a benefit simply because they broke 
our laws and did not get caught, or more appropriately, the laws were 
not enforced.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe there is still a tremendous opportunity to 
work with the Republic of Mexico, to work with President Fox, to set up 
a reasonable, rational, accountable means to see who travels back and 
forth across our southern border. I daresay the same should apply to 
our neighbors to the north in Canada.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we are a nation at war. In the midst of this 
conflict, at this time, in this place, why would we seek to dilute the 
laws of this Nation with respect to sovereignty?
  Mr. Speaker, lest the propagandists of the politically correct 
deliberately distort, let me make this clear: I welcome constructive 
dialogue. I welcome an opportunity for a full accounting of those who 
come here for economic opportunity. But I categorically reject the 
message this House will send today if we say, Forget about the law, 
come on in. You did not get caught. Congratulations.
  That is what this legislation is about, and that is why I oppose it. 
At the very least, Mr. Speaker, the $1,000 payment from each individual 
who comes here, every bit of that $1,000 payment from all the 
individuals should go to try to strengthen our borders.
  But Mr. Speaker, I would go further. Because we are a nation at war, 
this House and this government should seriously consider a moratorium 
on immigration until we put in place biometric devices so we know 
exactly who is coming into this country, whether from our southern 
border, our northern border, or via shipping containers, which we can 
only eyeball right now to the extent of 2 or 3 percent.
  If nothing else, the American people understand we are a Nation at 
war, and we dare not send messages to terrorist states that somehow we 
will dilute our enforcement. No, the contrary is true: We need to 
enforce the laws, and we need to work productively with the Republic of 
Mexico and others.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, I am more worried about 
bombs in the containers than about immigrants in the containers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner), a great supporter of administration reform.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I thank the Chair for bringing us this bill. I speak in favor of 
the bill, and I want to talk to part of the bill that has not been 
fully vetted yet.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth), if he is interested in security at a time of war, let us 
remember that in this bill we have 1,000 extra INS inspectors 
authorized to help us secure the border, 200 INS inspectors and 
investigators each year added for the next 5 years.

                              {time}  1500

  I will tell my colleagues, I represent the biggest city on the 
southern border, San Diego. Soon I will represent the whole California 
border with Mexico. We are interested in securing at this time of war; 
but we are also interested in making sure our economy stays strong, and 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) ought to

[[Page H806]]

know, since his own State is also involved in this, that the legal 
crosser from Mexico, the shopper, the family member, the person going 
to school, the legal crosser, sustains our border economy to a great 
degree.
  My communities in Calexico and Tecate and San Diego rely 90 percent 
on the legal crosser to keep our economy going. We can do both, Mr. 
Speaker. We can have the security that we need, and we can have the 
free movement that our economy also requires. That means we need more 
people and we need better technology to guard the borders.
  That is what this bill is moving toward. We are moving toward more 
inspectors so we can make sure that we keep out illegal people, drugs 
and terrorists; but we also need for people not to have to wait 3, 4, 
5, 8 hours at the border for a legal crosser to go to school legally, 
to shop legally, to see their family members legally. That is what the 
border communities are interested in. Yes, security; yes, protection. 
But let us have that binational culture that is so much a part of our 
southern border, not just cut off at this time of emergency.
  We can do both, Mr. Speaker. We can keep the security. We can keep 
the flow for commerce that is necessary.
  I support this bill.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is certainly well known as an 
expert on this issue.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation which would permit those people who are in this country 
illegally to thwart our laws and to become legal residents of our 
country, thus insulting all of the immigrants who have obeyed our laws 
and are standing in line throughout the world. The parliamentary 
shenanigans we are witnessing today to try to get this legislation 
through to extend amnesty to these illegal aliens is unworthy of this 
body, this representative body, and is bound to confuse our 
constituents.
  What this is about is an amnesty for illegal immigrants. It is not 
about strengthening the border. It is about making the efforts that we 
have already taken to strengthen the border meaningless by granting 
amnesty to people who are in this country illegally.
  The administration and Members of this body talk a good game about 
increasing our national security while here right now undermining this 
country's ability to find and deport terrorists who are among us.
  If this vote today passes, we make the INS reforms already passed by 
this House meaningless. Why demand that aliens receive biometric ID 
cards, as we just heard about, or strengthen the border guards when 
illegal aliens will be able to pay $1,000 and forge some paperwork and 
become a citizen? What good does it do to perform a home country 
background check on an alien when we cannot perform a home country 
background check on an illegal alien?
