Congressional Record: March 12, 2002 (House)
Page H797-H810
ENHANCED BORDER SECURITY AND VISA ENTRY REFORM ACT OF 2002
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree
to the resolution (H. Res. 376) providing for the concurrence by the
House with amendments in the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 1885.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 365
Resolved, That, upon the adoption of this resolution, the
House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's
table the bill H.R. 1885, with the Senate amendment thereto,
and to have concurred in the Senate amendment with the
following amendments:
(1) Amend the title so as to read: "An Act to enhance the
border security of the United States, and for other
purposes.".
(2) In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment of the Senate, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the "Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002".
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--FUNDING
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations for hiring and training
Government personnel.
Sec. 102. Authorization of appropriations for improvements in
technology and infrastructure.
Sec. 103. Machine-readable visa fees.
TITLE II--INTERAGENCY INFORMATION SHARING
Sec. 201. Interim measures for access to and coordination of law
enforcement and other information.
Sec. 202. Interoperable law enforcement and intelligence data system
with name-matching capacity and training.
Sec. 203. Commission on interoperable data sharing.
TITLE III--VISA ISSUANCE
Sec. 301. Electronic provision of visa files.
Sec. 302. Implementation of an integrated entry and exit data system.
Sec. 303. Machine-readable, tamper-resistant entry and exit documents.
Sec. 304. Terrorist lookout committees.
Sec. 305. Improved training for consular officers.
Sec. 306. Restriction on issuance of visas to nonimmigrants who are
from countries that are state sponsors of international
terrorism.
Sec. 307. Designation of program countries under the Visa Waiver
Program.
Sec. 308. Tracking system for stolen passports.
Sec. 309. Identification documents for certain newly admitted aliens.
TITLE IV--ADMISSION AND INSPECTION OF ALIENS
Sec. 401. Study of the feasibility of a North American National
Security Program.
Sec. 402. Passenger manifests.
Sec. 403. Time period for inspections.
TITLE V--FOREIGN STUDENTS AND EXCHANGE VISITORS
Sec. 501. Foreign student monitoring program.
Sec. 502. Review of institutions and other entities authorized to
enroll or sponsor certain nonimmigrants.
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. Extension of deadline for improvement in border crossing
identification cards.
Sec. 602. General Accounting Office study.
Sec. 603. International cooperation.
Sec. 604. Statutory construction.
Sec. 605. Report on aliens who fail to appear after release on own
recognizance.
Sec. 606. Retention of nonimmigrant visa applications by the Department
of State.
Sec. 607. Extension of deadline for classification petition and labor
certification filings.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Alien.--The term "alien" has the meaning given the
term in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)).
(2) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term
"appropriate committees of Congress" means the following:
(A) The Committee on the Judiciary, the Select Committee on
Intelligence, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate.
(B) The Committee on the Judiciary, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on International
Relations of the House of Representatives.
(3) Federal law enforcement agencies.--The term "Federal
law enforcement agencies" means the following:
(A) The United States Secret Service.
(B) The Drug Enforcement Administration.
(C) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(D) The Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(E) The United States Marshall Service.
(F) The Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
(G) The Coastal Security Service.
(H) The Diplomatic Security Service.
(I) The United States Postal Inspection Service.
(J) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
(K) The United States Customs Service.
(L) The National Park Service.
(4) Intelligence community.--The term "intelligence
community" has the meaning given that term in section 3(4)
of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
(5) President.--The term "President" means the President
of the United States, acting through the Assistant to the
President for Homeland Security, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, the Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization, the Attorney General, the Director of Central
Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Secretary of Transportation, the
Commissioner of Customs, and the Secretary of the Treasury.
(6) USA PATRIOT Act.--The term "USA PATRIOT Act" means
the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56).
TITLE I--FUNDING
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIRING AND
TRAINING GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.
(a) Additional Personnel.--
(1) INS inspectors.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, during each of the fiscal years 2002 through
2006, the Attorney General shall increase the number of
inspectors and associated support staff in the Immigration
and Naturalization Service by the equivalent of at least 200
full-time employees over the number of inspectors and
associated support staff in the Immigration and
Naturalization Service authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act.
(2) INS investigative personnel.--Subject to the
availability of appropriations, during each of the fiscal
years 2002 through 2006, the Attorney General shall increase
the number of investigative and associated support staff of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service by the equivalent
of at least 200 full-time employees over the number of
investigators and associated support staff in the Immigration
and Naturalization Service authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection, including such sums as may be necessary to
provide facilities, attorney personnel and support staff, and
other resources needed to support the increased number of
inspectors, investigative staff, and associated support
staff.
(b) Waiver of FTE Limitation.--The Attorney General is
authorized to waive any limitation on the number of full-time
equivalent personnel assigned to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations for INS Staffing.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for the Department of Justice such sums as may be necessary
to provide an increase in the annual rate of basic pay--
(A) for all journeyman Border Patrol agents and inspectors
who have completed at least one year's service and are
receiving an annual rate of basic pay for positions at GS-9
of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United
States Code, from the annual rate of basic pay payable for
positions at GS-9 of the General Schedule under such section
5332, to an annual rate of basic pay payable for positions at
GS-11 of the General Schedule under such section 5332;
(B) for inspections assistants, from the annual rate of
basic pay payable for positions at GS-5 of the General
Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code,
to an annual rate of basic pay payable for positions at GS-7
of the General Schedule under such section 5332; and
(C) for the support staff associated with the personnel
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), at the appropriate GS
level of the General Schedule under such section 5332.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations for Training.--There
are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary--
(1) to appropriately train Immigration and Naturalization
Service personnel on an ongoing basis--
(A) to ensure that their proficiency levels are acceptable
to protect the borders of the United States; and
(B) otherwise to enforce and administer the laws within
their jurisdiction; and
(2) to provide adequate continuing cross-training to
agencies staffing the United States border and ports of entry
to effectively and correctly apply applicable United States
laws;
[[Page H798]]
(3) to fully train immigration officers to use the
appropriate lookout databases and to monitor passenger
traffic patterns; and
(4) to expand the Carrier Consultant Program described in
section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1225A(b)).
(e) Authorization of Appropriations for Consular
Functions.--
(1) Responsibilities.--The Secretary of State shall--
(A) implement enhanced security measures for the review of
visa applicants;
(B) staff the facilities and programs associated with the
activities described in subparagraph (A); and
(C) provide ongoing training for consular officers and
diplomatic security agents.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of State such sums as
may be necessary to carry out paragraph (1).
SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN
TECHNOLOGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Funding of Technology.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to funds
otherwise available for such purpose, there are authorized to
be appropriated $150,000,000 to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service for purposes of--
(A) making improvements in technology (including
infrastructure support, computer security, and information
technology development) for improving border security;
(B) expanding, utilizing, and improving technology to
improve border security; and
(C) facilitating the flow of commerce and persons at ports
of entry, including improving and expanding programs for
preenrollment and preclearance.
(2) Waiver of fees.--Federal agencies involved in border
security may waive all or part of enrollment fees for
technology-based programs to encourage participation by
United States citizens and aliens in such programs. Any
agency that waives any part of any such fee may establish its
fees for other services at a level that will ensure the
recovery from other users of the amounts waived.
(3) Offset of increases in fees.--The Attorney General may,
to the extent reasonable, increase land border fees for the
issuance of arrival-departure documents to offset technology
costs.
(b) Improvement and Expansion of INS, State Department, and
Customs Facilities.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the
Department of State such sums as may be necessary to improve
and expand facilities for use by the personnel of those
agencies.
SEC. 103. MACHINE-READABLE VISA FEES.
(a) Relation to Subsequent Authorization Acts.--Section
140(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) is amended by
striking paragraph (3).
(b) Fee Amount.--The machine-readable visa fee charged by
the Department of State shall be the higher of $65 or the
cost of the machine-readable visa service, as determined by
the Secretary of State after conducting a study of the cost
of such service.
(c) Surcharge.--The Department of State is authorized to
charge a surcharge of $10, in addition to the machine-
readable visa fee, for issuing a machine-readable visa in a
nonmachine-readable passport.
(d) Availability of Collected Fees.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, amounts collected as fees described
in this section shall be credited as an offsetting collection
to any appropriation for the Department of State to recover
costs of providing consular services. Amounts so credited
shall be available, until expended, for the same purposes as
the appropriation to which credited.
TITLE II--INTERAGENCY INFORMATION SHARING
SEC. 201. INTERIM MEASURES FOR ACCESS TO AND COORDINATION OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER INFORMATION.
(a) Interim Directive.--Until the plan required by
subsection (c) is implemented, Federal law enforcement
agencies and the intelligence community shall, to the maximum
extent practicable, share any information with the Department
of State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
relevant to the admissibility and deportability of aliens,
consistent with the plan described in subsection (c).
(b) Report Identifying Law Enforcement and Intelligence
Information.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report identifying
Federal law enforcement and the intelligence community
information needed by the Department of State to screen visa
applicants, or by the Immigration and Naturalization Service
to screen applicants for admission to the United States, and
to identify those aliens inadmissible or deportable under the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
(2) Repeal.--Section 414(d) of the USA PATRIOT Act is
hereby repealed.
