[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 44 (Thursday, April 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2916-S2932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       ENHANCED BORDER SECURITY AND VISA ENTRY REFORM ACT OF 2002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 3525, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
  A bill (H.R. 3525) to enhance the border security of the United 
States, and for other purposes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that we have a time limit on 
both the bill and the particular amendments. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And the time on the overall bill is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes equally divided.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And 40 minutes on each amendment equally divided. Am I 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are enacting the Enhanced 
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.
  I would like at the outset to thank my colleagues and fellow 
sponsors, Senators Brownback, Feinstein, and Kyl, as well as their 
dedicated staff, David Neal, LaVita Strickland, and Elizabeth Maier. We 
began working together on this legislation in November and have moved 
through every stage of this process as a united team.
  I would also like to thank Senator Hollings and Senator Gregg for 
their invaluable contributions to the bill. I thank Senator Byrd for 
steadfastly working with us to make important improvements to the 
legislation.
  Finally, I thank all of our colleagues in the Senate for withdrawing 
their unrelated amendments to assure the swift passage of this vital 
legislation, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, 
which will strengthen the security of our borders. It will improve our 
ability to screen visitors, monitor foreign nationals, and enhance our 
capacity to deter potential terrorists.
  Our bill provides real solutions to real problems. It closes 
loopholes in our immigration system. Our solutions include expanding 
intelligence and law enforcement capabilities, upgrading 21st century 
technology, and establishing an electronic interoperable data system. 
Vital information will be shared in real time among our front line 
agencies.
  Our legislation sets realistic deadlines for the Attorney General and 
the Secretary of State to issue to all foreign nationals machine-
readable, tamper-resistant travel documents with biometric identifiers. 
It also sets a realistic deadline for our ports of entry to be used 
with biometric data readers and scanners.

  It also recognizes the valuable role of our border security and INS 
personnel by ensuring that these offices receive adequate pay and 
training and have the technology they need to secure our borders 
without obstructing the efficient flow of persons and commerce.
  It also recognizes the demands on our consular offices, and provides 
them with the additional training and resources to screen for security 
threats.
  In this legislation, we preserve the visa waiver program but require 
a stringent reporting requirement on passport theft and more frequent 
evaluation of participating countries' compliance with the programs' 
conditions.
  Our bill honors our proud immigration tradition. It safeguards the 
entry of the more than 31 million persons who enter the United States 
legally each year as visitor students, temporary workers, and the 550 
million who legally cross our borders each year to visit family and 
friends.

[[Page S2917]]

  We recognize that immigration is not the problem--terrorism is. We 
must identify and isolate potential terrorists--not isolate the United 
States. ``Fortress America'' is not a solution that we would consider.
  In defending America, we are defending the fundamental constitutional 
principles of diversity, cultural exchange, and civil rights that have 
made America strong in the past and which will make us even prouder in 
the future.
  This legislation strikes the appropriate balance. I hope we will 
receive overwhelming support for it.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Kennedy, 
as ranking member on the Immigration Subcommittee to support this bill.
  This bill cleared the House of Representatives twice on a unanimous 
consent calendar. It is important. We still have problems at our 
borders. This bill deals with trying to get at the terrorists who seek 
to enter our land and not the legitimate people who are seeking to come 
here for reasons that are positive to the United States.
  This bill is a testament to the dedication of this body and in 
Congress. It is bipartisan. It has had the input of many Members. The 
bill reflects how truly united we as Americans stand before the threat 
of terrorism.
  The bill is the product of a lot of dedicated people, too many to 
name--elected officials from both sides of the aisle, from both Houses, 
and experts from both inside and outside of Government. The entire 
community in and around Washington and the country came together for 
this common goal of defending America.
  The bill is endorsed by the entire immigration spectrum. The groups 
that are the most impacted by it endorse it. They appreciate the hard 
decisions that have to be made after September 11 and see the wisdom in 
this legislation.
  We have legislation here that protects our borders without 
compromising our values or our economy. This legislation is a measured, 
intelligent response to an evil that we will defeat. I am proud to be a 
part of this bill.
  I will describe quickly, what we are trying to do--and we will get it 
done--is to get information sharing from the various governmental 
agencies--the INS, the State Department, but also the CIA, the FBI, the 
DIA, and, hopefully, even other intelligence sources--so that we will 
have information sharing so we can catch before they enter this country 
people who seek to do harm. That information sharing is not taking 
place to the degree it needs to be today. Senator Kennedy noted how 
many people yearly enter this country legally--over 300 million 
entries--and we are looking for those few who seek to come in here to 
do us harm. We are looking for a needle in a haystack, so we have to 
have that information sharing.
  We are trying to expand the perimeter around the United States. This 
would include working with Canada and Mexico to get our perimeter 
broader and more secure.
  I visited the El Paso INS detention facility 1 year ago. There at the 
detention center were people who had tried to enter our country 
illegally from 59 different countries, coming in through Central 
America, going up by land through Central America, through Mexico. We 
need to get the Mexican Government's support and help in protecting our 
perimeter.
  We require manifests from other countries before the flights leave so 
we can check those when they come in. We provide more monitoring of 
foreign students in this country once they come here.
  On September 11, unfortunately, some of those terrorists were here 
under student visas. We have to monitor the foreign students better in 
this country.
  This bill provides biometrics. It provides more information we can 
use in checking people at the border. We have a number of other 
provisions that are in the bill. It provides for more border security 
officials to be able to check to make sure we are getting our job done.
  In short, Mr. President, this bill has received a lot of work. We 
need to pass this legislation. I believe we will get it passed today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question from the Senator 
from New Mexico?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be happy to yield for a question. I have 
yielded back the floor.
  If I could secure the floor, Mr. President, I would be happy to yield 
for a question from the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I would just like to eliminate a 
little bit of confusion. This bill is going to pass unanimously--or 
almost--today. And stories are going to say we provided 1,000 new 
agents for the INS and all the other things you provide in this bill.
  I wonder if you might tell me, is any of this money appropriated by 
this bill?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could respond to that question, within the 
President's budget is allocated $742 million in the first year for the 
implementation of this bill. It is within the President's budget. It is 
believed that the budget needs for the first year are $1.3 billion 
total. We have over half of that in the President's budget, and we are 
going to be seeking the approval for additional resources. We think we 
can compete for the necessary funding with the homeland security issues 
within it. It is going to take authority, and this is the authority it 
is going to take appropriations to be able to get this implemented. The 
Senator from West Virginia has been raising in hearings and in this 
Chamber this issue about the implementation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, as I indicated, I do not doubt it 
has wonderful provisions in it. I have read them. I come from the 
border, and I confirm that they are all good; our border people would 
like to have them.
  I just want to make sure we understand that there is no money 
provided in this bill. So the public will get the story today or 
tomorrow that we passed this bill, but 3 or 4 months from now, when the 
appropriations bill comes that funds these kinds of activities, the 
Appropriations Committee has to have the money or we will just have 
another bill that expresses, in beautiful words, what we would like to 
have happen for our country. Is that about right?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. No. I would disagree, if I could, with my colleague. 
The appropriate way to proceed is authorization language, then 
appropriations, of course. What we are doing here is the authorization 
language. The President has built into his budget request over half of 
the funding for this already. Now we will have to appropriate it. But 
to get there, first we are supposed to authorize. This is authorizing 
language.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. There is nothing tricky about my question. I am 
not trying to put anyone on the spot. I am just trying to establish 
that unless the money is appropriated later on by another act of 
Congress, and signed in another act by the President, we do not have 
200 new agents this year in each of the Departments, we don't have the 
research money that is in this bill for new technology, because this 
bill does not provide for any money to be spent. If that is not a 
correct statement, then I withdraw it.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct. This is authorizing language.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself a half a minute.
  I want to add to what my colleague said. There is also $100 million 
in fees here. We have raised the fee part of it, which will be self-
funding, making the total $843 million. This agency has a budget of $6 
billion. It is our intention to try to work within that $6 billion to 
find the additional money and to work with the Appropriations 
Committee.
  But I think that the point the Senator from New Mexico makes about 
the difference between authorization and appropriations is always 
worthwhile to point out so people have a very full understanding of the 
process.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senators.

[[Page S2918]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico leaves the floor, I say to the Senator from New Mexico, he has 
made a very important observation.
  I am going to vote for this bill. But we do not have a CBO estimate 
of the cost. We have no estimate of the cost. There is an estimate by 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Now, that may be off a 
great deal or it may not be off a great deal.
  I think it is important to keep in mind what the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico has pointed out. There is a great difference 
between authorizations and appropriations. And it is the money that 
counts. Cicero, that great Roman orator, said: ``There is no fortress 
so strong that money cannot take it.'' So it is the money that counts. 
And the Senator has made an important observation. I made that 
observation, too, early on. And I don't know what the estimate of the 
cost is going to be in here. We have certain estimates, the $1.1 
billion for the first year, and the $3.2 billion--or something like 
that--$3.2 billion for 3 years. But those are estimates. They are by 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service. And, of course, that is not 
a great bank to put your money into when the INS estimates it. We have 
seen that agency fall on its face so many times in recent years.
  But, in any event, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. A question along with this observation: I say to the 
Senator, it seems to me that what we do--and what we are doing in this 
crisis, which is a very big crisis, with the President putting large 
numbers of billions of dollars in homeland security and saying this is 
new money--we come along and pass bills that authorize the new programs 
that he is saying he wants new money for, but the truth of the matter 
is that very seldom are any existing programs that are being paid for 
eliminated.
  So you are going to have a subcommittee of your Committee on 
Appropriations, maybe two, that are going to fund this authorization 
bill--or maybe not, or maybe part of it; who knows? But the President 
had in mind canceling a whole bunch of programs in order to pay for 
this. And the point I make is, nobody helps with that part of the 
burden. Nobody carries any weight on trying to make room within the 
Government. They just pass on to the appropriators a very good, 
wonderful, new set of authorizations that we have all passed, and we go 
home and tell our people it is going to help solve the crisis that is 
before us with reference to taking care of our borders, which are 
porous and should not even be called borders, they are so bad.

  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, the Senator is correct. There will be a lot of eyes 
looking toward the Senator from New Mexico and toward me, and the other 
27 members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, when it comes time 
to put the money on the barrelhead.
  But having said that, I am going to vote for this bill. I am still 
going to seek a CBO estimate of the cost because I think that would be 
helpful in the coming days as we proceed to the conference and then to 
the conference report, and so on.