  I might remind this body that 245(i) only rewards illegal immigrants. 
It can talk about families being separated. I believe that if families 
are separated and someone is here illegally they should go home to 
their home country to be with their home family; but if they are here 
illegally, that is different than if they are here legally. We actually 
have in place now programs in the United States Government to help 
people who are here legally to be reunited with their family.
  No, the only thing we are doing today is rewarding those people who 
have broken our laws and come here and overstayed their visas and are 
here illegally. We are rewarding them above the people who have been 
standing in line throughout the world, hoping to come to the United 
States by obeying our laws. If aliens are here illegally, they should 
return home to their own countries and go through the same process that 
we demand of people who are trying to immigrate legally here. They 
should have the background checks so that we can cut off the terrorists 
before they come here.
  By allowing this to happen today, by saying if someone is here 
illegally that they can stay in our country and not have that home 
country check on them before they arrive here, we are bound to let 
terrorists through the network.
  We are weakening our protection of our country. I stood on this floor 
in 1996 and again in 1997 and begged this body to consider our national 
security when rewarding illegal immigration. I can understand why 
people might have thought that I was reacting then; but in light of 
what has happened since September 11, we should never permit a 
weakening of the investigation and background checks of illegal 
immigrants into this country.
  One last point is, by granting amnesty to these people who are in our 
country illegally, we are asking for another massive flow of illegal 
immigration into this country. It is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong. 
We should vote against it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) and all of my colleagues, and I want to thank the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for putting this on the agenda 
and President Bush for having asked, as well, that it be put on the 
agenda.
  The legislation is important, does a number of important things in 
the field of hiring and training government personnel and 
appropriations for improvement in technology and infrastructure, 
measures for access to and coordination of law enforcement and other 
information, implementation of an integrated entry and exit data 
system, machine readable tamper resistant entry and exit documents, a 
whole gamut of very important improvements in the area of immigration 
control.
  Some of my very good friends, and I have the highest esteem and 
admiration for my colleagues on the floor today, but they have been 
seeking to make this legislation into something that it is not with 
regard to 245(i). Section 245(i) only benefits people who are eligible 
for lawful permanent residence in the United States. If they are 
eligible for lawful permanent residence in the United States, then they 
can utilize 245(i). In other words, they do not have to leave the 
country to become a lawful permanent residence of the United States. 
That is the issue with 245(i).
  This is a temporary extension of that. It is a commonsense measure. 
Why is it supported by an overwhelming consensus of political 
viewpoints and the President of the United States? Because it is a 
common sense measure. A constituent of mine recently told me that 
should not be controversial, that is a commonsense measure; and I have 
been calling it that ever since, Mr. Speaker.
  So that is why I am confident that today the national consensus, 
obviously in our democracy as in all democracies we can never have 
unanimity, and I have great friends, great friends on the other side of 
this issue; but there is a national consensus on behalf of commonsense 
measures, like if someone is eligible for permanent residence they have 
to leave the country in order to get it. That is what we are discussing 
with regard to 245(i), Mr. Speaker; and this underlying legislation, as 
I said before, contains other very important measures that I hope and 
expect and certainly would urge my colleagues to support today.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for yielding me the time; and notwithstanding 
some of the good features in this bill, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1885 due to the inclusion of provisions to extend amnesty to those who 
have broken our immigration laws, the so-called 245(i).
  We are, on one hand, deporting some who have violated the term of 
their visas; and with the other hand, with this legislation, we are 
rewarding those who have flaunted our laws.
  We should be pursuing vigorous enforcement of our borders and 
increased diligence in scrutinizing individuals from foreign countries. 
This provision does not do that. The objective of our policy should be 
to control the flow of illegal immigrants and ensure our national 
security, not rewarding those who have violated the law. Section 245(i) 
empowers visa holders to flout the law and game the system. They will 
know that the terms of their visa

[[Page H807]]

are irrelevant because they can pay a $1,000 fine to convert from 
illegal status to legal status.
  It also sends a mistaken message to thousands of people who are 
following the legal immigration channels to the United States 
Government, and it sends a signal that the United States Government 
does not take its immigration laws seriously. This can only foster more 
illegal immigration by adding an incentive to stay in the U.S. 
illegally.
  Under current law, those who overstay their visas are penalized. 
Overstaying by 180 days carries a penalty of being barred from 
reentering the United States for 3 years, and those who overstay for 
more than a year are barred from reentering the United States for 10 
years. These penalties are not arbitrary. They are there to send a 
signal that we will enforce our visa laws.