(c) Coordination Plan.--
(1) Requirement for plan.--Not later than one year after
the date of enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the President
shall develop and implement a plan based on the findings of
the report under subsection (b) that requires Federal law
enforcement agencies and the intelligence community to
provide to the Department of State and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service all information identified in that
report as expeditiously as practicable.
(2) Consultation requirement.--In the preparation and
implementation of the plan under this subsection, the
President shall consult with the appropriate committees of
Congress.
(3) Protections regarding information and uses thereof.--
The plan under this subsection shall establish conditions for
using the information described in subsection (b) received by
the Department of State and Immigration and Naturalization
Service--
(A) to limit the redissemination of such information;
(B) to ensure that such information is used solely to
determine whether to issue a visa to an alien or to determine
the admissibility or deportability of an alien to the United
States, except as otherwise authorized under Federal law;
(C) to ensure the accuracy, security, and confidentiality
of such information;
(D) to protect any privacy rights of individuals who are
subjects of such information;
(E) to provide data integrity through the timely removal
and destruction of obsolete or erroneous names and
information; and
(F) in a manner that protects the sources and methods used
to acquire intelligence information as required by section
103(c)(6) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
403-3(c)(6)).
(4) Criminal penalties for misuse of information.--Any
person who obtains information under this subsection without
authorization or exceeding authorized access (as defined in
section 1030(e) of title 18, United States Code), and who
uses such information in the manner described in any of the
paragraphs (1) through (7) of section 1030(a) of such title,
or attempts to use such information in such manner, shall be
subject to the same penalties as are applicable under section
1030(c) of such title for violation of that paragraph.
(5) Advancing deadlines for a technology standard and
report.--Section 403(c) of the USA PATRIOT Act is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking "2 years" and inserting
"one year"; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking "18 months" and
inserting "six months".
SEC. 202. INTEROPERABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE DATA
SYSTEM WITH NAME-MATCHING CAPACITY AND
TRAINING.
(a) Interoperable Law Enforcement and Intelligence
Electronic Data System.--
(1) Requirement for integrated immigration and
naturalization data system.--The Immigration and
Naturalization Service shall fully integrate all databases
and data systems maintained by the Service that process or
contain information on aliens. The fully integrated data
system shall be an interoperable component of the electronic
data system described in paragraph (2).
(2) Requirement for interoperable data system.--Upon the
date of commencement of implementation of the plan required
by section 201(c), the President shall develop and implement
an interoperable electronic data system to provide current
and immediate access to information in databases of Federal
law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community that
is relevant to determine whether to issue a visa or to
determine the admissibility or deportability of an alien.
(3) Consultation requirement.--In the development and
implementation of the data system under this subsection, the
President shall consult with the Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and any such
other agency as may be deemed appropriate.
(4) Technology standard.--
(A) In general.--The data system developed and implemented
under this subsection, and the databases referred to in
paragraph (2), shall utilize the technology standard
established pursuant to section 403(c) of the USA PATRIOT
Act, as amended by section 201(c)(5) and subparagraph (B).
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 403(c) of the USA
PATRIOT Act, as amended by section 201(c)(5), is further
amended--
(i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ", including
appropriate biometric identifier standards," after
"technology standard"; and
(ii) in paragraph (2) --
(I) by striking "Integrated" and inserting
"Interoperable"; and
(II) by striking "integrated" and inserting
"interoperable".
(5) Access to information in data system.--Subject to
paragraph (6), information in the data system under this
subsection shall be readily and easily accessible--
(A) to any consular officer responsible for the issuance of
visas;
(B) to any Federal official responsible for determining an
alien's admissibility to or deportability from the United
States; and
(C) to any Federal law enforcement or intelligence officer
determined by regulation to be responsible for the
investigation or identification of aliens.
(6) Limitation on access.--The President shall, in
accordance with applicable Federal laws, establish procedures
to restrict access to intelligence information in the data
system under this subsection, and the databases referred to
in paragraph (2), under circumstances in which such
information is not to be disclosed directly to Government
officials under paragraph (5).
(b) Name-Search Capacity and Support.--
[[Page H799]]
(1) In general.--The interoperable electronic data system
required by subsection (a) shall--
(A) have the capacity to compensate for disparate name
formats among the different databases referred to in
subsection (a);
(B) be searchable on a linguistically sensitive basis;
(C) provide adequate user support;
(D) to the extent practicable, utilize commercially
available technology; and
(E) be adjusted and improved, based upon experience with
the databases and improvements in the underlying technologies
and sciences, on a continuing basis.
(2) Linguistically sensitive searches.--
(A) In general.--To satisfy the requirement of paragraph
(1)(B), the interoperable electronic database shall be
searchable based on linguistically sensitive algorithms
that--
(i) account for variations in name formats and
transliterations, including varied spellings and varied
separation or combination of name elements, within a
particular language; and
(ii) incorporate advanced linguistic, mathematical,
statistical, and anthropological research and methods.
(B) Languages required.--
(i) Priority languages.--Linguistically sensitive
algorithms shall be developed and implemented for no fewer
than 4 languages designated as high priorities by the
Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney
General and the Director of Central Intelligence.
(ii) Implementation schedule.--Of the 4 linguistically
sensitive algorithms required to be developed and implemented
under clause (i)--
(I) the highest priority language algorithms shall be
implemented within 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(II) an additional language algorithm shall be implemented
each succeeding year for the next three years.
(3) Adequate user support.--The Secretary of State and the
Attorney General shall jointly prescribe procedures to ensure
that consular and immigration officers can, as required,
obtain assistance in resolving identity and other questions
that may arise about names of aliens seeking visas or
admission to the United States that may be subject to
variations in format, transliteration, or other similar
phenomenon.
(4) Interim reports.--Six months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit a report to
the appropriate committees of Congress on the progress in
implementing each requirement of this section.
(5) Reports by intelligence agencies.--
(A) Current standards.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Director of Central
Intelligence shall complete the survey and issue the report
previously required by section 309(a) of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. 403-3
note).
(B) Guidelines.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of Intelligence shall
issue the guidelines and submit the copy of those guidelines
previously required by section 309(b) of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. 403-3
note).
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
the provisions of this subsection.
SEC. 203. COMMISSION ON INTEROPERABLE DATA SHARING.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than one year after the date
of enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the President shall
establish a Commission on Interoperable Data Sharing (in this
section referred to as the "Commission"). The purposes of
the Commission shall be to--
(1) monitor the protections described in section 201(c)(3);
(2) provide oversight of the interoperable electronic data
system described in this title; and
(3) report to Congress annually on the Commission's
findings and recommendations.
(b) Composition.--The Commission shall consist of nine
members, who shall be appointed by the President, as follows:
(1) One member, who shall serve as Chair of the Commission.
(2) Eight members, who shall be appointed from a list of
nominees jointly provided by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the
Minority Leader of the Senate.
(c) Considerations.--The Commission shall consider
recommendations regarding the following issues:
(1) Adequate protection of privacy concerns inherent in the
design, implementation, or operation of the interoperable
electronic data system.
(2) Timely adoption of security innovations, consistent
with generally accepted security standards, to protect the
integrity and confidentiality of information to prevent
against the risks of accidental or unauthorized loss, access,
destruction, use modification, or disclosure of information.
(3) The adequacy of mechanisms to permit the timely
correction of errors in data maintained by the interoperable
data system.
(4) Other protections against unauthorized use of data to
guard against the misuse of the interoperable data system or
the data maintained by the system, including recommendations
for modifications to existing laws and regulations to
sanction misuse of the system.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Commission such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this section.
TITLE III--VISA ISSUANCE
SEC. 301. ELECTRONIC PROVISION OF VISA FILES.
Section 221(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1201(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(2) by inserting "(1)" immediately after "(a)"; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
"(2) The Secretary of State shall provide to the Service
an electronic version of the visa file of an alien who has
been issued a visa to ensure that the data in that visa file
is available to immigration inspectors at the United States
ports of entry before the arrival of the alien at such a port
of entry.".
SEC. 302. IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTEGRATED ENTRY AND EXIT DATA
SYSTEM.
(a) Development of System.--In developing the integrated
entry and exit data system for the ports of entry, as
required by the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data
Management Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-215), the
Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall--
(1) implement, fund, and use a technology standard under
section 403(c) of the USA PATRIOT Act (as amended by sections
201(c)(5) and 202(a)(3)(B)) at United States ports of entry
and at consular posts abroad;
(2) establish a database containing the arrival and
departure data from machine-readable visas, passports, and
other travel and entry documents possessed by aliens; and
(3) make interoperable all security databases relevant to
making determinations of admissibility under section 212 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182).
(b) Implementation.--In implementing the provisions of
subsection (a), the Immigration and Naturalization Service
and the Department of State shall--
(1) utilize technologies that facilitate the lawful and
efficient cross-border movement of commerce and persons
without compromising the safety and security of the United
States; and
(2) consider implementing the North American National
Security Program described in section 401.
SEC. 303. MACHINE-READABLE, TAMPER-RESISTANT ENTRY AND EXIT
DOCUMENTS.
(a) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, the Secretary of
State, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), acting jointly, shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a comprehensive report assessing the
actions that will be necessary, and the considerations to be
taken into account, to achieve fully, not later than October
26, 2003--
(A) implementation of the requirements of subsections (b)
and (c); and
(B) deployment of the equipment and software to allow
biometric comparison of the documents described in
subsections (b) and (c).