                           Amendment No. 3161

     (Purpose: To revise provisions relating to the compliance by 
   institutions and other entities with recordkeeping and reporting 
    requirements with respect to nonimmigrant students and exchange 
                               visitors)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the opportunity to seek a quality higher 
education has long enticed men and women to leave their homelands to 
travel to America.
  We are, by and large, a generous Nation when it comes to providing an 
education to foreign citizenry. Indeed, American colleges, 
universities, and technical schools have opened wide their doors to 
students from foreign lands. And all levels of schooling are available 
to foreign nationals of every age--from preschool to post-graduate 
work, from public grade schools to private technical-training 
institutions.
  In fact, foreign students have proven to be a lucrative source of 
revenue for U.S. educational institutions. Private-sector analysts 
estimate that foreign students contribute between $9 billion and $13 
billion to the U.S. economy every year. Any number of marketing efforts 
are made by colleges and universities to recruit foreign students, 
whose tuition fees serve to bulk up college budgets.
  As a result, we have opened our borders to a stream of foreign 
students with precious little oversight of their movement through the 
American educational stream. According to the INS, there are currently 
2 million foreign students admitted to study in this country--649,000 
of whom were admitted just last year. These include nuclear engineering 
scholars, biochemistry students, and pilot-trainees, who have access to 
sensitive technology, training, and information.
  Yet while our schools have been training would-be pilots in the art 
of flying airliners, we have been asleep at the switch! There has been 
too little accountability, and too few checks, largely because 
oversight has proven too burdensome and costly for the government and 
the U.S. educational industry.
  The lax government oversight of these student visa beneficiaries was 
underscored by the fact that three of the September 11 hijackers were 
awarded student visas--not to mention the fact that the INS was still 
processing the student visa applications for two of them 6 months after 
they had crashed two planes into the World Trade Center towers and gone 
on to meet their eternal destiny.
  Clearly INS has not been up to the job of monitoring foreign 
students, and, in its current condition, placing new burdens on that 
agency alone is no solution. Therefore, as we look at our Nation 
through the prism of the new realities of terrorism, we must reconsider 
ways to involve those who have the best opportunity to prevent attacks. 
We need the assistance of our educational institutions.
  In recent years, efforts to impose more stringent reporting 
requirements on schools have faltered because educational institutions 
have been reluctant to get into the job of monitoring foreign students. 
In fact, colleges and universities have lobbied heavily against such 
requirements, and the current lack of a national program to monitor 
foreign students indicates the effectiveness of that lobbying effort.
  The pending legislation takes some important steps toward closing 
many of the loopholes in our foreign student policies that could be 
exploited by a potential terrorist. If the student monitoring 
provisions in this bill are to be successful, however, we must ensure 
the participation of our schools. These institutions are best suited to 
inform the INS and the State Department as to which students have been 
accepted to attend a school, whether they actually show up for class 
once they enter the country on a student visa, and whether they 
continue their classes or merely drop out of sight after checking in 
with the admissions office.

  Monitoring the student via program requires a partnership between the 
government and all colleges, and technical schools that accept 
foreigners.
  The pending bill gives the INS and the Secretary of State too much 
discretion in determining whether or not these educational institutions 
should be penalized.
  Section 502(c) of this bill reads:

       Effect of Failure To Comply.--Failure of an institution or 
     other entity to comply with the record keeping 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.

  What's more, in section 502 of this bill, the ``periodic reviews,'' 
which the INS Commissioner, Secretary of State, and Secretary of 
Education are required to make to determine whether institutions are 
complying with this legislation, are not defined. A ``periodic review'' 
could mean every 5 years or it could mean every 20 years or it could 
mean every 50 years.

[[Page S2919]]

  That is very soft language.
  My amendment would require reviews by the relevant agency heads at 
least once every two years. Further, if they found that U.S. 
educational institutions were materially not complying with the 
reporting requirements in this bill, my amendment would require the 
relevant agency heads to terminate or suspend, for at least one year, 
the right of those institutions to accept foreign students.
  This amendment makes clear the serious concern about this Nation's 
ability to help foreign students while also protecting our homeland. 
Educational institutions are essential partners in our efforts to 
ensure that foreign students really are ``students'' with no other 
agenda but learning.
  I thank Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Feinstein, and Kyl for their 
support of this amendment. I hope that the Senate will adopt it.
  Mr. President, I have made my statement prior to calling up the 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the time I have consumed in 
reading my statement come out of my time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3161:
       On page 49, beginning on line 4, strike ``The'' and all 
     that follows through ``reviews'' on line 7 and insert ``Not 
     later than two years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and every two years thereafter, the Commissioner of 
     Immigration and Naturalization, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Education, shall conduct a review''.
       On page 49, lines 22 and 23, strike ``The Secretary of 
     State shall conduct periodic reviews'' and insert ``Not later 
     than two years after the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     every two years thereafter, the Secretary of State shall 
     conduct a review''.
       On page 50, line 16, strike ``(c) Effect of Failure To 
     Comply.--Failure'' and insert ``(c) Effect of Material 
     Failure To Comply.--Material failure''.
       Beginning on page 50, line 24, strike ``may'' and all that 
     follows through the period on line 5 of page 51 and insert 
     the following: ``shall result in the suspension for at least 
     one year or termination, at the election of the Commissioner 
     of Immigration and Naturalization, of the institution's 
     approval to receive such students, or result in the 
     suspension for at least one year or termination, at the 
     election of the Secretary of State, of the other entity's 
     designation to sponsor exchange visitor program participants, 
     as the case may be.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will urge our colleagues to support 
this amendment for the excellent reasons that the sponsor gave in 
support and in justification of the amendment.
  There are now 26,000 universities and schools that can effectively 
approve a foreign student to come and study. But the foreign student 
has to qualify for the visa project at the current time. We have 
included some very important requirements in this legislation because 
this has been one of the great loopholes in our monitoring of who comes 
into this country and who does not.
  The State Department must first receive the electronic evidence of 
the acceptance from an approved U.S. institution prior to issuing a 
student visa. The State Department must inform the INS that a visa has 
been approved. The INS must inform the approved institution the student 
has been admitted into the country, and then the approved institution 
must notify INS when the student has registered and enrolled. If the 
student doesn't report for class, the school must notify the INS of 
this absence not later than 30 days after the deadline for the classes.
  So the colleges and universities have to develop that kind of system 
in order to be qualified for these programs, which is enormously 
important and a very significant, dramatic change from the current 
situation.
  Currently, there are sporadic inspections of the universities. So now 
the Byrd amendment comes along and says, well, what you have in here 
looks good on paper, but what we take note of is the fact that, even if 
it is good on paper, the INS, in its history, has been sporadic in 
inspecting and finding out whether the schools and colleges are doing 
what they said and what they are supposed to do. That has been true. 
This tightens that provision up in a very important way.
  If there is a material breach, then there will be a suspension of 
that institution from being able to receive the foreign students. So I 
believe it is going to make a very important difference in terms of 
compliance with one of the most important aspects of this legislation, 
which is understanding the students who are coming here, monitoring the 
students when they are here, knowing when the students are leaving, and 
if the students are not attending the schools, having access to that 
kind of information as well.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the amendment. What it 
does is put real teeth into this provision which we had worked out in 
the committee to achieve the kind of oversight the INS has not had up 
to this time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, as well, to 
support the Byrd amendment. The reasons have been stated by both 
Senators Byrd and Kennedy. I think the important thing to look at and 
see here is that we have a number of foreign students in the United 
States, and this has been a very positive thing, overall, for the 
United States and for the rest of the world. I don't think anybody 
would disagree with that statement. Yet what we have had taking place 
is a system that, over time, has gotten far too loose, and we saw the 
effects of that on September 11, where a couple of these individuals 
who came into the United States and did this operation, this horrific 
thing that happened, came in under student visas because they were 
looking for weaknesses in the system to get into the United States in a 
less restrictive, reviewed area. So that is why this has been at the 
very heart of this bill.
  Senator Byrd puts in a good provision. There have been sporadic 
reviews by the Government of the educational institutions to see that 
they are doing this right, that they are taking the program seriously 
and not just finding some way of being able to bump up their student 
account and the number of students coming to the United States. We will 
have a regular reporting requirement and we will be able to monitor 
this much more closely. It should not inhibit legitimate students from 
coming here, nor the institutions that are legitimate and serious about 
what their projects are. It will be a bit more of a hindrance to those 
looking to increase their foreign student accounts and, hopefully, it 
will help us to get at those students who are here to do us harm.

  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment actually came into the 
bill from the original parts of the bill, Senator Kyl's and my 
investigations from the Terrorism and Technology Subcommittee. What we 
found is the student visa program was greatly in disarray. We found 
that we have about 660,000 students coming in a year, and there is no 
tracking of any of them. Nobody knows whether they are really at a 
school.
  Up to this point, the schools have had no responsibility to report 
that a student has arrived, that a student is taking this or that 
course and, yes, that the student has stayed in school. So I think 
Senator Byrd's amendment strengthens what is already in the bill. I 
think it makes it a better bill. We intend to follow up on this. 
Senator Kennedy and I have discussed it. We intend to see, in fact, 
that the schools do keep their word and do, in fact, do the reporting 
they are required to do under this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Senator Feinstein and I were upstairs a 
moment ago during the time allotted for discussion of the bill in 
general. Let me take a couple of minutes, if I could, to express my 
support also for the amendment pending that Senator Byrd offered. As 
Senator Feinstein said, it will strengthen what we are trying to do 
with the student visa program.
  Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee has a couple of subcommittees 
of jurisdiction. Senator Kennedy and Senator Brownback are the chairman

[[Page S2920]]

and ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, and I have the 
honor of serving on that committee, as does Senator Feinstein. She 
chairs and I am ranking member of the Terrorism Subcommittee. So we 
have had the ability in both of these subcommittees to hold hearings 
and to discover after September 11 areas in which we can improve our 
immigration laws to make it much more difficult for terrorists to enter 
this country or to stay here illegally.
  This legislation is designed to close as many of those so-called 
loopholes as we can. I think it is a good effort in that regard. Each 
of the amendments that will be offered by Senator Byrd, in one way or 
another, strengthens the bill we have already offered.
  I wanted to make two quick comments. Eighteen of the terrorists who 
entered the country and flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, the 
Pentagon, and into the ground in Pennsylvania came in using B-1, B-2 
tourist visas. According to the Department of State, 47 foreign-born 
individuals, including these 19, have been charged with, pled guilty 
to, or been convicted of involvement in terrorism over the past decade. 
All 47 of these people had contacts with an INS inspector. Yet, 
somehow, they were able to get into the country. The 19th of the 19 was 
Hani Hanjour. He entered the country on an F1 student visa, the subject 
of the specific amendment now before us. He supposedly came here to 
attend classes and study English. He never showed up for class. The 
school did not notify the authorities that he never attended classes. 
He overstayed his visa and just melted into our society.
  Another example of one of the terrorists, Mohamed Atta, came in on a 
tourist visa. According to several sources, he was placed on the FBI 
watch list 6 weeks before the terrorist attacks. But his name was never 
entered into INS's system. Before his visa expired in December of 2000, 
Atta actually went to the INS to change his status to that of student. 
After December of 2000, even without the information that showed his 
placement on a watch list, he should not have been allowed to reenter 
the country.
  Yet, on June 3, 2000, at Newark International Airport on a Czech Air 
flight from Prague, after being questioned by INS for an hour, he was 
admitted back into the United States.
  My point of illustrating with these two examples is to point out that 
the INS had contact with all of these people. They clearly should have 
been caught, but they were not caught because the INS officials either 
did not have the information they should have had or for some other 
reason did not ask the right questions.
  Mary Ryan, who is one of the people who testified before Senator 
Feinstein's subcommittee--her title is Assistant Secretary for Consular 
Affairs, Department of State--actually said: we felt like the woman 
driving through the school zone at 15 miles an hour and the little girl 
runs out behind the parked cars. She gets hit, and we feel terrible, 
but what could we do about it? That is why we set about trying to 
figure out what we could do about it.
  One provision is to tighten up the student visa requirements. Without 
going into anything further, I think it sets the stage for what we are 
trying to accomplish and trying to close some of these loopholes, how 
we hope it will have some good, positive effect--not the overall answer 
to terrorism, but it will help to some extent.
  As I said, the amendments Senator Byrd offers strengthen the bill. I 
am supportive of them, and I hope we can get to final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if it is agreeable with Senator Kennedy and 
the other cosponsors of the amendment, I will yield back the remainder 
of my time on the amendment. Some Senators have been promised that 
there will be no votes until about 7:15 p.m. If it is agreeable with 
all the cosponsors, I will be happy to ask unanimous consent that the 
vote on this amendment occur upon the expiration of all time on the 
amendments and further statements can be made in regard to the bill so 
that the votes would be stacked for beginning, say, around 7:15 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, stacking the votes is fine with me. I 
would rather have our colleagues available so that we can move along. 
It is just 6 o'clock now. Maybe my cosponsors want to spend time 
describing the amendments. I do not think so. I know Senator Feinstein 
has not had a chance to address the whole issue as a prime sponsor. It 
seems to me we should be able to consider these amendments in a timely 
manner. I would like to see if we can move the votes to prior to 7:15 
p.m. If the leader set that time, then that will be the time, but I 
hope we can make progress prior to that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if we stack these votes, I certainly 
think our colleagues will appreciate that. I believe there is going to 
be, if I understand the intention of the Senator from West Virginia and 
the amendments he is putting forward, broad agreement amongst the 
cosponsors of the amendments.
  All of these are strengthening amendments. I see no reason why we 
cannot do all of the amendments together in an expedited fashion. What 
the Senator is doing is really making the bill better. I do not know if 
it is possible, but if we could do it, we could have a limited number 
of votes for which we would call our colleagues back.
  These are good amendments. I do not anticipate anybody coming to the 
Chamber in opposition to them. Possibly we could adopt these together 
as one. Of the ones I have looked at, they appear to look quite good. 
My hope is to complete them quickly. If we need to do it at 7:15 p.m., 
fine, and we can do them possibly altogether.

  Mr. BYRD. I think it will work out all right if we just proceed.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the vote on this 
amendment occur at the expiration of the time on all the amendments 
with the yielding back of that time and yielding back or making final 
statements on the bill, if that is agreeable with the cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3162

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk the second amendment, and 
I ask that the clerk read the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3162.

   (Purpose: To require as a condition of a country's designation or 
   continued designation as a program country under the Visa Waiver 
 Program that the country reports to the United States Government the 
            theft of blank passports issued by that country)

       Beginning on page 32, strike line 23 and all that follows 
     through line 5 on page 33 and insert the following:
       (a) Reporting Passport Thefts.--Section 217 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (c)(2) the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Reporting passport thefts.--The government of the 
     country certifies that it reports to the United States 
     Government on a timely basis the theft of blank passports 
     issued by that country.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(5)(A)(i), by striking ``5 years'' and 
     inserting ``2 years''; and
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (f) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) Failure to report passport thefts.--If the Attorney 
     General and the Secretary of State jointly determine that the 
     program country is not reporting the theft of blank 
     passports, as required by subsection (c)(2)(D), the Attorney 
     General shall terminate the designation of the country as a 
     program country.''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume from my 
time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in my testimony before the Immigration 
Subcommittee last week, I spoke about the safety of the American people 
and how that safety within their own borders often takes a back seat to 
such issues as commerce and diplomacy.

[[Page S2921]]

  The visa waiver program, I believe, is a clear example of what I was 
talking about.
  The program allows 23 million citizens from 28 countries to enter the 
United States without first obtaining a visa from a U.S. consulate 
abroad. This program, by eliminating the visa requirement and the 
subsequent State Department background check, expedites travel and 
commerce, but waives the usual first step by which foreigners are 
screened for admissibility when seeking to enter the United States.
  Consequently, in a 1999 study, the Justice Department's Office of the 
Inspector General found that terrorists, criminals, and alien smugglers 
have attempted to gain entry into the United States through the waiver 
program. The inspector general's office also commented on the danger of 
stolen passports from visa waiver countries being used by terrorists to 
enter the United States without a visa.
  It has been noted that in 1992 one of the conspirators in the 1993 
World Trade Center bombing tried to get into the United States through 
the visa waiver program with a fake Swedish passport. Fortunately, he 
was caught, and a search of his luggage revealed bomb-making 
instructions.
  In recent years, tens of thousands of blank passports from visa 
waiver countries have been stolen. These passports are sold on the 
black market to terrorists, criminals, and anyone else who may wish to 
avoid a State Department background check before entering the United 
States.
  While only countries deemed ``low-risk'' are allowed to participate 
in the visa waiver program, and they must meet certain qualifications, 
the Attorney General is only required to review these countries' 
participation once every 5 years. Moreover, the Attorney General is not 
required to consider the efforts to prevent theft when determining 
whether to accept the country into or allow the country to continue to 
participate in the visa waiver program.
  My amendment would require the Attorney General to review the 
countries that participate in the visa waiver program at least once 
every 2 years to help ensure that those countries continue to meet the 
programs's standards, and it also requires the Attorney General to 
remove countries from the program that do not report stolen passports. 
I am hopeful that my amendment will foster the kind of review that will 
result in greater scrutiny of this program and of those who enter the 
country through it.
  This is a commonsense amendment, and I hope that Senators will 
support it.
  I have discussed it with Senator Kennedy, and he in turn has 
discussed it with the other authors of the bill and I hope that all 
Senators will support the amendment. I believe it to be a good one, a 
very worthwhile amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I urge our colleagues to support this amendment as well. 
It strengthens an important provision in the legislation. The Senator 
has outlined what the visa waiver program is, available now to 28 
different countries.
  Why the visa waiver? It was the judgment and the determination that 
if 2 percent, or less than 2 percent, of the visa applications were 
going to be rejected, then it probably made sense in terms of the 
efficiency to grant a visa waiver to that particular country. These are 
generally our oldest allies and friends as nations. A country has to 
stay at 2\1/2\ percent in order to stay in the program. Six countries a 
year is the general rule.
  So what the Senator's amendment does is it says, look, given the 
changed circumstances that exist in the world, at least every 2 years 
we want to see countries reviewed. This is certainly supportable.
  One of the principal reasons, obviously, in reviewing a country in 
terms of a visa waiver, may be because there are national security 
issues that are different. There may be law enforcement issues that are 
different. If there are security issues that are different, then we 
would want to know it and know about it in a timely way.
  We have seen in recent times, a month ago, Argentina was dropped from 
the visa waiver program because of the turmoil that exists there and 
the enormous numbers of people who were leaving with very little 
intention perhaps of returning. So the amendment of the Senator will 
ensure that the visa waiver program will carry forward its real 
intention, and it will be carefully reviewed every 2 years with the 
idea that the review, which will be by the State Department and the 
Attorney General, will look at the country and see if there are new 
issues of security that may pose a potential threat to the United 
States. If they do, they can take the action of removing the country, 
or make other recommendations.

  The second feature of this amendment, which is enormously important, 
is the requirement that we are going to have the report of stolen 
passports. That has been a very slipshod process in the past. The Byrd 
amendment puts teeth into that provision. If the countries themselves 
are not going to be reporting these stolen passports, they will no 
longer be participating in this favored position in terms of the visa 
waiver.
  Getting a handle on stolen passports is enormously important. It is 
going to be even more important as we move on into the future. This 
amendment makes sense. I hope our colleagues will support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
second Byrd amendment. It is a strengthening amendment, for the reasons 
that have been articulated by the Senator from West Virginia and the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  I wish to focus on the final point that Senator Kennedy put forward 
with an exclamation mark. This is an important program. The visa waiver 
program has certainly been a very valuable one for the countries that 
work closely with the United States. They like it. A number of people 
who travel really like and appreciate it, and yet in some places we are 
having thefts, losses of passports with which people can penetrate our 
borders. That has not been as forcefully enforced by other countries on 
this visa waiver provision.
  Now, with the Byrd amendment requiring an every 2-year review, if 
they are not enforcing this provision when there is a loss or a theft 
of a passport, it is not being reported aggressively, there is a real 
hammer here: No more visa waiver.
  I rather imagine there are a number of countries that are in this 
visa waiver program that do not like this amendment, but for us and for 
our security this is an excellent provision given the world of today. 
If this were 10, 20 years ago and we did not have quite the present 
threat on us of terrorist attacks in the United States and people 
trying to slip through our borders, one might say this is going to be 
an added burden that maybe we should not have. But given the situation 
we are in today, I think we would have been wise to have had it 10 or 
20 years ago. It is clearly a needed provision, and it will cause 
people who are working closely with the United States, that have this 
visa waiver, they will scrutinize their practices more closely and 
report these passports if they have been stolen.
  This is an excellent strengthening provision. I urge my colleagues to 
support it as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield back the remainder of my time. I ask unanimous 
consent that the vote on this amendment occur immediately after the 
vote on the student monitoring amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield back 
the remainder of his time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back all of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 3163

  Mr. BYRD. I now offer a third amendment. I anticipate we could have a 
voice vote on this amendment, unless enough Senators wish to have a 
rollcall vote.

[[Page S2922]]

  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is laid aside. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3163.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To substitute October 26, 2004, for October 26, 2003, for the 
 achievement of requirements with respect to machine-readable, tamper-
                  resistant entry and exit documents)

       On page 25, line 21, strike ``October 26, 2003'' and insert 
     ``October 26, 2004''.
       On page 26, lines 12 and 13, strike ``October 26, 2003'' 
     and insert ``October 26, 2004''.
       On page 26, lines 24 and 25, strike ``October 26, 2003'' 
     and insert ``October 26, 2004''.
       On page 28, line 2, strike ``October 26, 2003'' and insert 
     ``October 26, 2004''.
       On page 28, line 16, strike ``October 26, 2003'' and insert 
     ``October 26, 2004''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume of 
the time allotted to me on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we strive to respond to the new 
challenges of terrorism, we must be cognizant of the essential 
component of public trust. Without the confidence of the people, our 
efforts to improve domestic security, including our efforts to tighten 
our border defenses, cannot succeed.
  To help ensure that we do not undermine the public's confidence in 
our efforts to secure our borders, we must set realistic mandates--that 
is, guidelines and time frames that are measurable and achievable.
  This bill, in two separate instances, sets an October 26, 2003, 
deadline for the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to meet 
two separate mandates.
  Section 303(b)(1):

       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.

  Section 303(b)(2):

       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).