  This extension of 245(i) provisions sends the opposite signal. I want 
to also add, and this is an issue that concerns me about this 
legislation, and it relates to the way things have changed since 
September 11.
  There were, as I understand it, 114,000 illegal immigrants from the 
Middle East according to the Census Bureau after the time of September 
11. The Justice Department recently detailed an effort to apprehend and 
interrogate more than 6,000 immigrants from countries identified as al 
Qaeda strongholds. Security officials have indicated there are sleeper 
cells of terrorists already residing in the United States awaiting 
terrorist assignments.
  I ask the question, will this bill allow some of those sleepers to 
slip through the cracks by paying $1,000 and readjusting their status? 
I believe we simply do not know. Despite the best intention of 
officials with the administration and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, I feel that the risk to the United States is 
too high and that we should not be relaxing our laws.
  Finally, I would like to say that I object to the manner in which 
this subject is being considered today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to H.R. 1885 due to the inclusion of 
provisions to extend amnesty to those who have broken our immigration 
laws--commonly referred to as an extension of 245(i). This provision is 
at conflict with everything we are trying to do to enhance our border 
security and ensure compliance with U.S. immigration laws. With one 
hand we are deporting some who have violated the terms of their visa 
and with the other hand we are rewarding those who have flaunted our 
laws.
  We should be pursuing vigorous enforcement of our borders and 
increased diligence in scrutinizing individuals from foreign countries. 
This provision does not do that. The objective of our policy should be 
to control the flow of illegal immigrants and ensure our national 
security, not rewarding those who violate the law. The extension of 
245(i) does not strengthen our immigration policy. Instead, it weakens 
it. 245(i) empowers visa holders to flout the law and ``game'' the 
system. They will know that the terms of their visa are irrelevant 
because they can pay a $1,000 fine to convert from illegal status to 
legal status.
  It also sends the mistaken message to thousands of people who are 
following legal immigration channels that the U.S. Government does not 
take seriously our immigration laws. This will only foster increased 
illegal immigration by adding an incentive to stay in the United States 
illegally.
  Under current law, those who overstay their visa are penalized. 
Overstaying by 180 days carries a penalty of being barred from 
reentering the United States for 3 years and those who overstay legal 
permission to be in the United States by a year or more are prohibited 
from reentering the country for 10 years. These penalties aren't 
arbitrary. They are designed to let visa holders know we are law-
abiding nation. They are designed to compel nonimmigrants to respect 
the terms of their visa. A 10-year prohibition is supposed to signal 
how serious we are about enforcing our laws.
  Law-abiding nonimmigrants understand this. They are waiting for their 
family members and loved ones to join them as soon as they are granted 
legal permission. But 245(i) gives unlawful nonimmigrants a leg-up from 
those that are patiently waiting for the system to work. I think we 
should give a higher priority for citizenship to those who have 
demonstrated their willingness to live by our laws. 245(i) does just 
the opposite.
  In addition to my concerns about the duplicitous nature of extending 
245(i), this bill poses a significant national security risk. This bill 
does not take into account how our world has changed since September 
11, 2001. It makes no provision to exclude individuals who are here 
illegally from countries that sponsor or host terrorism.
  Earlier this year the Census Bureau reported 114,000 illegal 
immigrants from the Middle East were present in the United States. The 
Justice Department recently detailed an effort to apprehend and 
interrogate more than 6,000 immigrants from countries identified as al 
Qaeda strongholds. Security officials have indicated that there are 
``sleeper cells'' of terrorist already residing in the United States 
awaiting their terrorism assignments. Will this bill allow some of 
these sleepers to slip through the cracks and readjust their status? We 
simply do not know.
  The threat to America still exists. We are still on heightened alert 
overseas and here at home. Let us not be naive in our diplomatic 
efforts which may have the unintended consequence of threatening all of 
the good work that has been accomplished regarding homeland security.
  I also object to the manner in which this subject is being considered 
today. As a Member of Congress, I would like the opportunity to amend 
this bill to have a straight up or down vote on whether or not we 
should extend 245(i). My guess is that if we had a straight up or down 
vote on this matter today, caution would prevail and the extension of 
amnesty for illegal immigrants would fail.
  We should at least be permitted to vote to restrict granting amnesty 
to those that may pose a security risk.