(2) Estimates.--In addition to the assessment required by
paragraph (1), each report shall include an estimate of the
costs to be incurred, and the personnel, man-hours, and other
support required, by the Department of Justice, the
Department of State, and NIST to achieve the objectives of
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).
(b) Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Not later than October 26, 2003, the
Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall issue to
aliens only machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas and
travel and entry documents that use biometric identifiers.
The Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall jointly
establish biometric identifiers standards to be employed on
such visas and travel and entry documents from among those
biometric identifiers recognized by domestic and
international standards organizations.
(2) Readers and scanners at ports of entry.--
(A) In general.--Not later than October 26, 2003, the
Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, shall install at all ports of entry of the United
States equipment and software to allow biometric comparison
of all United States visas and travel and entry documents
issued to aliens, and passports issued pursuant to subsection
(c)(1).
(B) Use of readers and scanners.--The Attorney General, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, shall utilize
biometric data readers and scanners that--
(i) domestic and international standards organizations
determine to be highly accurate when used to verify identity;
and
(ii) can read the biometric identifiers utilized under
subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1).
(3) Use of technology standard.--The systems employed to
implement paragraphs (1) and (2) shall utilize the technology
standard established pursuant to section 403(c) of the USA
PATRIOT Act, as amended by section 201(c)(5) and
202(a)(3)(B).
(c) Technology Standard for Visa Waiver Participants.--
(1) Certification requirement.--Not later than October 26,
2003, the government of each country that is designated to
participate in the visa waiver program established under
[[Page H800]]
section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
certify, as a condition for designation or continuation of
that designation, that it has a program to issue to its
nationals machine-readable passports that are tamper-
resistant and incorporate biometric identifiers that comply
with applicable biometric identifiers standards established
by the International Civil Aviation Organization. This
paragraph shall not be construed to rescind the requirement
of section 217(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(2) Use of technology standard.--On and after October 26,
2003, any alien applying for admission under the visa waiver
program shall present a passport that meets the requirements
of paragraph (1) unless the alien's passport was issued prior
to that date.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section, including reimbursement to international and
domestic standards organizations.
SEC. 304. TERRORIST LOOKOUT COMMITTEES.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of State shall require a
terrorist lookout committee to be maintained within each
United States mission.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of each committee established
under subsection (a) shall be--
(1) to utilize the cooperative resources of all elements of
the United States mission in the country in which the
consular post is located to identify known or potential
terrorists and to develop information on those individuals;
(2) to ensure that such information is routinely and
consistently brought to the attention of appropriate United
States officials for use in administering the immigration
laws of the United States; and
(3) to ensure that the names of known and suspected
terrorists are entered into the appropriate lookout
databases.
(c) Composition; Chair.--The Secretary shall establish
rules governing the composition of such committees.
(d) Meetings.--The committee shall meet at least monthly to
share information pertaining to the committee's purpose as
described in subsection (b)(2).
(e) Periodic Reports.--The committee shall submit quarterly
reports to the Secretary of State describing the committee's
activities, whether or not information on known or suspected
terrorists was developed during the quarter.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to implement
this section.
SEC. 305. IMPROVED TRAINING FOR CONSULAR OFFICERS.
(a) Training.--The Secretary of State shall require that
all consular officers responsible for adjudicating visa
applications, before undertaking to perform consular
responsibilities, receive specialized training in the
effective screening of visa applicants who pose a potential
threat to the safety or security of the United States. Such
officers shall be specially and extensively trained in the
identification of aliens inadmissible under section 212(a)(3)
(A) and (B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
interagency and international intelligence sharing regarding
terrorists and terrorism, and cultural-sensitivity toward
visa applicants.
(b) Use of Foreign Intelligence Information.--As an ongoing
component of the training required in subsection (a), the
Secretary of State shall coordinate with the Assistant to the
President for Homeland Security, Federal law enforcement
agencies, and the intelligence community to compile and
disseminate to the Bureau of Consular Affairs reports,
bulletins, updates, and other current unclassified
information relevant to terrorists and terrorism and to
screening visa applicants who pose a potential threat to the
safety or security of the United States.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to implement
this section.
SEC. 306. RESTRICTION ON ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO NONIMMIGRANTS
FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE SPONSORS OF
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.
(a) In General.--No nonimmigrant visa under section
101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)) shall be issued to any alien from a country that
is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the
Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the
Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United
States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to
the safety or national security of the United States. In
making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary
of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of
State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the
heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are
applicable to the nationals of such states.
(b) State Sponsor of International Terrorism Defined.--
(1) In general.--In this section, the term "state sponsor
of international terrorism" means any country the government
of which has been determined by the Secretary of State under
any of the laws specified in paragraph (2) to have repeatedly
provided support for acts of international terrorism.
(2) Laws under which determinations were made.--The laws
specified in this paragraph are the following:
(A) Section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export Administration Act of
1979 (or successor statute).
(B) Section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act.
(C) Section 620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
SEC. 307. DESIGNATION OF PROGRAM COUNTRIES UNDER THE VISA
WAIVER PROGRAM.
(a) Reporting Passport Thefts.--As a condition of a
country's initial designation or continued designation for
participation in the visa waiver program under section 217 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187), the
Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall consider
whether the country reports to the United States Government
on a timely basis the theft of blank passports issued by that
country.
(b) Check of Lookout Databases.--Prior to the admission of
an alien under the visa waiver program established under
section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1187), the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall
determine that the applicant for admission does not appear in
any of the appropriate lookout databases available to
immigration inspectors at the time the alien seeks admission
to the United States.
SEC. 308. TRACKING SYSTEM FOR STOLEN PASSPORTS.
(a) Entering Stolen Passport Identification Numbers in the
Interoperable Data System.--
(1) In general.--Beginning with implementation under
section 202 of the law enforcement and intelligence data
system, not later than 72 hours after receiving notification
of the loss or theft of a United States or foreign passport,
the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as
appropriate, shall enter into such system the corresponding
identification number for the lost or stolen passport.
(2) Entry of information on previously lost or stolen
passports.--To the extent practicable, the Attorney General,
in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall enter into
such system the corresponding identification numbers for the
United States and foreign passports lost or stolen prior to
the implementation of such system.
(b) Transition Period.--Until such time as the law
enforcement and intelligence data system described in section
202 is fully implemented, the Attorney General shall enter
the data described in subsection (a) into an existing data
system being used to determine the admissibility or
deportability of aliens.
SEC. 309. IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS FOR CERTAIN NEWLY ADMITTED
ALIENS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General shall ensure that, immediately upon
the arrival in the United States of an individual admitted
under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1157), or immediately upon an alien being granted
asylum under section 208 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1158), the
alien will be issued an employment authorization document.
Such document shall, at a minimum, contain the fingerprint
and photograph of such alien.
TITLE IV--ADMISSION AND INSPECTION OF ALIENS
SEC. 401. STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF A NORTH AMERICAN
NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The President shall conduct a study of the
feasibility of establishing a North American National
Security Program to enhance the mutual security and safety of
the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
(b) Study Elements.--In conducting the study required by
subsection (a), the officials specified in subsection (a)
shall consider the following:
(1) Preclearance.--The feasibility of establishing a
program enabling foreign national travelers to the United
States to submit voluntarily to a preclearance procedure
established by the Department of State and the Immigration
and Naturalization Service to determine whether such
travelers are admissible to the United States under section
212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182).
Consideration shall be given to the feasibility of expanding
the preclearance program to include the preclearance both of
foreign nationals traveling to Canada and foreign nationals
traveling to Mexico.
(2) Preinspection.--The feasibility of expanding
preinspection facilities at foreign airports as described in
section 235A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1225). Consideration shall be given to the feasibility of
expanding preinspections to foreign nationals on air flights
destined for Canada and Mexico, and the cross training and
funding of inspectors from Canada and Mexico.
(3) Conditions.--A determination of the measures necessary
to ensure that the conditions required by section 235A(a)(5)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225a(a)(5))
are satisfied, including consultation with experts recognized
for their expertise regarding the conditions required by that
section.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the
findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such
[[Page H801]]
sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 402. PASSENGER MANIFESTS.
(a) In General.--Section 231 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1221(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e);
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (i); and
(3) by inserting after "Sec. 231." the following new
subsections: "(a) Arrival Manifests.--For each commercial
vessel or aircraft transporting any person to any seaport or
airport of the United States from any place outside the
United States, it shall be the duty of an appropriate
official specified in subsection (d) to provide to an
immigration officer at that port manifest information about
each passenger, crew member, and other occupant transported
on such vessel or aircraft prior to arrival at that port.
"(b) Departure Manifests.--For each commercial vessel or
aircraft taking passengers on board at any seaport or airport
of the United States, who are destined to any place outside
the United States, it shall be the duty of an appropriate
official specified in subsection (d) to provide an
immigration officer before departure from such port manifest
information about each passenger, crew member, and other
occupant to be transported.