  A third October 26, 2003, deadline applies to visa waiver countries 
issuing to their nationals machine-readable passports that are tamper-
resistant and that incorporate biometric identifiers.
  I question whether the Attorney General and the Secretary of State 
will be able to meet these deadlines. When I asked one of the authors 
of this bill, Senator Kyl, about this deadline during the floor debate 
on Monday, Senator Kyl said:

       The Senator from West Virginia raises a good question with 
     respect to those deadlines. Frankly, on two of the three, 
     there is no good answer. The Senator is absolutely correct 
     about that. . . . As to precisely how long it will take to 
     get those [systems] online, there is not a good specific 
     answer, nor is there an answer as to when we can have the 
     interoperable system developed, which is one of the central 
     features of the bill.

  These dates are not based on the availability of technology, or even 
projections about the availability of technology. Nor are they based on 
any realistic expectation about the availability of funding. As far as 
I can tell, these deadlines are based solely on the fact that the USA 
PATRIOT Act was signed into law on that same day in 2001.
  I appreciate the notion that, without deadlines, it is difficult to 
press the agencies to act expeditiously. But, when this deadline comes 
and goes, and the Attorney General and the Secretary of State have not 
met these goals, the public will have reason to become disillusioned 
with our efforts to tighten our border defenses. Considering the 
public's current skepticism regarding the INS and its ability to 
safeguard our borders, I suggest that we be careful about committing 
our border defense agencies to deadlines that they cannot meet.
  Under the regular appropriations process, Congress cannot make the 
necessary funding available to the agencies before October 1, 2002, and 
that assumes that all 13 appropriations bills are completed on time, by 
the end of the fiscal year. Even if the bills are completed on time, it 
could still take months before funds are released to the agencies to 
meet these mandates.
  With the support of Senator Kennedy, I am offering an amendment that 
would move the October 26, 2003, deadlines back by one year to October 
26, 2004. This amendment allows the Congress more time to appropriate 
the necessary funds, and help to ensure adequate time for the State and 
Justice Departments to meet these deadlines.
  Our efforts to tighten our border defenses will require the long-term 
support of the American people. It is an effort that will require the 
trust and confidence of the American people. We should not place that 
trust at risk by setting deadlines we know to be unrealistic. So it is 
for that reason Senator Kennedy and I and the other authors of this 
amendment have worked together to fashion this amendment. I urge 
adoption of this amendment.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd 
amendment. This is a positive amendment in the overall bill, it is 
appropriate, and it was the topic of a great deal of discussion 
previously as we were putting together this bill overall. The bill, in 
its design, had a number of people working together to try to figure it 
out. One of the most contentious issues was this issue about the time 
deadline in which we would be able to accomplish these biometric 
identifiers.
  The administration had a great deal of concern about meeting the very 
aggressive dates set in the overall bill. A number of our colleagues 
involved in the negotiation said: We realize this may be aggressive, 
but we need to push it because this is such an important issue. A lot 
of people within the executive branch were saying: I don't know that we 
can meet this deadline.
  This amendment will be well received by a number of people who 
believed the time deadlines put forward in the original bill were just 
too aggressive to be accomplished. This will set a far more realistic 
date as to when we accomplish it. I know people in the executive branch 
will try to do this as quickly as possible. They are clearly going to 
be far more comfortable with this date as being more realistic, one 
that can be accomplished.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this Byrd 
amendment to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I have a different take on it. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment, but I think we need to send a message to the 
INS that it can't be business as usual any longer and that instead of a 
``can't do'' attitude, they have to have a ``can do'' attitude.
  I personally spoke with Governor Ridge about this deadline and asked 
him what he thought. He said: Let me get back to you. When he did get 
back to me, he said: We have to move forward as quickly as possible. I 
support the date that Senators Kennedy, Brownback, and Feinstein and I 
agreed upon. We have to show the American people we will get on with 
this and the delay will no longer be acceptable.
  Senator Brownback is correct when he says that this will make some 
people a lot happier. There were people who were saying: We are not 
sure we can meet this deadline in the bill. To that extent, the 
amendment of the Senator from West Virginia will be well received.
  I want to make it clear, we are not sending a signal by agreeing with 
the Senator from West Virginia tonight--and I know he doesn't mean to, 
either, as I understand this amendment--because we have decided it is 
OK to sit back and relax because we have extra time. It is simply a 
reflection of the fact that it will not be easy. It will take time. 
Nobody knows for sure exactly how much. However, all five of us, I am 
sure I can say, are strongly of the view that we have to get on with 
this. Business as usual is not going to cut it.
  The good news is that while technology may be a little more difficult 
to implement in the very beginning, and a little costly, in the long 
run it will be both cheaper and much more efficient in enabling 
analysis of the data in this huge country of ours with all of the 
millions of people who come into it by visas and other means. The 
technology will help enforce the provisions of this bill and other 
legislation on the books.

[[Page S2923]]

  Technology will be the answer eventually. It will take time to get 
going. But by agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from West 
Virginia, I can speak for everyone by saying to those folks who have to 
implement it, we do not mean for you to relax; we mean for you to get 
on with it. We have to do our part by giving you the resources to do 
it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I, too, hope our colleagues will support 
the amendment. There really is not any difference in the views that are 
being shared on the Senate floor this evening. That is, we want to get 
the best technology, and we want to then get a process so that it can 
be utilized effectively in order to protect our security.
  I want to give assurances to those who favor the earlier date that 
our committee will be meeting with the Commissioner, with Mr. Ziglar, 
and we welcome other colleagues, to try to monitor this as aggressively 
as we possibly can. This is the final date, but it is certainly the 
sense here for the INS to understand we want it done as early as 
possible. But we want to make sure it is complete, and we are going to 
have the best technology. Then we are going to have the best technology 
in terms of the implementation of the legislation.
  We give assurance to our colleagues that our committee will monitor 
this very carefully and periodically give reports back to the Senate 
because this is enormously important.
  What we are basically saying is with 550 million people moving in and 
out of the United States, there is a limited number who pose a security 
threat. The immigrants are not the danger, terrorists are the danger. 
We have to be able to use that knowledge to detect them. We have great 
opportunities to do it. We want to get the right technology and 
implement it and we want to do it in the shortest possible time.
  This legislation will establish sending that message. I agree with 
those who say we want to get started, we want to get it done right, but 
we have altered the date to take into consideration those who believe 
we would not have done the right job if we had the earlier date. We 
think this makes sense, and we hope colleagues will support the 
amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues 
supporting this amendment. There is one thing I would like to point 
out. I have serious concerns about the visa waiver program. I have 
concerns about its wisdom in the first place.
  When you have 23 million people coming in without visas, from 29 
different countries, it becomes so easy for passports to be misplaced 
and for people who are threats to get into this program. I think we 
have to watch it very carefully. We have to depend on the fact that the 
strictures in this bill are meant to be carried out.
  I, for one, would not have a problem with doing away with the program 
if we find any more irregularities in it. We have actual instances 
where terrorists have used this visa waiver program. We know 100,000 
passports were missing. We know they were not reported in a timely way. 
This bill requires, first of all, the thefts of passports, or that 
passports are missing, be reported immediately. Then the INS, within 72 
hours, would have to enter them into an interoperable database, 
assuming we get to that interoperable database. Until that system is 
established, the INS would enter the information into an existing data 
system.
  I, for one, am going to ask my staff to watch very carefully as to 
how these passport numbers get entered, and I will try to do my level 
best to see it is carried out. If it is not, I think we will have to go 
back and assess the wisdom of this entire program.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3163) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3164

     (Purpose: To increase the penalty for noncompliance with the 
             requirements to provide manifest information)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3164:

       On page 39, line 25, strike ``$300'' and insert ``$1,000''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the border security bill before the Senate 
requires ships and aircraft entering the United States to provide to 
our immigration officials a manifest of all passengers and crew on the 
vessel before they arrive in U.S. ports. If a commercial carrier fails 
to do so, this bill imposes on the carreer a $300 fine for each person 
not mentioned, or for each person incorrectly identified, in the 
manifest.
  This penalty is wholly inadequate in my judgment. It is really a slap 
on the wrist for an airline or sea carrier that fails to provide 
important information to our immigration officials. This amendment 
would increase this penalty to $1,000 for each person that a commercial 
carriers fails to list accurately on the passenger manifest.
  Airlines and sea carries must be more than a passive conduit for 
information between ticket agents and our border defense agencies. We 
need the commercial carriers that bring people to this country to be 
partners in identifying persons who might have suspicious travel 
documents or travel plans.
  Increasing the fine for noncompliance is one way to emphasize to 
commercial carriers that they have an important role in border 
security.
  This amendment has the support of the managers of the bill and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  I support the amendment. I think it demonstrates support for a very 
important provision in the legislation, and that is for the INS to 
receive the manifests of those who are coming into the United States in 
a timely fashion. It demonstrates, by increasing the penalty, that we 
are serious about this issue.
  The American carriers, as I understand it, do this regularly, 
routinely. In any event, there are a number of carriers that do not. 
What the amendment does is underline the importance of this function 
and establishes the seriousness with which we take this function of 
information by increasing the penalty. I think it helps the legislation 
and I support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is another strengthening 
amendment. We have teeth in this provision. They get bigger with the 
Byrd amendment. I think that is a good provision for us on the 
prearrival of aircraft coming into this country. For whatever reason, 
we have had some difficulty with airlines providing this manifest ahead 
of time. This is going to make this a more significant penalty.
  We need to have this information. We should have this information 
ahead of time. This is a key security issue. It is part of this 
extension to try to deal with terrorists trying to enter our land.
  This is a good strengthening amendment. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  I congratulate and thank the Senator from West Virginia once again 
for helping to make what I think is a good bill better.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time on this 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page S2924]]

  The amendment (No. 3164) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia 
for the study that he has given to this issue, and for the 
recommendations that he has made on this legislation. We are urging our 
colleagues to support this.
  I thank him for his cooperation and for the seriousness which he has 
given to this legislation. I thank him.
  Mr. President, under the consent agreement we still have the 
additional item; that is, the managers' amendment. I ask that we now 
proceed to the consideration of the managers' amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a 
question prior to proceeding?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the 
previous amendment.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3160