  I have introduced, H.R. 3286, which would place a temporary 
moratorium on all immigration from 13 countries known to house and 
train terrorists until the Attorney General certifies that the 
technological and security enhancing measures Congress has approved 
have been fully implemented. This is prudent policy because it takes 
into account the real terrorism threat from countries like Afghanistan, 
Algeria, Syria, Lybia, and the United Arab Emirates as we work to 
improve our immigration system.
  The bill before us today simply asks Congress to ``rubber stamp'' 
amnesty for illegal immigrants across the board. As I represent my 
constituents, I cannot in good conscience go along with this. It is for 
these reasons that I plan on voting against this bill and I encourage 
my colleagues who are concerned about our national security to vote 
against this bill as well.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Cannon).
  (Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for bringing a final version of this important enhanced 
border security bill to the floor today.
  This bill contains many important provisions that will increase the 
funding and training for those charged with securing our borders. It 
will upgrade technology and produce counterfeit-proof visa documents. 
It is a good step toward more effective enforcement; and to answer the 
gentleman's question who just spoke a moment ago, the extension of 
245(i) is not going to allow people who are in sleeper cells to stay. 
The enforcement is going to be much better effected in the course we 
have proposed in this bill today.
  I want to address two particular criticisms of the temporary 
extension of section 245(i) contained in the bill today which are 
simply false. Opponents have attempted to characterize this provision 
as amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and, secondly, a threat to 
our national security. Neither allegation can be further from the 
truth.
  This is not amnesty. Section 245(i) benefits a limited pool of people 
that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has already determined 
should be able to become permanent legal residents based on their 
family or employment relationships. The issue is not whether these 
immigrants are eligible or not. The issue is not when they could become 
United States permanent residents, but rather, where they may apply to 
become permanent U.S. residents.
  Section 245(i) could be used only by certain prospective lawful 
permanent residents under close and careful scrutiny of Federal 
authorities. People using section 245(i) are required to be otherwise 
eligible to become permanent residents. The eligibility requirements 
for those applying under section 245(i) are identical to the screening 
process for those applying abroad.
  This is no threat to national security. Not a single one of the 
September 11 attackers was eligible for adjustment under 245(i), but 
some were issued

[[Page H808]]

valid documents by our overworked U.S. consulates overseas rather than 
being screened here in the United States by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, which has the technology and the resources to 
do that screening.
  Mr. Speaker, seeing my time is about to expire, let me urge my 
colleagues to support this bill. I think it is a good bill and it 
advances our interests.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) has 4\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) has 1 minute remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If somebody stood on this floor and experienced that old deja vu 
thing, when we talk about deja vu, I think we have seen this before, we 
have, in fact. It is called the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
Reform Act, but we passed it. So please do not be confused by the 
rhetoric on the floor here that it is centered on that part of the 
bill.

                              {time}  1515

  It is a good part of the bill. I support that part of the bill. But 
there is no reason to support it again because, guess what, we passed 
it. It is done. It is over there.
  What we have here is the same wording, they drug that back up, and 
stuck amnesty onto it so as to essentially, I would guess, well, I do 
not know, and I will not judge the motive, but I will simply say that 
it is somewhat confusing for Members when they think that they might be 
coming up here to vote on enhanced border security and, in fact, of 
course, they have already done it.
  In terms of whether or not we can rely upon the INS to accurately and 
conscientiously do the background work to determine whether or not the 
people who are making application are in fact legitimate in their 
request, let me just bring to the attention of my colleagues the most 
recent in a series of incredible, scathing reports about the INS. This 
one happens to be February 15. A GAO report finds pervasive and serious 
problems with immigration benefit fraud. In just one part here, a 90 
percent fraud rate was found in the review of a targeted group of 5,000 
petitions. These are the same kinds of things we are talking about 
here.
  A 90 percent fraud rate. A follow-up analysis of about 1,500 
petitions found only one was not fraudulent. One. And we are turning 
this task, the task of determining who is going to be able to come into 
the country, whether or not they have been truthful in the information 
they have brought to the INS, we are entrusting this entity with that 
challenge.
  It is unfortunate, but true, that in the past when we did this, when 
we had another amnesty, admittedly broader in scope, but nonetheless an 
amnesty program in 1986, and one of the individuals who ended up as a 
perpetrator in the original bombings of the Federal building in New 
York, the office tower in New York, was someone who slipped through the 
cracks of that particular amnesty. He had been given amnesty on an 
agricultural visa because, of course, he lied and nobody checked, and 
nobody cared.