"(c) Contents of Manifest.--The information to be provided
with respect to each person listed on a manifest required to
be provided under subsection (a) or (b) shall include--
"(1) complete name;
"(2) date of birth;
"(3) citizenship;
"(4) sex;
"(5) passport number and country of issuance;
"(6) country of residence;
"(7) United States visa number, date, and place of
issuance, where applicable;
"(8) alien registration number, where applicable;
"(9) United States address while in the United States; and
"(10) such other information the Attorney General, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, and the Secretary
of Treasury determines as being necessary for the
identification of the persons transported and for the
enforcement of the immigration laws and to protect safety and
national security.
"(d) Appropriate Officials Specified.--An appropriate
official specified in this subsection is the master or
commanding officer, or authorized agent, owner, or consignee,
of the commercial vessel or aircraft concerned.
"(e) Deadline for Requirement of Electronic Transmission
of Manifest Information.--Not later than January 1, 2003,
manifest information required to be provided under subsection
(a) or (b) shall be transmitted electronically by the
appropriate official specified in subsection (d) to an
immigration officer.
"(f) Prohibition.--No operator of any private or public
carrier that is under a duty to provide manifest information
under this section shall be granted clearance papers until
the appropriate official specified in subsection (d) has
complied with the requirements of this subsection, except
that in the case of commercial vessels, aircraft, or land
carriers that the Attorney General determines are making
regular trips to the United States, the Attorney General may,
when expedient, arrange for the provision of manifest
information of persons departing the United States at a later
date.
"(g) Penalties Against Noncomplying Shipments, Aircraft,
or Carriers.--If it shall appear to the satisfaction of the
Attorney General that an appropriate official specified in
subsection (d), any public or private carrier, or the agent
of any transportation line, as the case may be, has refused
or failed to provide manifest information required by
subsection (a) or (b), or that the manifest information
provided is not accurate and full based on information
provided to the carrier, such official, carrier, or agent, as
the case may be, shall pay to the Commissioner the sum of
$300 for each person with respect to whom such accurate and
full manifest information is not provided, or with respect to
whom the manifest information is not prepared as prescribed
by this section or by regulations issued pursuant thereto. No
commercial vessel, aircraft, or land carrier shall be granted
clearance pending determination of the question of the
liability to the payment of such penalty, or while it remains
unpaid, and no such penalty shall be remitted or refunded,
except that clearance may be granted prior to the
determination of such question upon the deposit with the
Commissioner of a bond or undertaking approved by the
Attorney General or a sum sufficient to cover such penalty.
"(h) Waiver.--The Attorney General may waive the
requirements of subsection (a) or (b) upon such circumstances
and conditions as the Attorney General may by regulation
prescribe.".
(b) Extension to Land Carriers.--Not later than two years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall
conduct a study regarding the feasibility of extending the
requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 231 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1221), as amended
by subsection (a), to any commercial carrier transporting
persons by land to or from the United States. The study shall
focus on the manner in which such requirement would be
implemented to enhance the national security of the United
States and the efficient cross-border flow of commerce and
persons.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to persons arriving in, or departing
from, the United States on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 403. TIME PERIOD FOR INSPECTIONS.
(a) Repeal of Time Limitation on Inspections.--Section
286(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1356(g)) is amended by striking ", within forty-five minutes
of their presentation for inspection,".
(b) Staffing Levels at Ports of Entry.--The Immigration and
Naturalization Service shall staff ports of entry at such
levels that would be adequate to meet traffic flow and
inspection time objectives efficiently without compromising
the safety and security of the United States. Estimated
staffing levels under workforce models for the Immigration
and Naturalization Service shall be based on the goal of
providing immigration services described in section 286(g) of
such Act within 45 minutes of a passenger's presentation for
inspection.
TITLE V--FOREIGN STUDENTS AND EXCHANGE VISITORS
SEC. 501. FOREIGN STUDENT MONITORING PROGRAM.
(a) Strengthening Requirements for Implementation of
Monitoring Program.--
(1) Monitoring and verification of information.--Section
641(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
"(3) Aliens for whom a visa is required.--The Attorney
General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall
establish an electronic means to monitor and verify--
"(A) the issuance of documentation of acceptance of a
foreign student by an approved institution of higher
education or other approved educational institution, or of an
exchange visitor program participant by a designated exchange
visitor program;
"(B) the transmittal of the documentation referred to in
subparagraph (A) to the Department of State for use by the
Bureau of Consular Affairs;
"(C) the issuance of a visa to a foreign student or an
exchange visitor program participant;
"(D) the admission into the United States of the foreign
student or exchange visitor program participant;
"(E) the notification to an approved institution of higher
education, other approved educational institution, or
exchange visitor program sponsor that the foreign student or
exchange visitor participant has been admitted into the
United States;
"(F) the registration and enrollment of that foreign
student in such approved institution of higher education or
other approved educational institution, or the participation
of that exchange visitor in such designated exchange visitor
program, as the case may be; and
"(G) any other relevant act by the foreign student or
exchange visitor program participant, including a changing of
school or designated exchange visitor program and any
termination of studies or participation in a designated
exchange visitor program.
"(4) Reporting requirements.--Not later than 30 days after
the deadline for registering for classes for an academic term
of an approved institution of higher education or other
approved educational institution for which documentation is
issued for an alien as described in paragraph (3)(A), or the
scheduled commencement of participation by an alien in a
designated exchange visitor program, as the case may be, the
institution or program, respectively, shall report to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service any failure of the
alien to enroll or to commence participation.".
(2) Additional requirements for data to be collected.--
Section 641(c)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372(c)(1)) is
amended--
(A) by striking "and" at the end of subparagraph (C);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting "; and"; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
"(E) the date of entry and port of entry;
"(F) the date of the alien's enrollment in an approved
institution of higher education, other approved educational
institution, or designated exchange visitor program in the
United States;
"(G) the degree program, if applicable, and field of
study; and
"(H) the date of the alien's termination of enrollment and
the reason for such termination (including graduation,
disciplinary action or other dismissal, and failure to re-
enroll).".
(3) Reporting requirements.--Section 641(c) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1372(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
"(5) Reporting requirements.--The Attorney General shall
prescribe by regulation reporting requirements by taking into
account the curriculum calendar of the approved institution
of higher education, other approved educational institution,
or exchange visitor program.".
(b) Information Required of the Visa Applicant.--Prior to
the issuance of a visa under subparagraph (F), subparagraph
(M), or, with respect to an alien seeking to attend
[[Page H802]]
an approved institution of higher education, subparagraph (J)
of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)), each alien applying for such visa
shall provide to a consular officer the following
information:
(1) The alien's address in the country of origin.
(2) The names and addresses of the alien's spouse,
children, parents, and siblings.
(3) The names of contacts of the alien in the alien's
country of residence who could verify information about the
alien.
(4) Previous work history, if any, including the names and
addresses of employers.
(c) Transitional Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act and until such time as the system
described in section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act (as amended by subsection
(a)) is fully implemented, the following requirements shall
apply:
(A) Restrictions on issuance of visas.--A visa may not be
issued to an alien under subparagraph (F), subparagraph (M),
or, with respect to an alien seeking to attend an approved
institution of higher education, subparagraph (J) of section
101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)), unless--
(i) the Department of State has received from an approved
institution of higher education or other approved educational
institution electronic evidence of documentation of the
alien's acceptance at that institution; and
(ii) the consular officer has adequately reviewed the
applicant's visa record.
(B) Notification upon visa issuance.--Upon the issuance of
a visa under section 101(a)(15) (F) or (M) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F) or (M)) to an
alien, the Secretary of State shall transmit to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service a notification of the
issuance of that visa.
(C) Notification upon admission of alien.--The Immigration
and Naturalization Service shall notify the approved
institution of higher education or other approved educational
institution that an alien accepted for such institution or
program has been admitted to the United States.
(D) Notification of failure of enrollment.--Not later than
30 days after the deadline for registering for classes for an
academic term, the approved institution of higher education
or other approved educational institution shall inform the
Immigration and Naturalization Service through data-sharing
arrangements of any failure of any alien described in
subparagraph (C) to enroll or to commence participation.
(2) Requirement to submit list of approved institutions.--
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General shall provide the Secretary of
State with a list of all approved institutions of higher
education or other approved educational institutions that are
authorized to receive nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)
(F) or (M) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F) or (M)).
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection.
SEC. 502. REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES
AUTHORIZED TO ENROLL OR SPONSOR CERTAIN
NONIMMIGRANTS.
(a) Periodic Review of Compliance.--The Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization, in consultation with the
Secretary of Education, shall conduct periodic reviews of the
institutions certified to receive nonimmigrants under section
101(a)(15) (F), (M), or (J) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F), (M), or (J)). Each
review shall determine whether the institutions are in
compliance with--
(1) recordkeeping and reporting requirements to receive
nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15) (F), (M), or (J) of
that Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F), (M), or (J)); and
(2) recordkeeping and reporting requirements under section
641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372).
(b) Periodic Review of Sponsors of Exchange Visitors.--
(1) Requirement for reviews.--The Secretary of State shall
conduct periodic reviews of the entities designated to
sponsor exchange visitor program participants under section
101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)).
(2) Determinations.--On the basis of reviews of entities
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall determine whether
the entities are in compliance with--
(A) recordkeeping and reporting requirements to receive
nonimmigrant exchange visitor program participants under
section 101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)); and
(B) recordkeeping and reporting requirements under section
641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372).