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself 
     and Mr. Brownback, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Kyl, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3160.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope we will approve the managers' 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3160) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that two rollcalls have been 
ordered. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the 
yeas and nays on final passage of H.R. 3525, the underlying measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am very pleased that the Senate is 
considering H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
Reform Act. This bill mirrors S. 1749, which Senator Kennedy introduced 
with Senators Feinstein, Brownback, Kyl, and others. I am one of 58 
cosponsors of S. 1749, which has commanded extraordinary bipartisan 
support and the sponsorship of most of the members of the Judiciary 
Committee, from which H.R. 3525 was discharged. Indeed, this bill 
reflects the results of sustained bipartisan negotiation, and 
represents the consensus view of Senators across the ideological 
spectrum. In other words, this is legislation the Senate should pass 
without delay.
  As a Senator from Vermont, I know what a serious issue border 
security is. For too long, Congress has taken a haphazard approach to 
border security, meeting many of the needs of our southwest border but 
neglecting our border with Canada. Since the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, we have taken a far more comprehensive approach. Congress 
took its first steps to strengthen our borders in the USA PATRIOT Act, 
which authorized tripling the number of Border Patrol personnel, INS 
Inspectors, and Customs Service agents serving along our northern 
border, and $100 million in funding for improved technology for the INS 
and Customs Service's use in monitoring the border. As the author of 
those provisions, I am pleased that the administration has requested 
substantial increases in funding for border security personnel. I urge 
the Congress not only to fund this priority, but to ensure that the 
northern border receives at least half of any new supply of border 
security enforcement officers.
  The legislation before us today builds on the first steps taken in 
the USA PATRIOT Act to strengthen substantially the security of our 
borders. It will further increase the number of INS Inspectors and INS 
investigative personnel, and authorize raises for Border Patrol agents 
and inspectors so that we can retain our experienced border security 
officers, who have been so overworked over the past 7 months. The bill 
also authorizes funding for training of INS personnel for more 
effective border management, and for improving the State Department's 
review of visa applicants abroad. In addition, it authorizes $150 
million for the INS to improve technology for border security, another 
important follow-up to the USA PATRIOT Act.
  Beyond authorizing badly needed funding for our borders, this 
legislation includes a number of important security provisions, a few 
of which I would like to highlight today. First, it requires the 
Attorney General and Secretary of State to issue only machine-readable 
and tamper-resistant visas, and travel and entry documents using 
biometric identifiers, by October 26, 2003. They must also have 
machines that can read the documents at all ports of entry by that 
date.
  Second, the bill requires the Secretary of State to establish 
terrorist lookout committees within each U.S. mission abroad, to ensure 
that consular officials receive updated information on known or 
potential terrorists in the Nation where they are stationed.
  Third, the bill will foster information sharing between other 
Government agencies and the State Department and INS, and shorten the 
deadline established in the USA PATRIOT Act to develop a technology 
standard to identify visa applicants.
  Fourth, the legislation requires all commercial vessels or aircraft 
entering or departing from the United States to provide complete 
passenger manifests.
  Fifth, this bill would substantially strengthen existing law for the 
monitoring of foreign students. The Government would be required to 
collect additional information about student visa applicants, and 
educational institutions would be obligated to report visa holders who 
did not appear for classes. In addition, the INS Commissioner would 
perform periodic audits of educational institutions entitled to accept 
foreign students.
  I will vote for this bill because it will help protect our Nation and 
our borders. More than ever since September 11, those issues are 
fundamental priorities for this Congress. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this bill, and look forward to its becoming law.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, today we are considering legislation 
on one of the most important issues in our fight against terrorism--how 
we can effectively secure our borders.
  For me and for my State, one of the most critical things this bill 
does is to build on our efforts last year to increase staffing at the 
border by authorizing annual staffing increases on the borders for each 
of the next 5 years.
  Those of us who represent States along the northern border knew 
before September 11 that the northern border was woefully understaffed. 
While we were able to double staffing across the border last year, the 
northern border will need a yearly infusion of staff to guarantee our 
security for the future.
  This bill also incorporates many of the ideas of our colleague from 
California, Senator Feinstein, to create a workable entry and exit 
system and better tracking of those in this country on student visas, 
and I would like to thank her for her many years of work on these 
issues.
  Finally, this bill is about better use of technology to provide the 
enhanced security and border efficiency we need. But with every 
technological solution, comes the very real risk that the technology 
could be misused to invade personal privacy.
  I have worked hard to make sure that provisions of this bill preserve 
the right to privacy. As we come to rely more on technology, including 
voluntary programs that require our citizens to provide personal 
information to government agencies, we will need to make very sure that 
we have sufficient

[[Page S2925]]

safeguards in place to protect how that information is stored and used.
  Many of the provisions of this bill are based on and cross-reference 
a provision I was able to include in the USA PATRIOT Act. That 
provision requires the State Department and the Department of Justice 
to develop a technology standard for the purpose of exchanging law 
enforcement and intelligence information necessary to screen applicants 
for U.S. visas and individual's using visas to enter the country.
  Within that standard, there are specific privacy safeguards to limit 
the application of the standard of aliens; limit the purposes the date 
collected could be used to background checks and border verification; 
limit the distribution of the data to consular officers and border 
inspectors; require that any changes to expand access to the data has 
to be done by regulation so that the public can have input; finally, we 
require Congressional oversight of the implementation of the technology 
standard.
  I am pleased that this legislation incorporates these safeguards and 
adds others specific to the ``interoperable database system'' that 
facilitates the sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information 
with the State Department and INS.
  The bill before us today limits re-dissemination of information 
accessed through the system; ensures that the information is used 
solely to determine the admissibility or deportability of an alien to 
the United States; requires accuracy, security and confidentiality; 
requires protection of any privacy rights of individuals who are 
subject of the information in the system; and requires the timely 
removal and destruction of obsolete or inaccurate information.
  Even with these provisions, Congress must keep a watchful eye on the 
implementation of the provisions of this legislation. We need to be 
vigilant to make certain we are achieving the proper balance between 
the need for national security and the need to protect the privacy of 
our citizens.
  I am concerned about protecting the privacy of my constituents and 
citizens across our country, and I thank the authors of this bill for 
working with me to address these concerns.
  I support this legislation because I believe that the security 
measures are well balanced against privacy concerns--and both security 
and privacy must be served.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to support H.R. 3525, 
the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001. This 
bill includes important provisions that will enhance our overall 
security. As a member from a border State, I am especially supportive 
of provisions that improve our ability to provide security on the 
Northern border.
  H.R. 3525 authorizes the addition of 200 Immigration and 
Naturalization Service agents on the border, raises their pay and 
improves their retirement benefits, increases funding for their 
training, and authorizes money for them to improve and buy new 
technology. In Minnesota, some of our borders crossings, such as the 
crossing at Crane Lake, are staffed only part-time in the summer and 
even then are not staffed around the clock. Some parts of the border 
are staffed via telephone and video. For example, a person wanting to 
cross into the United States from Canada arrives at a border station, 
picks up a telephone or video-phone, and calls Border Patrol personnel 
located elsewhere to announce his arrival. We must address this 
security risk. We must address the vulnerability of our borders.
  The situation on our northern border demands immediate attention but 
simply putting new staff there is not enough. We must retain 
experienced officials and provide adequate training to identify and 
intercept would-be terrorists. By raising the pay grade of INS border 
personnel and improving their retirement benefits, we can ensure the 
retention of dedicated, experienced officials. By providing them 
adequate training and improving their ability to share information, we 
can prevent the entry of people who intend to do this country harm.
  The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001 also 
has provisions to help us determine who is coming to the US before they 
arrive. It requires our consulates to transmit to INS officials 
electronic versions of the visas they issue so that information is 
available on the person prior to this arrival. It requires commercial 
flights and ships to provide manifests about each passenger prior to 
their arrival and it fills the gaps in the foreign student monitoring 
program to ensure we know who is coming to the United States to study 
at our universities before they get here. The more we can do to know 
who is coming to the United States before they actually arrive, the 
more secure we will be.
  I would like to take a moment to address the issue of civil 
liberties. Many of us have concerns about the changes taking place in 
regard to our Federal agencies sharing intelligence information. Today, 
more than ever, we must ensure that Federal law enforcement and other 
agencies have the ability to share information in a timely and 
effective manner. Nothing is more distressing than to think that the 
horrible events of September 11 may have been prevented through better 
interagency communication and organization. Yet, we must ensure that we 
vigorously monitor the effects structural changes now underway will 
have on our civil liberties. We must continue to monitor implementation 
of laws that question the fundamental balance between our security and 
liberty.
  We are doing that here today. The USA PATRIOT Act which we passed 
last October required the FBI to provide the State Department and INS 
with access to certain FBI databases. During the debate on that bill 
there were serious concerns over how to determine what information 
those agencies needed and how to protect that information. The bill 
before us requires the President to report to Congress on exactly what 
information the State Department and INS need, and to develop a 
comprehensive information-sharing plan with adequate privacy 
protections. I support this important provision and believe it is a 
good example of what needs to be done in the future. We must review, 
and improve legislation if necessary, to ensure protection of our 
fundamental freedoms.
  Colleagues, H.R. 3525 is a comprehensive bill which will strengthen 
the security of our borders, secure our visa entry system and enhance 
our ability to deter potential terrorists. It is another important step 
towards ensuring that we will never again witness the tragic event of 
September 11. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of 2001.
  I have worked with Senators Kyl and Feinstein, first on their Visa 
Entry Reform Act of 2001, and subsequently with them and Senators 
Kennedy and Brownback on this legislation. These sponsors have worked 
feverishly to bring this bipartisan bill to fruition and I have very 
much appreciated the opportunity to work with them in assembling a 
strong and meaningful package to help secure our homeland.
  The bottom line is, at this extraordinary time, in the wake of 
horrific attacks from without against innocent lives within our 
borders, we must take every conceivable step with regard to those 
variables we can control in securing our Nation. How can we do anything 
less when it has become so abundantly and tragically apparent that 
admittance into this country cannot and must not be the ``X-Factor'' in 
protecting our homeland?
  Entry into this country is a privilege, not a right, and it is a 
privilege that has clearly been violated by perpetrators of evil who 
were well aware of inherent weaknesses in the system. Just look at the 
story of Mohamed Atta, coming into Miami, he told the INS that he was 
returning to the U.S. to continue flight training, despite the fact 
that he presented them with a tourist visa, not the student required 
visa for his purposes, and they let him in. INS has since said that 
Atta had filed months earlier to change his status from tourist to 
student so they let him in, despite long-standing policy that once you 
leave the country, you're considered to have abandoned your change of 
status request.
  What this bill is about is stopping dangerous aliens from entering 
our country at their point-of-origin and their point of entry by giving 
those Federal agencies charged with that responsibility the tools 
necessary to do