  And it is not that much different today. It is astounding to me that 
we are on this floor debating this possibility of amnesty and turning 
it over to the INS to have them determine whether or not this is a 
legal applicant or a legitimate applicant. They have not the foggiest 
idea.
  I assure my colleagues that when this passes, if this passes, and 
passes the other body, there will be a flood of applications. There 
will be literally millions. I would venture to guess that there will be 
millions of applications filed, and then the INS will have the 
responsibility of opening up the box at some period of time and going, 
``Gee whiz, what are we going to do with this?'' I know exactly what 
they will do. They will get out this big stamp that says ``Approved'' 
and stamp it and dump it over here, because that is what they have done 
in the past.
  To suggest there is some degree of true conscientiousness in this 
process with the INS is ludicrous. We know that is not true. Every 
single member of this Committee on the Judiciary knows that it is not 
true. If anybody saw ``60 Minutes'' the night before last knows that 
even ``60 Minutes'' is aware of how incompetent this agency is. And 
this is the entity to whom we are going to entrust the responsibility 
for this Nation's safety.
  Regardless of who we think these people might be, no matter how 
pleasantly we paint the picture of who they are, just waiting to stay, 
the fact is, they are here illegally, or else, of course, we would not 
need to pass a law. They broke a law when they came into the country. 
There are all kinds of people trying to do it the right way. And to 
them we say, ``Hey, you know what, you really are stupid. You are 
really a big sucker. Why not do it this other way? Why not sneak in? 
Why not put pressure on the political establishment?'' Because, believe 
me, in a while we will cave in and we will have another amnesty, and 
another one and another one.
  I encourage my colleagues not to be confused about this other 
language about visa reform. It has nothing to do with this bill. We 
have already passed it. We are dealing with amnesty here. Defeat it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  A lot of references have been made to 9-11 in this debate today. 9-11 
occurred in my district. I would remind people that the people who 
committed that dastardly act were in this country legally. So this bill 
has nothing to do with them, nothing to do with them.
  Also, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) says the people we 
are talking about, under section 245(i), came into this country 
illegally. No, they did not. They came in legally under a tourist visa 
or a student visa or a work visa, and they met all the requirements 
over the years to get a green card and a permanent residence. But the 
bureaucracy of the INS frustrated them by delaying approval of that 
green card, and completion of the bureaucratic work passed the 
expiration of their visa. For that reason, under current law, they have 
to leave the country.
  They may have to leave their family. Perhaps they married while in 
America and perhaps they have children who are American citizens. They 
have to leave their country, go abroad, perhaps for years, reapply, and 
then wait for the INS bureaucracy to finish what they should have 
finished beforehand.
  That is cruel. That is separating families from American citizens. 
That is unnecessary. That is all we are talking about here. All talk 
about amnesty and terrorism is nonsense and irrelevant to this bill, 
and so I urge the passage of this bill.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Enhanced Border 
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. This is important legislation that 
builds up our security against future terrorist attacks. I am, however, 
disappointed in the scope of the 245(i) extension included in this 
bill. I believe this 245(i) extension is insufficient in time and 
stingy in scope.
  The White House has continually stated support for an extension of 
245(i) for 6 to 12 months. This new proposal of a limited 4-month 
extension with restrictions is not consistent with the spirit of 
President Bush's letter where he advocated for policies that strengthen 
families and recognized that there was not enough time with the 
previous four-month extension.
  In December 2000, when Congress passed a 245(i) extension that 
expired April 30, 2001, it took the INS over 3 months to issue the new 
regulation, causing great panic and confusion among immigrants and 
creating an opportunity for unscrupulous and fraudulent immigration 
``advisors.'' While this new provision will help some individuals and 
families, it will need new regulations and there will be delays and 
chaos similar to what happened last time.
  A 245(i) provision helps people in this country who otherwise qualify 
for legal permanent residency. It is not an amnesty, but rather a way 
for people with deep roots in this country to reunite their families 
and work their way towards citizenship and full participation in their 
adopted country. A meaningful extension must go beyond 4 months and 
should not impose new arbitrary requirements.
  At this time, I support this proposal because it is a step in the 
right direction, but I urge my colleagues to continue discussions and 
continue to work to pass and implement a comprehensive solution for 
families that are separated from their loved ones.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1885, the 
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, that is 
before the House today. This bill will extend Section 245(i) of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Act to certain immigrants as well as

[[Page H809]]

incorporate the provisions of H.R. 3525 which would help us in our 
fight against terrorism by generally strengthening border security. I 
voted for both of these bills in the past and continue to support their 
goals as represented in today's bill.