(c) Effect of Failure To Comply.--Failure of an institution
or other entity to comply with the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements to receive nonimmigrant students or
exchange visitor program participants under section
101(a)(15) (F), (M), or (J) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) (F), (M), or (J)), or
section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372), may, at the
election of the Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization or the Secretary of State, result in the
termination, suspension, or limitation of the institution's
approval to receive such students or the termination of the
other entity's designation to sponsor exchange visitor
program participants, as the case may be.
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 601. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR IMPROVEMENT IN BORDER
CROSSING IDENTIFICATION CARDS.
Section 104(b)(2) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is
amended by striking "5 years" and inserting "6 years".
SEC. 602. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STUDY.
(a) Requirement for Study.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility and
utility of implementing a requirement that each nonimmigrant
alien in the United States submit to the Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization each year a current address
and, where applicable, the name and address of an employer.
(2) Nonimmigrant alien defined.--In paragraph (1), the term
"nonimmigrant alien" means an alien described in section
101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)).
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the results of the study under
subsection (a). The report shall include the Comptroller
General's findings, together with any recommendations that
the Comptroller General considers appropriate.
SEC. 603. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.
(a) International Electronic Data System.--The Secretary of
State and the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization,
in consultation with the Assistant to the President for
Homeland Security, shall jointly conduct a study of the
alternative approaches (including the costs of, and
procedures necessary for, each alternative approach) for
encouraging or requiring Canada, Mexico, and countries
treated as visa waiver program countries under section 217 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act to develop an
intergovernmental network of interoperable electronic data
systems that--
(1) facilitates real-time access to that country's law
enforcement and intelligence information that is needed by
the Department of State and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to screen visa applicants and
applicants for admission into the United States to identify
aliens who are inadmissible or deportable under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.);
(2) is interoperable with the electronic data system
implemented under section 202; and
(3) performs in accordance with implementation of the
technology standard referred to in section 202(a).
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the
Attorney General shall submit to the appropriate committees
of Congress a report setting forth the findings of the study
conducted under subsection (a).
SEC. 604. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose
requirements that are inconsistent with the North American
Free Trade Agreement or to require additional documents for
aliens for whom documentary requirements are waived under
section 212(d)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(4)(B)).
SEC. 605. ANNUAL REPORT ON ALIENS WHO FAIL TO APPEAR AFTER
RELEASE ON OWN RECOGNIZANCE.
(a) Requirement for Report.--Not later than January 15 of
each year, the Attorney General shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report on the total
number of aliens who, during the preceding year, failed to
attend a removal proceeding after having been arrested
outside a port of entry, served a notice to appear under
section 239(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1229(a)(1)), and released on the alien's own
recognizance. The report shall also take into account the
number of cases in which there were defects in notices of
hearing or the service of notices of hearing, together with a
description and analysis of the effects, if any, that the
defects had on the attendance of aliens at the proceedings.
(b) Initial Report.--Notwithstanding the time for
submission of the annual report provided in subsection (a),
the report for 2001 shall be submitted not later than 6
months after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 606. RETENTION OF NONIMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATIONS BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
The Department of State shall retain, for a period of seven
years from the date of application, every application for a
nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) in a form that
will be admissible in the courts of the United States or in
administrative proceeding, including removal proceedings
under such Act, without regard to whether the application was
approved or denied.
SEC. 607. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CLASSIFICATION PETITION
AND LABOR CERTIFICATION FILINGS.
(a) In General.--Section 245(i)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)) is amended--
[[Page H803]]
(1) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking "on or before April 30,
2001; or" and inserting "on or before the earlier of
November 30, 2002, and the date that is 120 days after the
date on which the Attorney General first promulgates final or
interim final regulations to carry out the amendments made by
section 607(a) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry
Reform Act of 2002; or"; and
(B) in clause (ii) by striking "on or before such date;
and" and inserting "before August 15, 2001;";
(2) in subparagraph (C), by adding "and" at the end; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
"(D) who, in the case of a beneficiary of a petition for
classification described in subparagraph (B)(i) that was
filed after April 30, 2001, demonstrates that--
"(i) the familial relationship that is the basis of such
petition for classification existed before August 15, 2001;
or
"(ii) the application for labor certification under
section 212(a)(5)(A) that is the basis of such petition for
classification was filed before August 15, 2001;".
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (114 Stat. 2762A-142 et
seq.), as enacted into law by section 1(a)(2) of Public Law
106-553.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 365, the
resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) opposed to the motion?
Mr. NADLER. No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.
Mr. TANCREDO. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I claim the time of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to speak in opposition.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Did not the Chair recognize me following his
statement and I asked unanimous consent pursuant to that recognition?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado was on his feet,
and the Chair recognizes for the 20 minutes, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in that case I will ask the gentleman from
Wisconsin if he will split the time with the minority party.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman from New York yield?
Mr. NADLER. Certainly.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Because this bill is fairly complicated, Mr.
Speaker, I have a statement that may be a little bit more than 10
minutes, but I am happy to cede whatever time I have left to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Since September 11, we have learned how deeply vulnerable our
immigration system is to exploitation by aliens who wish to harm
Americans. H.R. 1885 contains House-passed language of H.R. 3525 that
makes needed changes to our immigration laws to fight terrorism and to
prevent such exploitation. It has strong bipartisan support in the
other body. The House has already passed the core of this legislation
by wide margins. On May 21, 2001, the House passed a 245(i) extension
by a vote of 336 to 43. On December 19, 2001, the House passed the
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act by voice vote.
I will outline some of this bill's most significant provisions. Most
importantly, by October 2003, the legislation requires the Attorney
General and Secretary of State to issue machine-readable, tamper-
resistant visas that use standardized biometric identifiers. This will
serve a number of important goals. First, it will allow INS inspectors
at ports of entry to determine whether a visa properly identifies a
visa holder and thus combat identity fraud. Second, it will make visas
harder to counterfeit. Third, in conjunction with the installation of
scanners at ports of entry to read the visas, the INS can track the
arrival and departure of aliens and generate a reliable measure of
aliens who overstay their visas. As we have all learned, some of the
September 11 terrorists were staying in the United States on expired
visas.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1885 extends the same biometric identifier
requirements to passports from visa-waiver program countries. The
necessity for this was demonstrated when our military found blank
European passports in abandoned al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan. We must
ensure that passports presented to the INS inspectors are not
counterfeit, altered, or being used by imposters.
The bill thus requires that aliens seeking to enter the United States
under the visa-waiver program with passports issued after October of
2003 must possess tamper-resistant, machine-readable passports with the
same biometric identifiers as our visas.
The bill also requires that within 72 hours after notification by a
foreign government of a stolen passport, the Attorney General shall
identify its identification number into a data system accessible to INS
inspectors at ports of entry. In addition, the Secretary of State and
Attorney General shall consider, in deciding whether to keep a country
in the visa-waiver program, whether its government reports to us on a
timely basis the theft of its blank passports.
Building upon the enhanced data-sharing requirements of the USA
Patriot Act, the bill directs our law enforcement agencies and
intelligence community to share information with the State Department
and the INS relevant to the admissibility and deportability of aliens.
This information will be made available in an electronic database which
will be searchable based on the linguistically sensitive algorithms
that account for variations in name spellings and transliterations.
This will result in lookout lists that are much more thorough and
prevent terrorists who threaten our Nation from obtaining U.S. visas or
entering our country.
As the Border Patrol succeeds in controlling the border, more aliens
take a chance at penetrating the ports of entry, placing an ever-
increasing strain on the limited staff of INS inspectors. Likewise, INS
investigations units have long been denied adequate personnel. The bill
helps fill these critical gaps. It authorizes appropriations to hire at
least 200 full-time inspectors and at least 200 full-time investigators
each year through fiscal year 2006.
Another long-standing problem at the INS is the low pay for Border
Patrol agents and INS inspectors. This has led many trained Border
Patrol agents and inspectors to leave the INS for other law enforcement
agencies offering better pay, such as the air marshals. Something is
wrong when former Border Patrol agents make up 75 percent of the first
air marshals class. This bill authorizes appropriations to increase the
pay of Border Patrol agents and inspectors in order to help the INS
retain its best people.
The bill provides that aliens from countries that sponsor
international terrorism cannot receive nonimmigrant visas until it has
been determined that they do not pose a threat to the safety of
Americans or the national security of the U.S.
Mr. Speaker, U.S. embassies and consulates abroad will be required to
establish terrorist lookout committees that meet monthly in order to
ensure that the names of known terrorists are routinely and
consistently brought to the attention of consular officials, America's
first line of defense.
With the same goal in mind, the bill requires that all consular
officers responsible for adjudicating visa petitions receive
specialized training and effective screening of visa applicants who
pose a potential threat to the safety and security of the United
States.
The bill strengthens the foreign student tracking system by requiring
that it track the acceptance of aliens by educational institutions, the
issuance of visas to the aliens, and then admission into the United
States of the aliens, the notification of education institutions of the
admission of aliens
[[Page H804]]
slated to attend them, and the enrollment of the aliens at the
institutions. No longer will terrorists be able to enter the U.S. on
student visas with the INS never knowing that they failed to show up at
school.