[[Page S2926]]

the job. Now, some say the tools we need are better technologies, some 
say better information, some say better coordination. The beauty of 
this bill is that it stands on all three legs, because I can tell you 
if there is one thing I learned from my experience in working on these 
issues on the House Foreign Affairs International Operations 
Subcommittee is that we are only going to get to the root of the 
problem with a comprehensive approach.
  This was clear from the aftermath of our investigation of the comings 
and goings of the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 
the radical Egyptian cleric Sheikh Rahman. We found that the Sheikh had 
entered and exited the country five times totally unimpeded, even after 
the State Department formally revoked his visa and even after the INS 
granted him permanent resident status. In fact, in March of 1992, the 
INS rescinded that status which was granted in Newark, NJ about a year 
before.
  But then, unbelievably, the Sheikh requested asylum in a hearing 
before an immigration judge in the very same city, got a second 
hearing, and continued to remain in the country even after the bombing, 
with the Justice Department rejecting holding Rahman in custody pending 
the outcome of deportation proceedings and the asylum application, 
stating that ``in the absence of concrete evidence that Rahman is 
participating in or involved in planning acts of terrorism, the 
assumption of that burden, upon the U.S. government, is considered 
unwarranted.''
  To address the trail of errors, I introduced legislation to modernize 
the State Department's antiquated Microfiche lookout system, but as we 
have painfully learned in the interim, such a system is only as good as 
the information it can access. That is why we fought tooth and nail to 
require information sharing between the FBI and the State Department. 
In 1994 Congress passed my legislation to give State Department 
officials access to FBI criminal records for every visa application, 
whether for immigrant or non-immigrant purposes. Addressing non-
immigrants who enter the U.S. using student visas was particularly 
important, as was demonstrated by the inexplicable errors by INS, and 
in the case of the bomber who entered the U.S. on a student visa before 
dropping out of school, remaining undetected for two years on the 
expired visa, and driving a truckload of explosives into the World 
Trade Center in 1993. Unfortunately a revised provision limited this 
access only for purposes of immigrant visas, dropping my requirement 
for the non-immigrant visas initially used by all 19 of the September 
11 hijackers.
  So I am pleased that the USA PATRIOT counterterrorism bill we passed 
last year does require information sharing between the State Department 
and the FBI, but we can and must do more, we must also require 
information sharing among all agencies like the CIA, DEA, INS, and 
Customs.
  And that is what this bill does, along with my measure that is 
included to establish ``Terrorist Lookout Committees'' at every 
embassy, which are required to meet on a monthly basis and report on 
their knowledge of anyone who should be excluded from the U.S.
  I am also pleased to have worked further with Senators Kennedy and 
Kyl to include in the managers' amendment a provision increasing 
accountability by requiring the Terrorist Lookout Committees to report 
to the Secretary of State after each monthly meeting and with reports 
from the Secretary to Congress on a quarterly basis.
  We ought to ensure that the person standing in front of the INS agent 
at the border is the same person who applied for that visa. It does no 
good to do every background check in the world overseas, only to have 
someone else actually show up at our doorstep. The fact is, we have the 
so-called ``biometric technology'' available to close this gap, and I 
am pleased that my measure requiring the use of this biometric 
technology such as fingerprinting for visa applicants both abroad and 
at the border has been included, although not exclusively limited to 
fingerprinting. The information collected by the consular officer 
issuing the visa must then be electronically transmitted to the INS so 
that the file is available to immigration inspectors at U.S. ports of 
entry before the alien's arrival.
  In addition to these protections, the bill provides funding for an 
increase in border patrol personnel and for training of those agents 
and other agency staffs at U.S. ports of entry and in our consular 
offices to improve the ability of these officers, our first line of 
defense on our borders, to more easily identify and intercept would-be 
terrorists.
  As the President has said, ``We're going to start asking a lot of 
questions that heretofore have not been asked.'' By giving the Director 
of Homeland Security the responsibility of developing a centralized 
``lookout'' database for all of this information, along with 
instituting tighter application and screening procedures and increased 
oversight for student visas, we will close the loopholes and help bring 
all our Nation's resources to bear in securing our Nation.
  This is a crucial bill in our war on terrorism and I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I first want to commend the chairman of 
the Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Kennedy, my colleague from 
Massachusetts, for his leadership on this bill. The Enhanced Border 
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act gives law enforcement and 
immigration authorities greater access to the tools they need to 
improve border security. The legislation enhances our ability to 
identify terrorists and other individuals who should not be allowed to 
enter the Untied States and establishes new programs to ensure that 
people whom we welcome as visitors live up to their responsibilities 
under our immigration laws.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill contains two amendments that 
I authored: one extending training opportunities to Border Patrol 
agents and another requiring the Department of Justice to provide 
Congress information on aliens who fail to appear at removal hearings.
  It is critical that every law enforcement agent who works on the 
border understands and correctly applies our immigration laws. The 
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act authorizes 
appropriations for such training for various law enforcement and 
immigration personnel at the border. My first amendment ensures that 
these training opportunities are extended to Border Patrol agents.
  My second amendment requires the Department of Justice to report to 
the Congress how many aliens arrested while entering the country 
outside ports of entry fail to show up for their removal hearings. The 
amendment is the result of a hearing I held last November at the 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
  At that hearing, members of the subcommittee heard from current and 
past employees of the U.S. Border Patrol who came forward to express 
their concerns with INS practices involving the release on 
recognizance, that is on their promise to return, of people arrested 
while trying to gain illegal entry into the United States outside ports 
of entry. While the problems raised by the Border Patrol agents at the 
hearing would have been serious in normal circumstances, they carried 
particular weight following the attacks of September 11.
  What the agents told my subcommittee is that when people are arrested 
by the Border Patrol, at places other than ports of entry, most who 
don't voluntarily return to their country of origin, usually Mexico or 
Canada, are given a notice to appear at a removal hearing. The Border 
Patrol initially decides whether the person should be detained, 
released on bond or released on his or her own recognizance while 
awaiting the hearing. The removal hearing can take several months to 
occur.
  But detention decisions are not made by the Border Patrol alone. If 
the Border Patrol decides to detain a person or set a bond to help 
assure that a person shows up at the hearing, the INS deportation 
office can revise that decision and order the person released on a 
lower bond or on his or her own recognizance. It was revealed at the 
hearing that the Border Patrol and the INS simply release on 
recognizance a large percentage of people who are arrested for illegal 
entry. That means people who get caught and are arrested at the border 
while attempting to enter the country illegally are nonetheless allowed 
to move at will in this country

[[Page S2927]]

with no constraints other than a written instruction to appear at a 
hearing, the purpose of which is to remove them from the country.

  This practice is absurd. And statistics from the Detroit Sector 
illustrate the extent of the absurdity. In fiscal year 2001, the 
Detroit Sector of the Border Patrol arrested slightly more than 2100 
people. A significant percentage of these people were arrested while 
actually attempting to enter the country illegally. Of those 2100 or 
so, slightly less than two-thirds were voluntarily returned to their 
country of origin and 773 were issued notices to appear at a removal 
hearing. Pending their removal hearing, 595 or more than 75 percent of 
those issued notices to appear were released on their own recognizance. 
Many of these people were released without a criminal background check 
and some were not even able, or perhaps willing, to provide the Border 
Patrol with an address. We learned that people released on their own 
recognizance who don't have an address are simply given a form to mail 
to the INS when they get an address so the agency can mail them a 
notice of their hearing date. That is the extent of the follow-through 
by the INS.
  So, how many of these 575 people actually showed up for their 
hearings? One former INS District Director and Border Patrol Chief has 
said that in one of his sectors he thought the percentage of persons 
arrested outside a port of entry and released on their own recognizance 
who don't show up for their hearing was 90 percent. When I asked the 
INS what the actual number was, the agency couldn't tell me. The INS 
doesn't even keep this statistic.
  Moreover, we learned at November's hearing that there was no 
requirement that, before releasing them, the Border Patrol complete a 
criminal background on people arrested for crossing the border 
illegally. I found that situation unjustifiable, and apparently so did 
the INS when they were made aware of it. As a result of my November 
hearing, the INS issued a memorandum requiring that a criminal 
background check be conducted on all aliens arrested and released on 
bond or recognizance. That change is important but additional 
improvements in both policy and practice are necessary.
  The manner in which the Border Patrol and INS process aliens arrested 
between ports of entry remains unacceptable. That is why my second 
amendment to the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act 
requires the Department of Justice to provide the Congress an annual 
report containing the number of aliens arrested outside ports of entry 
who were served a notice to appear for a removal hearing and released 
on recognizance and who failed to attend their removal hearing. It is 
my hope that once the INS and the Congress comprehend the extent of the 
problem, we will change the way we process aliens who are arrested at 
the border while attempting to enter the country illegally.
  We are an open and generous country and we welcome people from around 
the world who share our commitment to hard work, common decency and 
egalitarian values. But we are also a Nation of laws. And with the 
privilege of living in America comes an obligation to follow the law. 
The hearing I held at the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
highlighted a situation where our immigration laws were simply not 
being followed. My amendment ensures that Congress is able to track 
whether or not this situation improves.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, this is a good day for the security of the 
United States. The terrorist attacks that so changed our nation 
occurred over seven months ago. Seven months is too long to wait to 
pass a measure as important, as potentially life-saving, as this one 
is.
  After months of meetings about these issues, it is time to do what is 
right--to fix our immigration and via-processing systems so that 
terrorists cannot enter or remain in the United States in violation of 
our laws.
  Congress took an important first step shortly after the terrorist 
attacks. The USCA PATRIOT Act, signed into law on October 26, 2001, 
provided us with better tools to fight terrorism. Among other 
provisions, that bill changed the definition of a terrorist--and, 
therefore, changed who is inadmissible to the United States. It 
clarified that the FBI can share information on its terrorist watch-
list with other relevant Federal agencies. It provided the Attorney 
General with additional limited authority to detain would-be terrorists 
for a limited amount of time.
  Our Nation, however, continues to face overwhelming infrastructure 
and personnel needs at our consular offices aboard, along both our 
southern and northern borders, in our immigration offices, and 
throughout other Federal law and intelligence offices throughout the 
United States.
  The Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act will provide for such 
resources, for such changes to existing law and infrastructure, the 
right way. As a result of this bill, resources will be efficiently 
targeted--funds, for example, will not be sent to the INS without a 
clear directive that explains to the agency exactly what it is 
responsible for producing. We have learned that it is only through 
direct instructions that we will see loopholes closed in our 
immigration system, our borders secured, intelligence shared 
appropriately and infrastructure modernized to achieve stated goals. If 
we do not provide this infrastructure and guidance, I fear that other 
unthinkable incidents will occur.
  Sadly, the real-life terrorist incidents that we suffered gave us too 
many real-life reasons why this bill is so desperately needed.
  In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on 
Terrorism and Technology, Senator Feinstein and I heard some very 
trenchant testimony from Mary Ryan, Assistant Secretary of State for 
Consular Affairs, about the gaping holes in the system. Secretary 
Ryan's statement points to the dire need for better intelligence-
gathering and significantly improved intelligence-sharing among all 
relevant agencies. The Border Security Visa Reform Act will provide for 
better information-sharing among appropriate agencies.
  Surprisingly to some, 18 of the 19 terrorists entered the country 
using B1/B2 tourist visas. According to State Department statistics, 47 
foreign-born individuals, including the 19 terrorists, have been 
charged, have pled guilty, or have been convicted of involvement in 
terrorism over the past decade. All 47 had contact with an INS 
inspector. This, of course, points to the need for more inspectors, as 
the Border Security bill authorizes, and for better informed inspectors 
through the sharing of information, which the bill will facilitate as 
well.
  Madam President, the Mohammed Atta case perhaps illustrates what is 
wrong with the system better than any other. Atta entered the country 
on a B1/B2 visa that expired at the end of 2000. According to several 
sources, he was placed on the FBI's watch list 6 weeks before the 
terrorist attacks but his name was not entered into INS's system. The 
border-security bill will help by facilitating the real-time sharing of 
this type of information to relevant Federal law-enforcement and 
intelligence agencies, including all Federal agents who are responsible 
for determining the admissibility of aliens to the U.S., and all 
officers investigating and identifying aliens.
  An entry-exit system at our Nation's ports of entry, using biometric 
identifiers, linked to an interoperable data-sharing system, will go a 
long way toward ensuring that people like Mohammed Atta are never 
allowed to enter the country. This system, coupled with the significant 
increase in interior investigative personnel that this bill makes 
possible, will better enable authorities to find terrorists if they 
infiltrate our borders. Information about Atta would have been tapped 
at a port of entry's entry-exit system. And, three other terrorists 
among the 19 who overstayed their visas would have been identified at 
ports of entry as well.
  Before his visa expired on December 2, 2000, Atta asked the INS to 
change his status to that of ``student.'' After that expiration, and 
even without the information that showed his placement on a watch list, 
he should not have been allowed to reenter the country. Yet, in January 
2001, he arrived back in Miami and, after he was questioned by the INS 
for an hour, he was admitted back into the United States.
  Another terrorist, Hani Hanjour, entered the country in December 2000 
on an F1 student visa to study English but he never attended class. The 
school did