  I support today's bill because it recognizes, at least on a limited 
level, the needs of certain immigrants who have strong ties here, have 
families here, have jobs and pay taxes here. This bill is also 
important because it recognizes that we must protect ourselves against 
further terrorist threats.
  However, though on 245(i) this is a step forward, we must recognize 
that is only a small step. As I have said before and will say again, 
the 245(i) debate is not over. While this bill extends 245(i) to 
immigrants who were physically in the United States on December 21, 
2000, and have established family or work ties on or before August 15, 
2001, that is not enough. We must work for permanent reinstatement of 
245(i). This bill today will move us in the right direction, but we 
need to work on a permanent solution. To stop the debate at this point 
would prevent us from securing a more meaningful extension of the 
provision for individuals with established lives, who work hard and 
contribute to our society.
  Without supporting a permanent extension of 245(i), the Republican 
leadership in the House fails to adequately recognize the importance of 
reuniting immigrant families and the important role that these 
individuals and their families play in promoting our country's 
prosperity. It is long overdue and we must continue to push for 
permanent extension of 245(i).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1885 
and its provision to extend Section 245(i) of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act.
  I support the foundation of H.R. 1885. It is designed to reform and 
enhance border security and visa screening procedures. As we mark the 
six-month anniversary of the attack on America, we need to take these 
important steps to bolster homeland security and protect our citizens 
and institutions.
  That's why I am outraged that this Administration and this 
Congressional Leadership would support inserting the Section 245i 
extension into this bill. In my opinion, the two major provisions of 
H.R. 1885 work at dangerous cross-purposes. While the border security 
and visa screening reforms will enhance homeland security, the 245(i) 
extension will actually jeopardize homeland security by subjecting 
illegal aliens to a just cursory domestic police record check before 
allowing them permanent legal residence here. The extension also 
rewards individuals who have already violated our U.S. law.
  This extension is wrong, dangerously wrong, for important reasons:
  It allows hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to stay permanently 
without going through face-to-face interviews in our embassies abroad, 
conducted in their native languages.
  It entices millions more foreign nationals to enter the country 
without screening in hopes that they, too, will be rewarded for their 
lawbreaking.
  It increases permanent U.S. population growth by creating a new tidal 
wave of amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and the 
enticement for millions more to move to the U.S.
  Finally, I am deeply concerned that Section 245(i) places the 
responsibility for background checks with the INS, an agency that has 
been justifiably criticized for its lack of effectiveness--ineptitude 
that has been highlighted since 9-11.
  Consular officers in embassies overseas, not the INS, should have the 
responsibility to conduct background checks. They are the ones with the 
expertise in the language and procedures of the countries in which they 
are stationed, as well as longstanding relationships with police 
officials in the home country. Consular officials are the ones who 
develop hands-on knowledge of local customs, including criminal 
enterprises and terror groups. That's precisely why they are stationed 
in-country. They are more prepared and better positioned than INS 
officials here in the United States to screen potential immigrants 
effectively.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a country of laws. One of the shining principles 
of our democracy is equal justice under the law. In this context, we 
cannot choose which laws we will obey and which ones we will ignore.
  Extension of 245(i) will send the message around the globe that the 
United States tolerates and, indeed, encourages individuals to break 
our immigration laws. By effectively rewarding individuals who either 
entered the country illegally or overstayed their legal welcome, we are 
harming thousands of immigrants who played by the rules every year. 
They followed our procedures. They waited patiently in their home 
countries for entry visas. Today's debate tells them they were naive 
and stupid to wait.
  Frankly, I am shocked and appalled that this debate is taking place. 
Just yesterday, this nation paused to mark the six-month anniversary of 
the attack on America. Many of my colleagues attended solemn ceremonies 
in New York, at the Pentagon, at the White House and in Pennsylvania.
  And how does this House mark the anniversary? By debating a bill that 
promotes illegal behavior in our immigration policy and, in the 
process, leaves our nation vulnerable to potential terror attack.
  If September 11th taught us anything, it taught us that no threat to 
American security can be taken lightly any longer. The Administration, 
the Congress, the courts, the states, law enforcement, the American 
people must work together to ensure our national safety. Passage of 
this extension has the potential to increase the threat to that safety 
by allowing criminals, ranging from drug pushers to thieves to 
murderers to suicide bombers, to remain in America legally.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the bill on the floor today is 
an amended version of H.R. 1885, which is a bill to extend Section 
245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act permits certain 
undocumented immigrants in the U.S. to adjust their status and become 
lawful permanent residents.