The bill requires that each commercial vessel or aircraft arriving in
the U.S. provide, prior to arrival at the port of entry, manifest
information about each passenger and crew member. Starting in 2003, the
information will have to be provided electronically. Prearrival of
manifests allow much of the INS's screening work to be done before
arrival. This not only speeds processing for arriving passengers, but
gives INS inspectors more time to conduct background checks on and to
interview passengers.
Finally, the bill requires the President to conduct a study of the
feasibility of establishing a North American National Security Program
to enhance the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada,
and Mexico.
Finally, H.R. 1885 contains a compromise reached with the other body
on the future of section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
No one will be entirely satisfied with this compromise; however, it
reflects a judicious balancing of the many divergent and deeply held
views Members hold on 245(i).
When Congress passed the LIFE Act in December 2000, we made a promise
to give U.S. citizens and permanent residents at least 4 months time to
file immigrant visa petitions for their relatives using section 245(i).
This promise was not fulfilled because the INS was typically unable to
issue implementing regulations until March 2001.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow qualifying illegal aliens to unify
section 245(i) as long as they have had green card petitions filed on
their behalf by the earlier of November 30, 2002, or 4 months after the
date the Attorney General issues implementing regulations. It also
requires that aliens must have entered into the family relationships
qualifying them for permanent residence by August 14, 2001. With this
compromise, we have signaled that 245(i) will not become a permanent
part of our immigration law and that aliens should not base their
future actions on the assumption that it will be. I urge my colleagues
to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, as is usually the case, did an
excellent job in explaining the aspects of this particular piece of
legislation. What he said was, for a long period of time, that we are
dealing with an act that has been referred to as the Enhanced Border
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. He spent 90 percent of the time
explaining what that act is all about, and enhancing the visa
protection provisions of the law is something with which I
wholeheartedly agree. As a matter of fact, this particular part of the
bill is something with which the entire House agreed because we passed
it already. This part of the bill is done. It is finished. It passed
this House by voice vote and went over to the Senate some time ago.
So then what are we dealing with here? It is not, in fact, the
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act, because that is done, it
is finished, it is over with. What we are really doing here, and the
only reason why we are here today, is to provide amnesty, amnesty for
people who are here illegally. That is why we are on the floor today.
It is not for the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act.
{time} 1445
It is done. It is being held up by one Member on the other side. That
is their problem, not ours.
This will not enhance our ability to get that law passed; this only
makes it much more difficult because, of course, this does exactly the
wrong thing. Regardless of how narrowly we try to define the scope of
this amnesty act, it is in fact still amnesty. What we are telling the
world and telling people who are here, came here legally, waded through
the process, did all the right things, what we are telling them is, Do
you know what? You are a bunch of suckers for doing it.
What we are telling every single person all around the world who is
in line, waiting, filling out the applications, going to the embassies
and doing it right, what we are telling them is, You are a bunch of
suckers. Here is the way to get into the United States and to get in
the line for citizenship: Sneak in. Stay under the radar screen, get
married, and even a bogus marriage document will do; because believe
me, plenty of those developed, sham marriages, the last time we did
this; Get a job, or at least present to the INS some indication that
you have been employed; all of these things. Just do this, sneak in
under the radar, stay here long enough, and do not worry, we will give
you amnesty. That is what we are doing in this bill. That is the real
purpose of the bill.
As I say, all the rest of this stuff we have already passed. We are
here for only one purpose, to grant amnesty. Again, we have done it. We
did it in 1986. I assure the Members that the result of this will not
be to have just simply the legally residing citizens of the country and
all the rest of the folks who our hearts can go out for, it will not be
to give them a better chance at the American dream. What it will do is
exactly the opposite thing we want to accomplish here.
We want people to come into the United States legally. That is why we
set up a system. Admittedly, it is a flawed system, because it is
turned over to the Mickey Mouse agency of the Federal Government we
call the INS. But it is, nonetheless, the system we have established,
that in order to come to the United States, they must have our
permission. They come by visa or come in under some other status, but
they do so legally.
After all, we purport to be a nation of laws; we say that all the
time. But this is absolutely the antithesis of that. This is saying,
Break the law, come here illegally, and we will in fact reward you for
it. This is why we have to vote no on this resolution, because it has
absolutely nothing to do with enhanced border security and visa entry
reforms. We have already passed it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler), and I ask unanimous consent that he may be
permitted to yield portions of that time to other Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1885 combines the Enhanced Border Security and Visa
Entry Reform Act with a short extension of section 245(i) of the
immigration laws.
I plan to support this legislation, in part because the border
security piece will strengthen the security of our borders and enhance
our ability to deter potential terrorists while balancing the needs of
law enforcement. We have been vigilant in protecting the civil rights
upon which this Nation depends.
As for section 245(i), we should be extending it permanently.
Instead, this bill provides only a modest extension. In fact, what the
bill gives with one hand it actually takes away with the other. While
it appears to extend section 245(i) until November 30, 2002, many
people will not qualify because of the additional requirement that
eligibility for section 245(i) be established prior to August 15, 2001,
last year. Unfortunately, this bill is insufficient in time and stingy
in scope.
If the last extension is any guide, H.R. 1885 will cause great panic
among immigrants, and create an opportunity for fraudulent immigration
advisors or "notarios."
In contrast, a full restoration of section 245(i) to what it was
before 1998 would allow the thousands of law-abiding immigrants who are
on the brink of becoming permanent residents to apply for their green
cards while in the United States. It would allow wives, husbands, and
children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to stay together in
the United States, rather than being forced to leave the country,
sometimes for years, to apply for their green card.
I cannot understand how anyone who claims to support family values,
who thinks that it is useful for children to have two parents together,
not one here and one in another country for
[[Page H805]]
several years, could oppose the permanent extension of section 245(i).
Section 245(i) is not an amnesty for immigrants, it is simply a
device to ensure that while permanent residents married to American
citizens, people who have completed all their requirements, are waiting
for the bureaucracy of the INS to complete their work, they not be
forced to leave their families and go abroad for months or years.
If the administration and House leadership are serious about helping
immigrants and are serious about our relationship with Mexico, then we
should be passing immigration laws that do far more than this bill
does; at the very least, a permanent extension, not a mere 2-year
extension of section 245(i).
While I support this legislation, we should be considering a full
restoration of section 245(i). We will continue to push for such an
extension until the administration and the leadership of the House
agree to it and we accomplish full restoration of section 245(i).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goode).
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1885. I
supported H.R. 3525 when we focused on border security, but H.R. 1885,
with its amnesty, reminds me of a bowl of ice cream, and I am an ice
cream liker. H.R. 3525 was a bowl of ice cream. When they added the
amnesty provisions to it, they rammed a hot poker into that bowl of ice
cream, and it all melted and it was not fit to eat.
H.R. 1885 rewards law-breakers. They can walk across the Rio Grande,
they can walk across the Canadian border, and thousands who have waited
in line, they should be told, You should not have waited. You should
not have tried to follow the law. Avoid the interview in your native
country, just walk on in. Breaking the law does not matter.
If we pass this today and it passes the other body and becomes law,
they will say, Uncle Sam is on our side. In the southwestern United
States, there are some who take the position that, We did not cross the
border, the border crossed us.
I want to preserve our borders as they are today. I do not want to go
back to pre-1845. If we pass legislation like this, the southwestern
United States could become like Quebec. We do not need separatist
movements in this country, we need to stand for the United States of
America as it is today.
I urge Members to defeat H.R. 1885.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes, the balance
of my time, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, the one important feature of this legislation which I
support and which makes it stand out from all of the other provisions
is that which has to do with tightening up on those who have overstayed
their visas. As we know, many of the terrorists who hit the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon were people who were identified later as having
overstayed their visas, so that by itself attracts me to support this
piece of legislation.
But I have another reason why I may vote against this, even though I
am one of the best friends that Mexico has and that the border control
advocates have in this entire question; that is, I have a personal
pique with the Government of Mexico.
Right after September 11, I think in October, when our economy was
reeling with the adverse effects of those attacks, OPEC, and I am
talking about OPEC, they decided to cut production of oil, meaning
higher prices down the line for the American consumer. They did this in
the face of an economy that was losing strength by the minute.
Now, I took heart when Mexico decided not to go along with OPEC, and
I began to applaud our neighbor to the south. Then, all of a sudden,
there was a change, and Mexico decided to join with OPEC against the
United States in cutting oil production. The price rises that we see
right now happening at the pump are a direct result of the OPEC-guided
decision with which Mexico joined, and will bring about massive
dislocation to our gas prices in the next few months.
This plays heavily with me in the final determination of this issue.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant but in absolute opposition to the
legislation we debate here today. My friend, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), made the salient point, echoed by my
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode): Border security
measures have been passed in previous legislation. The operative
provision we are dealing with in this House at this time is amnesty.
There is a fundamental disconnection, and I welcome my friend, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) speaking of family values. Yes,
everyone, regardless of political philosophy or partisan stripe, should
champion family values. But then, should we also champion a disdain for
the law? For here is what is transpiring today: This will reward
illegal immigrants by granting them a benefit simply because they broke
our laws and did not get caught, or more appropriately, the laws were
not enforced.