[[Page S2928]]

not notify authorities that Hanjour never attended class. He overstayed 
his visa and melted into obscurity in the United States. The Border 
Security and Visa Reform Act will address both of the loopholes that 
allowed Hanjour to stay in the country undetected by requiring strict 
reforms in our student-visa system and, again, by requiring that our 
entry-exit system employ biometric passports and other travel documents 
to protect against fraud and to find visa overstayers such as Hanjour.
  Madam President, Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Feinstein, and I have 
worked hard to craft this bill. The staff of each of those members, 
Esther Olavarria, Lavita Strickland, and David Neal, should also be 
personally commended. After Senators Kennedy and Brownback, and 
separately Senator Feinstein and I, developed separate counter-
terrorism bills, during a difficult time, while offices were closed on 
Capitol Hill, we all came together to produce the final product we now 
anticipate will be sent shortly to the President for signature.
  This bipartisan, streamlined product, cosponsored by both the 
chairman and ranking Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and 
the ranking Republican of the Senate Appropriations Committee, will 
significantly enhance our ability to keep terrorists out of the United 
States and find terrorists who are here.
  Under the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001, at the 
direction of the President, all Federal law-enforcement and 
intelligence communities, the Departments of Transportation, State, 
Treasury, and all other relevant agencies will develop and implement a 
comprehensive, interoperable electronic data system for these 
governmental agencies to find and keep out terrorists. That system 
should be up and running by October 26, 2003, 2 years after the signing 
into law of the USA PATRIOT Act.

  Under our bill, terrorists will be deprived of the ability to present 
fake or altered international documents in order to gain entrance, or 
stay here. Foreign nationals will be provided with new travel 
documents, using new technology that will include a person's 
fingerprint(s) or other form of ``biometric'' identification. These 
cards will be used by visitors upon entry into and exit from the United 
States, and will alert authorities immediately if a visa has expired or 
a red flag is raised by a Federal agency. Under our bill, any foreign 
passport or other travel document issued after October 26, 2004, will 
have to contain a biometric component. The deadline for providing a way 
to compare biometric information presented at the border is also 
October 26, 2004.
  Another provision of the bill will further strengthen the ability of 
the U.S. Government to prevent terrorists from using our ``Visa Waiver 
Program'' to enter the country. Under our bill, the 29 participating 
Visa Waiver nations will, in addition to the USA PATRIOT Act Visa 
Waiver reforms, be required to report stolen passport numbers to the 
State Department; otherwise, a nation is prohibited from participating 
in the program. In addition, our bill clarifies that the Attorney 
General must enter stolen passport numbers into the interoperable data 
system within 72 hours of notification of loss or theft. Until that 
system is established, the Attorney General must enter that information 
into any existing data system.
  Another section of our bill will make a significant difference in our 
efforts to stop terrorists from ever entering our country. Passenger 
manifests on all flights scheduled to come to the United States must be 
forwarded in real time, and then cleared, by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service before the flight's arrival. Our bill also 
removes a current U.S. requirement that all passengers on flights to 
the United States be cleared by the INS within 45 minutes of arrival. 
Clearly, in some circumstances, the INS will need more time to clear 
all prospective entrants to the U.S. These simple steps will give 
appropriate officials advance notice of foreigners coming into the 
country, particularly visitors or immigrants who pose a security threat 
to the United States.
  The Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act will also improve our 
lax U.S. foreign student visa program, which has allowed numerous 
foreigners to enter the country without ever attending classes and, for 
those who do attend class, with little or no oversight of such students 
by the Federal Government. Our bill will change that, and will require 
that the State Department within 4 months, with the concurrence of the 
INS, maintain a computer database with all relevant information about 
foreign students.
  America is a nation that welcomes international visitors--and should 
remain so. But terrorists have taken advantage of our system and its 
openness. Now that we face new threats to our homeland, it is time we 
restore some balance to our consular and immigration policies.
  As former chairman and now ranking Republican of the Judiciary 
Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, I have long suggested, and strongly 
supported, many of the antiterrorism and immigration initiatives now 
being advocated by Republicans and Democrats alike. In my sadness about 
the overwhelming and tragic events that took thousands of precious 
lives, I am resolved to push forward on all fronts to fight against 
terrorism. That means delivering justice to those who are responsible 
for the lives lost on September 11, and reorganizing the institutions 
of government so that the law-abiding can continue to live their lives 
in freedom.
  Madam President, as I said, 7 months is too long a period of time for 
the American people to wait for action on legislation that will make it 
tougher for terrorists to infiltrate the United States. I, therefore, 
urge my colleagues to act quickly to pass this bill. It really could 
mean the difference between a secure nation and one that continues to 
be vulnerable to infiltration by those who mean us no good. Time is 
absolutely of the essence.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, last September--5 days before the 
terrorist attacks on our Nation--President Vicente Fox delivered an 
historic address to this Congress on the importance of U.S.-Mexican 
relations.
  On both sides of the political aisle, and on both sides of the U.S.-
Mexican border, there was wide agreement that reforming our Nation's 
outdated immigration laws was an essential step in strengthening the 
relationship between our two countries.
  Then came September 11.
  One of the important lessons we learned on that horrific day is that 
border security is not simply a matter of immigration policy. It's a 
matter of urgent national security.
  In the months since September 11, we have seen that the INS and the 
FBI lack the tools and resources to effectively track foreign nationals 
in our country. This includes even individuals with known links to 
terrorist networks. Not only are we unable to expel people who have 
violated their visas, very often we can't even find them.
  Then last month, we were stunned to learn that the INS had just 
mailed confirmations of visa extensions to two of the terrorist 
hijackers responsible for the September 11 attacks.
  I am proud to be one of the 61 sponsors of the bipartisan Enhanced 
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  This act will strengthen America's border security and improve our 
ability to track visa holders--including foreign students.
  It gives law enforcement agencies new tools and technology to share 
critical information, and to identify and intercept visitors who 
threaten our national security.
  It also increases staffing and training for border security officers.
  I want to thank Senator Kennedy, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, and Senator Feinstein for their leadership. Without their 
hard work and determined persistence, we would not be here today.
  I also thank Senator Byrd for his efforts to improve this bill--and 
for his invaluable leadership on the larger challenge of strengthening 
America's homeland security in general.
  We all know that authorizing legislation is important. But it takes 
resources to turn policies into workable laws. No one in Washington has 
fought harder to protect America from future terrorist attacks than 
Robert C. Byrd. I look forward to working with him to ensure that this 
and other homeland security measures are given the resources they need 
to work.
  We cannot strengthen America's homeland security on the cheap, and

[[Page S2929]]

we should not try. We need to do this right.
  Just before President Fox's visit last September, Congressman 
Gephardt and I outlined principles for comprehensive immigration 
reform. Enhanced border security is one of those principles.
  Unfortunately, another of our principles--extension of section 245(i) 
of the immigration code--is not included in this bill.
  Section 245(i) would allow immigrants who are in this country, who 
have applied to become permanent residents and who are contributing to 
our society, to remain in this country while they wait for their 
``green card.''
  Many of these immigrants are married to Americans, and have children 
who were born in this country. Without Section 245(i), many of them 
face the impossible choice of leaving their families for up to 10 
years, taking their families back with them to a country they may have 
fled to escape poverty or terror, or breaking the law, thus forgoing 
the chance to ever become a lawful permanent resident.
  The Senate voted to extend section 245(i) last year, the same week 
President Fox spoke to Congress.
  We had hoped and expected that the House would quickly do the same. 
Instead, it delayed for six months. By the time it finally acted, key 
deadlines contained in the bill had become unworkable.
  I remain strongly committed to a meaningful 245(i) extension--one 
that gives long-time, tax-paying residents a genuine opportunity to 
remain in this country--with their families--while they wait to become 
permanent legal residents.
  My colleagues and I look forward to working with Senators Lott, Hagel 
and Brownback and others, on a bipartisan basis, to send President Bush 
a 245(i) extension bill with realistic deadlines.
  America needs an immigration system that is pro-family, pro-business 
and fair. Together, we can create such a system--one that sacrifices 
neither our security nor our ideals.
  The new border security bill on which we are about to vote, and a 
meaningful extension of 245(i), are essential parts of such a system.
  We also look forward to working with our Republican colleagues, and 
with the administration, to restructure and strengthen the INS, end the 
backlogs, provide meaningful access to earned legalization, and reunite 
families. We look forward to creating a new and better temporary worker 
program that treats workers with the respect they deserve and provides 
businesses with the employees they need.
  Within hours after the twin towers collapsed, we heard some people 
say that America should close its doors to immigrants. Some people even 
said we should force out immigrants who are already here, working and 
contributing to our society.
  People who say such things need to understand that our enemy is not 
immigrants, it is intolerance and hatred. America is strong not in 
spite of our diversity, but because of our diversity.
  By passing this bill today, we are strengthening not only our border 
security, but our basic American values. It is the right thing to do, 
and I thank all of our colleagues who helped get us to this point.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as we are getting this matter wrapped 
up, I wish to recognize four key staff members who really helped 
shepherd this bill through. This is important safety legislation.
  I, first, recognize Senator Kennedy's lead staff on this, Esther 
Olavarria, who is a humble, diligent servant of the State and who does 
a wonderful job on these sorts of issues. She worked closely with my 
staff member, David Neal, who is relatively new to the process but has 
diligently worked to shepherd this legislation on through.
  Also, for Senator Feinstein and for Senator Kyl, two wonderful staff 
members who helped make the core nucleus in negotiating this through; 
Elizabeth Maier and LeVita Strickland are excellent people.
  I think at the end of the day when we look to strengthen the borders 
of this country to protect our people, these four great citizens really 
dedicated a lot of time and a lot of soul to be able to get this 
through. I want to note their tremendous activity in this regard.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before we proceed to this series of votes, I 
would like to make a few remarks concerning the bill.
  I believe there is a certain amount of time on the bill. Is there?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is time under the control of Senators 
Kennedy and Brownback.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to give whatever 
time we have remaining to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in my long career of serving in various and 
sundry legislative branches, I have from time to time been awarded the 
honor of being the ``legislator of the year'' in connection with 
something. Let me say that as one who has served now in my 50th year in 
Congress this year, and having served as majority leader in this body 
during the years 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980, and again during the years 
1987 and 1988, and also having served as minority leader over a period 
of 6 years, and having served in the leadership in the Senate for 22 
years, including my stint as majority whip and my stint as secretary of 
the Democratic Conference, I have had occasion to note some very 
successful and outstanding legislators. I would include among the most 
outstanding of those legislators Senator Kennedy.
  The late Senator Henry Jackson was another one of the outstanding 
legislators with whom I served. He was responsible for bringing a great 
deal of legislation to the floor dealing with energy, with the 
environment, and on various and sundry other matters. He was an 
outstanding legislator.
  Senator Kennedy is one who has proved to be an outstanding chairman 
of the committee. I think Senators will agree with me in observing that 
when Senator Kennedy comes to the floor with a bill, especially if it 
is a bill that has been reported by his committee, a committee which he 
chairs, or by a committee on which he sits, he is always prepared. He 
has done his homework, and he makes a very forceful expression. He 
makes a very forceful expression of support of the managers of the 
amendment thereon. He is a formidable opponent of one who opposes a 
bill. Senator Kennedy brings to the floor a formidable opponent of any 
Senators who offer amendments in opposition thereto. He is a well-
rounded legislator in that his experience, and his knowledge of the 
subject matter of the legislation which he promotes, is, indeed, 
remarkable. As far as I am concerned, he is an outstanding legislator 
in the 50 years in which I have served in Congress.
  Senator Kennedy and I have not always been together on matters. We 
have been opponents in some instances. We have not necessarily, in the 
early days, held each other in terms of endearment.
  But we have passed through those years and in the subsequent years--
especially in the years when I served as majority leader, and the first 
time I served as majority leader in 1977, during those years, and in 
subsequent years, Senator Kennedy has been one of my most supportive 
friends and fellow Senators. And I have counted his support as 
invaluable, particularly when I was majority leader. As the majority 
leader or the majority whip, sometimes one looks around and wonders 
where the troops are. And there are times when we look back over our 
shoulders and find that the troops are not necessarily there.