  More specifically, section 245(i) allows persons--who qualify for an 
immigrant visa by having a close relative or employer petition filed on 
their behalf, but entered without inspection or otherwise violated 
their status and thus are ineligible to apply for adjustment of status 
in the United States--to apply if they pay a $1,000 penalty.
  Not only must an undocumented immigrant be eligible for an immigrant 
visa and have a visa immediately available to him or her in order to 
make use of section 245(i), but the person can also not be barred by 
some other provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  Without section 245(i), most undocumented immigrants who are 
otherwise eligible for an immigrant visa would be required to leave the 
United States in order to adjust their status. This would subject them 
to the long bars to their admissibility. Furthermore, it is important 
to note that Section 245(i) does not protect an undocumented immigrant 
from deportation if the alien is encountered by authorities prior to 
his or her visa becoming available; section 245(i) is simply a device 
that an immigrant can use at the time of his or her adjustment to avoid 
having to go back to his or her home country to pick up his or her 
visa.
  Section 245(i) was first enacted in 1994 for a three year period. It 
was reauthorized in 1996, and again in 1997. The reauthorization in 
1997 required that only those who had filed applications or petitions 
for an immigrant visa by January 1998 could make use of it. The 106th 
Congress extended the filing deadline to April 30, 2001, requiring at 
that time that applicants be in the United States prior to December 21, 
2000.
  However, after Congress extended the filing deadline to April 30, 
2001, the regulations for section 245(i) were only introduced on March 
26, 2001--giving people a month to find out about the law as well as 
take action and file petitions or applications before the April 30, 
2001 filing deadline.
  In addition to the short amount of time in which people had access to 
the regulations, massive misinformation about section 245(i) had been 
spread--starting out with a widespread belief that 245(i) was a general 
amnesty, which it was not.
  As was estimated, thousands of people who were expected to benefit 
did not have enough time to file the proper petition or application.
  Many of those who waited in lines at INS offices nationwide never 
made it to the front of the line. And many people were turned away 
because they were not prepared to file the correct application or 
petition, because of a lack of accurate information. Others tried to 
seek legal counsel in time but were unsuccessful due to attorneys 
having been booked for appointments due to the flood of people seeking 
help.
  The Senate amended H.R. 1885 in an attempt to address the unfair 
situation caused by the regulations being published so close to the 
April 30, 2001.
  The amended H.R. 1885, extends section 245(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act until November 30, 2002, or 120 days after the 
promulgation of final or interim final regulations implementing the 
bill, whichever occurs earlier. It requires, as well, that the 
relationship giving rise to the petitions (i.e., marriage) be entered 
into by August 15, 2001. So the familial relationship must have existed 
by August 15, 2001, or the application for labor certification that is 
the basis of such petition for classification was filed before August 
15, 2001.
  Although I recognize the importance of the compromise legislation and 
the fact that it will benefit many people, the House is about to pass a 
section 245(i) extension that is not the

[[Page H810]]

measure that we hoped for these past months. In addition, the bill also 
includes a damaging provision that extends the filing deadline for 
employment-based applications only for people who have filed a labor 
certification by August 15, 2001. This already expired filing date puts 
people in the untenable position of having waited for an extension of 
section 245(i), only to find that it is too late if they have not 
already filed the underlying qualifying application. Now we find that 
people seeking to benefit from the extension must have filed their 
labor certification applications before August 15, 2001.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong opposition to 
specific portions of H.R. 1885, the 245(i) Extension Act. As you know, 
a House amendment to H.R. 1885 added the text of H.R. 3525, the 
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, that the House 
passed by voice vote on December 19, 2001.
  While this Member strongly supports the provisions of H.R. 3525 that 
would include establishing a government-wide electronic data base on 
persons with terrorist ties, installing a new high-tech visa system to 
reduce fraud and counterfeiting, increasing the number of full-time 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) employees and requiring a 
system to electronically track all foreign visa students in the United 
States; this Member, however, remains strongly opposed to the original 
provisions of H.R. 1885 regarding the extension of Section 245(i).
  This Member's opposition relates to the provisions whereby Section 
245(i) allows illegal aliens to buy legal permanent residence for 
$1,000. Ironically, on September 11, 2001, the House was scheduled to 
debate H.R. 1885 on the Floor. Of course, all House action for that day 
was pre-empted by the horrific and unspeakable terrorists act 
committed, in part, by illegal aliens. In light of those events, this 
Member remains amazed that some of his colleagues continue to seek a 
policy which permits paying for citizenship by persons who entered this 
country illegally; that simply is not in the best interest or 
principles of the United States or in U.S. national security interests.