Mr. Speaker, I believe there is still a tremendous opportunity to
work with the Republic of Mexico, to work with President Fox, to set up
a reasonable, rational, accountable means to see who travels back and
forth across our southern border. I daresay the same should apply to
our neighbors to the north in Canada.
But, Mr. Speaker, we are a nation at war. In the midst of this
conflict, at this time, in this place, why would we seek to dilute the
laws of this Nation with respect to sovereignty?
Mr. Speaker, lest the propagandists of the politically correct
deliberately distort, let me make this clear: I welcome constructive
dialogue. I welcome an opportunity for a full accounting of those who
come here for economic opportunity. But I categorically reject the
message this House will send today if we say, Forget about the law,
come on in. You did not get caught. Congratulations.
That is what this legislation is about, and that is why I oppose it.
At the very least, Mr. Speaker, the $1,000 payment from each individual
who comes here, every bit of that $1,000 payment from all the
individuals should go to try to strengthen our borders.
But Mr. Speaker, I would go further. Because we are a nation at war,
this House and this government should seriously consider a moratorium
on immigration until we put in place biometric devices so we know
exactly who is coming into this country, whether from our southern
border, our northern border, or via shipping containers, which we can
only eyeball right now to the extent of 2 or 3 percent.
If nothing else, the American people understand we are a Nation at
war, and we dare not send messages to terrorist states that somehow we
will dilute our enforcement. No, the contrary is true: We need to
enforce the laws, and we need to work productively with the Republic of
Mexico and others.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, I am more worried about
bombs in the containers than about immigrants in the containers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner), a great supporter of administration reform.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I thank the Chair for bringing us this bill. I speak in favor of
the bill, and I want to talk to part of the bill that has not been
fully vetted yet.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth), if he is interested in security at a time of war, let us
remember that in this bill we have 1,000 extra INS inspectors
authorized to help us secure the border, 200 INS inspectors and
investigators each year added for the next 5 years.
{time} 1500
I will tell my colleagues, I represent the biggest city on the
southern border, San Diego. Soon I will represent the whole California
border with Mexico. We are interested in securing at this time of war;
but we are also interested in making sure our economy stays strong, and
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) ought to
[[Page H806]]
know, since his own State is also involved in this, that the legal
crosser from Mexico, the shopper, the family member, the person going
to school, the legal crosser, sustains our border economy to a great
degree.
My communities in Calexico and Tecate and San Diego rely 90 percent
on the legal crosser to keep our economy going. We can do both, Mr.
Speaker. We can have the security that we need, and we can have the
free movement that our economy also requires. That means we need more
people and we need better technology to guard the borders.
That is what this bill is moving toward. We are moving toward more
inspectors so we can make sure that we keep out illegal people, drugs
and terrorists; but we also need for people not to have to wait 3, 4,
5, 8 hours at the border for a legal crosser to go to school legally,
to shop legally, to see their family members legally. That is what the
border communities are interested in. Yes, security; yes, protection.
But let us have that binational culture that is so much a part of our
southern border, not just cut off at this time of emergency.
We can do both, Mr. Speaker. We can keep the security. We can keep
the flow for commerce that is necessary.
I support this bill.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is certainly well known as an
expert on this issue.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
legislation which would permit those people who are in this country
illegally to thwart our laws and to become legal residents of our
country, thus insulting all of the immigrants who have obeyed our laws
and are standing in line throughout the world. The parliamentary
shenanigans we are witnessing today to try to get this legislation
through to extend amnesty to these illegal aliens is unworthy of this
body, this representative body, and is bound to confuse our
constituents.
What this is about is an amnesty for illegal immigrants. It is not
about strengthening the border. It is about making the efforts that we
have already taken to strengthen the border meaningless by granting
amnesty to people who are in this country illegally.
The administration and Members of this body talk a good game about
increasing our national security while here right now undermining this
country's ability to find and deport terrorists who are among us.
If this vote today passes, we make the INS reforms already passed by
this House meaningless. Why demand that aliens receive biometric ID
cards, as we just heard about, or strengthen the border guards when
illegal aliens will be able to pay $1,000 and forge some paperwork and
become a citizen? What good does it do to perform a home country
background check on an alien when we cannot perform a home country
background check on an illegal alien?
I might remind this body that 245(i) only rewards illegal immigrants.
It can talk about families being separated. I believe that if families
are separated and someone is here illegally they should go home to
their home country to be with their home family; but if they are here
illegally, that is different than if they are here legally. We actually
have in place now programs in the United States Government to help
people who are here legally to be reunited with their family.
No, the only thing we are doing today is rewarding those people who
have broken our laws and come here and overstayed their visas and are
here illegally. We are rewarding them above the people who have been
standing in line throughout the world, hoping to come to the United
States by obeying our laws. If aliens are here illegally, they should
return home to their own countries and go through the same process that
we demand of people who are trying to immigrate legally here. They
should have the background checks so that we can cut off the terrorists
before they come here.
By allowing this to happen today, by saying if someone is here
illegally that they can stay in our country and not have that home
country check on them before they arrive here, we are bound to let
terrorists through the network.
We are weakening our protection of our country. I stood on this floor
in 1996 and again in 1997 and begged this body to consider our national
security when rewarding illegal immigration. I can understand why
people might have thought that I was reacting then; but in light of
what has happened since September 11, we should never permit a
weakening of the investigation and background checks of illegal
immigrants into this country.
One last point is, by granting amnesty to these people who are in our
country illegally, we are asking for another massive flow of illegal
immigration into this country. It is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong.
We should vote against it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) and all of my colleagues, and I want to thank the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for putting this on the agenda
and President Bush for having asked, as well, that it be put on the
agenda.
The legislation is important, does a number of important things in
the field of hiring and training government personnel and
appropriations for improvement in technology and infrastructure,
measures for access to and coordination of law enforcement and other
information, implementation of an integrated entry and exit data
system, machine readable tamper resistant entry and exit documents, a
whole gamut of very important improvements in the area of immigration
control.
Some of my very good friends, and I have the highest esteem and
admiration for my colleagues on the floor today, but they have been
seeking to make this legislation into something that it is not with
regard to 245(i). Section 245(i) only benefits people who are eligible
for lawful permanent residence in the United States. If they are
eligible for lawful permanent residence in the United States, then they
can utilize 245(i). In other words, they do not have to leave the
country to become a lawful permanent residence of the United States.
That is the issue with 245(i).
This is a temporary extension of that. It is a commonsense measure.
Why is it supported by an overwhelming consensus of political
viewpoints and the President of the United States? Because it is a
common sense measure. A constituent of mine recently told me that
should not be controversial, that is a commonsense measure; and I have
been calling it that ever since, Mr. Speaker.
So that is why I am confident that today the national consensus,
obviously in our democracy as in all democracies we can never have
unanimity, and I have great friends, great friends on the other side of
this issue; but there is a national consensus on behalf of commonsense
measures, like if someone is eligible for permanent residence they have
to leave the country in order to get it. That is what we are discussing
with regard to 245(i), Mr. Speaker; and this underlying legislation, as
I said before, contains other very important measures that I hope and
expect and certainly would urge my colleagues to support today.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for yielding me the time; and notwithstanding
some of the good features in this bill, I rise in opposition to H.R.
1885 due to the inclusion of provisions to extend amnesty to those who
have broken our immigration laws, the so-called 245(i).
We are, on one hand, deporting some who have violated the term of
their visas; and with the other hand, with this legislation, we are
rewarding those who have flaunted our laws.
We should be pursuing vigorous enforcement of our borders and
increased diligence in scrutinizing individuals from foreign countries.
This provision does not do that. The objective of our policy should be
to control the flow of illegal immigrants and ensure our national
security, not rewarding those who have violated the law. Section 245(i)
empowers visa holders to flout the law and game the system. They will
know that the terms of their visa
[[Page H807]]
are irrelevant because they can pay a $1,000 fine to convert from
illegal status to legal status.
It also sends a mistaken message to thousands of people who are
following the legal immigration channels to the United States
Government, and it sends a signal that the United States Government
does not take its immigration laws seriously. This can only foster more
illegal immigration by adding an incentive to stay in the U.S.
illegally.
Under current law, those who overstay their visas are penalized.
Overstaying by 180 days carries a penalty of being barred from
reentering the United States for 3 years, and those who overstay for
more than a year are barred from reentering the United States for 10
years. These penalties are not arbitrary. They are there to send a
signal that we will enforce our visa laws.
This extension of 245(i) provisions sends the opposite signal. I want
to also add, and this is an issue that concerns me about this
legislation, and it relates to the way things have changed since
September 11.
There were, as I understand it, 114,000 illegal immigrants from the
Middle East according to the Census Bureau after the time of September
11. The Justice Department recently detailed an effort to apprehend and
interrogate more than 6,000 immigrants from countries identified as al
Qaeda strongholds. Security officials have indicated there are sleeper
cells of terrorists already residing in the United States awaiting
terrorist assignments.
I ask the question, will this bill allow some of those sleepers to
slip through the cracks by paying $1,000 and readjusting their status?
I believe we simply do not know. Despite the best intention of
officials with the administration and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, I feel that the risk to the United States is
too high and that we should not be relaxing our laws.