  But Senator Kennedy was always very supportive of me. There were 
times when he perhaps could not vote with me or could not exactly 
support a particular amendment of mine, but he was always most 
courteous and most considerate to me.
  As we close the debate on this bill, I want to say once more, as I 
have said before, that Senator Kennedy is a Senator who could well have 
graced the Senate at any moment of the Senate's long history, dating 
back to March 4, 1789. He would have been a worthy protagonist or 
antagonist, whatever the case might have been. I have learned to 
respect him and appreciate him as the years have come and gone. I have 
learned to appreciate him and respect him more and more.
  So, Mr. President, I take this occasion to thank Senator Kennedy for 
his

[[Page S2930]]

courtesies during this debate. He invited me to testify before his 
Immigration Subcommittee last week. He visited my office several times 
over the last 4 months to listen to my concerns. He has always been 
very gracious to me, and I thank him for that.
  I thank the other proponents of this legislation--Senator Brownback, 
Senator Kyl, and Senator Feinstein. They have all been very fine 
authors of amendments. In particular, I think with respect to this 
bill, they have done an excellent job. They have been very kind to me, 
and they have been considerate. I want to take this occasion to thank 
them for their work on the bill. No one could be more patriotic than 
these Senators. No one could pay more attention to their duties in the 
Senate, their duties to their constituents whom they represent.
  This is a bill that may still have some flaws in it. No piece of 
legislation, I would say, ever passes the Senate that is perfect, but 
they certainly have done their best in trying to improve it as we have 
gone along. I thank them all for the courtesies they have extended to 
me and the support they have expressed for these amendments I have 
offered.
  So let me say, again, that with one of these Senators I have served 
since November 1962. And Senator Kennedy well understands my interest 
in the institution of the Senate. To me, that is why I am here today, 
because of my interest in this institution and the Constitution. That 
is why I am here. I did not have to run last time to put bread and 
butter on my table. I could have retired and probably earned a bigger 
check in retirement. Since I have been paying into the retirement fund 
now for 50 years, this year, I could probably have earned a bigger 
check in retirement than I will have earned as a Senator.
  But I am here to defend this institution. That is the only reason I 
am here. That is the only reason. I could have been better off if I had 
retired. Perhaps somebody would have had pity on me and asked me to 
serve on some board, and I could have raked in a little additional 
money. But that is neither here nor there.
  I chose to serve here. This has been my career. I have loved this 
Senate from the first day I walked into it. And so I am proud to serve 
in it. The only reason I am here is that I believe in the Senate. I am 
not here because of any particular legislation. As a matter of fact, I 
am here because I love the Senate and want to do what I can to preserve 
the Senate prerogatives.
  I believe there are three separate and distinct coordinate branches 
of Government. I believe that the legislative branch is the branch of 
the people. I think it is the people's branch. I believe that the 
Senate is the premier institution, the premier legislative 
institution--the U.S. Senate--in the world today. And there have been 
many senates. Perhaps the next greatest of all was the senate of the 
Roman people.
  I am proud the people of West Virginia have seen fit to send me here, 
and send me back from time to time, and overlooked the warts and all in 
my makeup, politically and otherwise. But I reverence the Senate, honor 
it, and respect all Members of the body. It doesn't make a difference 
whether they are Republicans or Democrats or Independents; I respect 
them. We may not agree, but they are Senators. They are my equal any 
day. They are entitled to their viewpoint as much as I am entitled to 
mine.
  So having said that, let me say, far too often Members of this body 
are willing to give up their right to debate and to amend legislation. 
I am pleased that at least some public debate has been generated on 
this bill and that the right of Senators to offer amendments was 
respected. I think the end product is a better piece of legislation 
than it was heretofore.
  With regard to the amendment I offered on the importation of goods, 
especially Chinese goods, that are made using forced labor, I, of 
course, have determined not to press to include that amendment in this 
bill. But I continue to believe that the Congress needs to pass 
legislation to prevent goods made in foreign prisons and detention 
camps from crossing our borders. We also have a responsibility to 
protect our businesses from this unfair and reprehensible trade 
practice. I expect to raise the issue again at some point on some bill 
because much more needs to be done to discourage this blatant violation 
of our trade laws.
  Senators should also be aware that we still do not have a cost 
estimate of this bill from the Congressional Budget Office. The INS 
estimates that the bill will cost $1 billion in the first year and $3.2 
billion over 3 years, but those estimates likely underestimate the true 
costs. It is very well to authorize these funds--and I intend to vote 
for the bill--but this bill will require the appropriation of funds and 
the support of its proponents, and the support of the administration, 
for those appropriations if its provisions are to be implemented.
  Again, I thank Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Feinstein, and Kyl for 
their interest in improving our Nation's border defenses. I thank them 
and I love them. I salute them for the work they have done in this 
respect. I hope we can maintain the bipartisan support we have seen on 
this bill when it comes time to appropriate the funds necessary to 
implement these provisions.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. 
He is my friend. I know I really can speak for all Members in saying he 
is the defender of all of the constitutional prerogatives of this great 
institution. We have heard him speak this evening. We have listened to 
that clear and compelling voice tonight, as we have heard it in 
defending the institution at other times.
  I am wondering if I could ask a special favor of the Senator. He has 
been extremely kind. But what we have not heard tonight is the poem 
about the ambulance in the valley. I know it is late in the evening, 
but could the Senator--if we were to yield the Senator a few more 
minutes--recite that poem? Or would he prefer to wait for another time? 
If he would prefer not to, I would certainly understand.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator honors me by 
calling on me to repeat the lines of the poem by Joseph Malins titled 
``A Fence or an Ambulance.'' I am not sure I am really up to it at this 
point in the day. I am not sure I can do it on this short notice, but I 
will certainly try. It will not be the first time I have failed on a 
poem. Occasionally I do fail.
  Let me think for a minute. Perhaps I could do that.

       ``Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
       Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
     But over its terrible edge there had slipped
       A duke and fall many a peasant.
       So the people said something would have to be done,
       But their projects did not at all tally;
     Some said, ``Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,''
       Some, ``An ambulance down in the valley.''
     But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,
       For it spread through the neighboring city;
       A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
       But each heart became brimful of pity
     For those who slipped over that dangerous cliff;
       And the dwellers in highway and alley
     Gave pounds or gave pence, not to put up a fence,
       But an ambulance down in the valley.
     ``For the cliff is all right, if you're careful,'' they said,
       ``And, if folks even slip and are dropping,
     It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much,
       As the shock down below when they're stopping.''
     So day after day, as these mishaps occurred,
       Quick forth would these rescuers sally
     To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff,
       With their ambulance down in the valley.
       Then an old sage remarked: ``It's a marvel to me
       That people give far more attention
     To repairing results than to stopping the cause,
       When they'd much better aim at prevention.
     Let us stop at its source all this mischief,'' cried he,
       ``Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally;
     If the cliff we will fence we might almost dispense
       With the ambulance down in the valley.''
       ``Oh, he's a fanatic,'' the others rejoined,
       ``Dispense with the ambulance? Never!
     He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could;
       No! No! We'll support them forever.
     Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall?
       And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he?
     Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence,

[[Page S2931]]

       While the ambulance works down in the valley?''
     But a sensible few, who are practical too,
       Will not bear with such nonsense much longer;
     They believe that prevention is better than cure,
       And their party will soon be the stronger.
     Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen,
       And while other philanthropists dally,
     They will scorn all pretense and put up a stout fence
       On the cliff that hangs over the valley.
     Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old,
       For the voice of true wisdom is calling,
     ``To rescue the fallen is good, but 'tis best
       To prevent other people from falling.''
     Better close up the source of temptation and crime
       Than deliver from dungeon or galley;
     Better put a strong fence round the top of the cliff
       Than an ambulance down in the valley.''

  Mr. KENNEDY. Hear. Hear. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, it is my understanding now that we will proceed to 
three votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The order of the votes will be the two amendments of the 
Senator from West Virginia in the order in which they were offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that there be no intervening 
business in between the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I further ask unanimous consent that after the first 
vote, the remaining two votes be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. So that would include final passage; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Nevada.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
final passage of H.R. 3525, the Senate then proceed to executive 
session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 761, Legrome 
D. Davis to be United States District Judge; that Senator Specter be 
recognized for up to 5 minutes, and the Senate then vote on the 
nomination; the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that any 
statements thereon be printed at the appropriate place in the Record, 
and the Senate return to legislative session, without any intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to ask for the 
yeas and nays on that nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address 
the body for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I note a word of thanks to Senator 
Byrd. He has dealt with many of us for some period of time on this 
particular issue in some contentious situations. He has dealt with us 
privately, publicly, and in other forums. At the end of the day, we do 
come out with a better piece of legislation. For that I thank the 
Senator. At the time, going through it, I was not quite as thankful for 
that.
  He has done a service to the country. And at the end of the day, we 
will have a better piece of legislation. I thank my colleagues, 
Senators Kennedy, Kyl, and Feinstein. Together we crafted a good piece 
of legislation. I am thankful to be a part of it. I think it will be a 
very positive move for our country.
  I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3161

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 3161. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Inouye
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
  The amendment (No. 3161) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3162

  Ms. CANTWELL. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3162.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Inouye
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
  The amendment (No. 3162) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, on the previous vote, amendment No. 3161, 
I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. On this vote, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.

[[Page S2932]]

  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 
the third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator frm Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Inouye
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
  The bill (H.R. 3525), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________