  Although the current legal immigration structure is by no means 
perfect, it does provide for crucial health screening and criminal 
record background checks which determine if potential immigrants will 
place the well-being and security of American citizens and legal 
immigrants in danger. To make such determinations is not only the right 
of the United States as a sovereign country it should be among our 
foremost responsibilities, especially in light of the September 11th 
terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, Section 245(i) ultimately rewards those people who have 
thwarted the legal immigration structure by entering the country 
illegally or by allowing their legal status to lapse. Simultaneously, 
the policy penalizes potential immigrants who have patiently waited 
many years, completed many forms, and undergone appropriate screenings 
for the privileged opportunity to be reunited with family members and 
to work in the United States. The amendments by the other body only 
worsened the bill by extending the time illegal aliens have to apply.
  Mr. Speaker, Section 245(i) was a bad policy when it was first 
enacted in 1994. It most assuredly was not worthy of being re-instated 
during the previous 106th Congress, and it should not be further 
extended. Furthermore, since H.R. 3525 has already passed the House, a 
``no'' vote on H.R. 1885 would not impede the progress of those 
important border security and visa entry reform provisions. Extending 
Section 245(i) is certainly a grave mistake that we should not make at 
this critical juncture in our country's war on terrorism.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong 
support for H.R. 1885, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
Reform Act.
  Section 245(i) is a vital provision of U.S. immigration law, allowing 
eligible immigrants on the cusp of becoming permanent residents to 
apply for their green cards in the U.S., rather than returning to their 
home countries to apply. Section 245(i) is available to immigrants 
residing in the U.S. who are sponsored by close family members, or by 
employers who cannot find necessary U.S. workers, and on whose behalf 
petitions were submitted prior to April 1, 2001.
  People who apply under Section 245(i) are screened for criminal 
offenses, health problems, the potential of becoming a public charge, 
fraud, misrepresentation, and other grounds of inadmissibility. Each 
applicant will pay a $1,000 processing fee, thereby generating revenue 
for the Immigration and Naturalization Service--at no cost to 
taxpayers.
  The issue is not whether these individuals are eligible to become 
permanent residents--because they already are, but rather the issue is 
the location from which they are eligible to apply.
  Restoring 245(i) is pro-family, pro-business, and fiscally prudent. 
These individuals have jobs, pay taxes, contribute to the economy, and 
pay into Social Security. Section 245(i) allows business to retain 
valuable employees, provides INS with millions of dollars in annual 
revenue, and allows immigrants to remain with their families while 
applying for legal permanent residence.
  Under H.R. 1885, any immigrant petitions filed before either April 
30, 2002, or four months after regulations are issued, would form the 
basis of Section 245(i) eligibility. However, those who file after 
April 30, 2001 must demonstrate that the ``familial relationship'' 
existed before August 15, 2001, or that the application for labor 
certification (which is the basis of such petition for classification) 
was filed before August 15, 2001. Thus, family relationships must have 
existed before August 15, 2001. For employment-based labor 
certifications, the labor certification application must have been 
filed by August 15, 2001.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this common sense 
legislation to provide hard working individuals who are on the brink of 
becoming permanent residents the opportunity to apply for their 
residency here in the U.S.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment that H.R. 
1885 does not include a permanent extension of the Section 245(i) 
program, or at the very least a one-year extension. I am also very 
concerned that this measure imposes unfortunate new eligibility 
restrictions that will greatly limit the pool of potential 
beneficiaries.
  Each day without a permanent extension of this program, Americans 
with immigrant spouses or children face separation from their families. 
Statistics from the INS show that approximately seventy-five percent of 
the immigrants who apply for 245(i) relief are the spouses and children 
of United States citizens and permanent residents.
  Extending 245(i) permanently is common sense. It is pro-family, pro-
business, and fiscally prudent. It strengthens families by keeping them 
united; it allows businesses to retain valuable employees; and it 
provides the INS with millions in annual revenue, at no cost to United 
States taxpayers.
  H.R. 1885 does not do enough to help immigrants in need. While I will 
support it because it is a good starting point, I urge Congress and the 
Administration to work together in the future to implement either a 
one-year or permanent extension of 245(i).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 
365.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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 and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________