Finally, I would like to say that I object to the manner in which
this subject is being considered today.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to H.R. 1885 due to the inclusion of
provisions to extend amnesty to those who have broken our immigration
laws--commonly referred to as an extension of 245(i). This provision is
at conflict with everything we are trying to do to enhance our border
security and ensure compliance with U.S. immigration laws. With one
hand we are deporting some who have violated the terms of their visa
and with the other hand we are rewarding those who have flaunted our
laws.
We should be pursuing vigorous enforcement of our borders and
increased diligence in scrutinizing individuals from foreign countries.
This provision does not do that. The objective of our policy should be
to control the flow of illegal immigrants and ensure our national
security, not rewarding those who violate the law. The extension of
245(i) does not strengthen our immigration policy. Instead, it weakens
it. 245(i) empowers visa holders to flout the law and "game" the
system. They will know that the terms of their visa are irrelevant
because they can pay a $1,000 fine to convert from illegal status to
legal status.
It also sends the mistaken message to thousands of people who are
following legal immigration channels that the U.S. Government does not
take seriously our immigration laws. This will only foster increased
illegal immigration by adding an incentive to stay in the United States
illegally.
Under current law, those who overstay their visa are penalized.
Overstaying by 180 days carries a penalty of being barred from
reentering the United States for 3 years and those who overstay legal
permission to be in the United States by a year or more are prohibited
from reentering the country for 10 years. These penalties aren't
arbitrary. They are designed to let visa holders know we are law-
abiding nation. They are designed to compel nonimmigrants to respect
the terms of their visa. A 10-year prohibition is supposed to signal
how serious we are about enforcing our laws.
Law-abiding nonimmigrants understand this. They are waiting for their
family members and loved ones to join them as soon as they are granted
legal permission. But 245(i) gives unlawful nonimmigrants a leg-up from
those that are patiently waiting for the system to work. I think we
should give a higher priority for citizenship to those who have
demonstrated their willingness to live by our laws. 245(i) does just
the opposite.
In addition to my concerns about the duplicitous nature of extending
245(i), this bill poses a significant national security risk. This bill
does not take into account how our world has changed since September
11, 2001. It makes no provision to exclude individuals who are here
illegally from countries that sponsor or host terrorism.
Earlier this year the Census Bureau reported 114,000 illegal
immigrants from the Middle East were present in the United States. The
Justice Department recently detailed an effort to apprehend and
interrogate more than 6,000 immigrants from countries identified as al
Qaeda strongholds. Security officials have indicated that there are
"sleeper cells" of terrorist already residing in the United States
awaiting their terrorism assignments. Will this bill allow some of
these sleepers to slip through the cracks and readjust their status? We
simply do not know.
The threat to America still exists. We are still on heightened alert
overseas and here at home. Let us not be naive in our diplomatic
efforts which may have the unintended consequence of threatening all of
the good work that has been accomplished regarding homeland security.
I also object to the manner in which this subject is being considered
today. As a Member of Congress, I would like the opportunity to amend
this bill to have a straight up or down vote on whether or not we
should extend 245(i). My guess is that if we had a straight up or down
vote on this matter today, caution would prevail and the extension of
amnesty for illegal immigrants would fail.
We should at least be permitted to vote to restrict granting amnesty
to those that may pose a security risk.
I have introduced, H.R. 3286, which would place a temporary
moratorium on all immigration from 13 countries known to house and
train terrorists until the Attorney General certifies that the
technological and security enhancing measures Congress has approved
have been fully implemented. This is prudent policy because it takes
into account the real terrorism threat from countries like Afghanistan,
Algeria, Syria, Lybia, and the United Arab Emirates as we work to
improve our immigration system.
The bill before us today simply asks Congress to "rubber stamp"
amnesty for illegal immigrants across the board. As I represent my
constituents, I cannot in good conscience go along with this. It is for
these reasons that I plan on voting against this bill and I encourage
my colleagues who are concerned about our national security to vote
against this bill as well.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Cannon).
(Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) for bringing a final version of this important enhanced
border security bill to the floor today.
This bill contains many important provisions that will increase the
funding and training for those charged with securing our borders. It
will upgrade technology and produce counterfeit-proof visa documents.
It is a good step toward more effective enforcement; and to answer the
gentleman's question who just spoke a moment ago, the extension of
245(i) is not going to allow people who are in sleeper cells to stay.
The enforcement is going to be much better effected in the course we
have proposed in this bill today.
I want to address two particular criticisms of the temporary
extension of section 245(i) contained in the bill today which are
simply false. Opponents have attempted to characterize this provision
as amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and, secondly, a threat to
our national security. Neither allegation can be further from the
truth.
This is not amnesty. Section 245(i) benefits a limited pool of people
that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has already determined
should be able to become permanent legal residents based on their
family or employment relationships. The issue is not whether these
immigrants are eligible or not. The issue is not when they could become
United States permanent residents, but rather, where they may apply to
become permanent U.S. residents.
Section 245(i) could be used only by certain prospective lawful
permanent residents under close and careful scrutiny of Federal
authorities. People using section 245(i) are required to be otherwise
eligible to become permanent residents. The eligibility requirements
for those applying under section 245(i) are identical to the screening
process for those applying abroad.
This is no threat to national security. Not a single one of the
September 11 attackers was eligible for adjustment under 245(i), but
some were issued
[[Page H808]]
valid documents by our overworked U.S. consulates overseas rather than
being screened here in the United States by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, which has the technology and the resources to
do that screening.
Mr. Speaker, seeing my time is about to expire, let me urge my
colleagues to support this bill. I think it is a good bill and it
advances our interests.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) has 4\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) has 1 minute remaining and the right to close.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If somebody stood on this floor and experienced that old deja vu
thing, when we talk about deja vu, I think we have seen this before, we
have, in fact. It is called the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry
Reform Act, but we passed it. So please do not be confused by the
rhetoric on the floor here that it is centered on that part of the
bill.
{time} 1515
It is a good part of the bill. I support that part of the bill. But
there is no reason to support it again because, guess what, we passed
it. It is done. It is over there.
What we have here is the same wording, they drug that back up, and
stuck amnesty onto it so as to essentially, I would guess, well, I do
not know, and I will not judge the motive, but I will simply say that
it is somewhat confusing for Members when they think that they might be
coming up here to vote on enhanced border security and, in fact, of
course, they have already done it.
In terms of whether or not we can rely upon the INS to accurately and
conscientiously do the background work to determine whether or not the
people who are making application are in fact legitimate in their
request, let me just bring to the attention of my colleagues the most
recent in a series of incredible, scathing reports about the INS. This
one happens to be February 15. A GAO report finds pervasive and serious
problems with immigration benefit fraud. In just one part here, a 90
percent fraud rate was found in the review of a targeted group of 5,000
petitions. These are the same kinds of things we are talking about
here.
A 90 percent fraud rate. A follow-up analysis of about 1,500
petitions found only one was not fraudulent. One. And we are turning
this task, the task of determining who is going to be able to come into
the country, whether or not they have been truthful in the information
they have brought to the INS, we are entrusting this entity with that
challenge.
It is unfortunate, but true, that in the past when we did this, when
we had another amnesty, admittedly broader in scope, but nonetheless an
amnesty program in 1986, and one of the individuals who ended up as a
perpetrator in the original bombings of the Federal building in New
York, the office tower in New York, was someone who slipped through the
cracks of that particular amnesty. He had been given amnesty on an
agricultural visa because, of course, he lied and nobody checked, and
nobody cared.
And it is not that much different today. It is astounding to me that
we are on this floor debating this possibility of amnesty and turning
it over to the INS to have them determine whether or not this is a
legal applicant or a legitimate applicant. They have not the foggiest
idea.
I assure my colleagues that when this passes, if this passes, and
passes the other body, there will be a flood of applications. There
will be literally millions. I would venture to guess that there will be
millions of applications filed, and then the INS will have the
responsibility of opening up the box at some period of time and going,
"Gee whiz, what are we going to do with this?" I know exactly what
they will do. They will get out this big stamp that says "Approved"
and stamp it and dump it over here, because that is what they have done
in the past.
To suggest there is some degree of true conscientiousness in this
process with the INS is ludicrous. We know that is not true. Every
single member of this Committee on the Judiciary knows that it is not
true. If anybody saw "60 Minutes" the night before last knows that
even "60 Minutes" is aware of how incompetent this agency is. And
this is the entity to whom we are going to entrust the responsibility
for this Nation's safety.
Regardless of who we think these people might be, no matter how
pleasantly we paint the picture of who they are, just waiting to stay,
the fact is, they are here illegally, or else, of course, we would not
need to pass a law. They broke a law when they came into the country.
There are all kinds of people trying to do it the right way. And to
them we say, "Hey, you know what, you really are stupid. You are
really a big sucker. Why not do it this other way? Why not sneak in?
Why not put pressure on the political establishment?" Because, believe
me, in a while we will cave in and we will have another amnesty, and
another one and another one.
I encourage my colleagues not to be confused about this other
language about visa reform. It has nothing to do with this bill. We
have already passed it. We are dealing with amnesty here. Defeat it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
A lot of references have been made to 9-11 in this debate today. 9-11
occurred in my district. I would remind people that the people who
committed that dastardly act were in this country legally. So this bill
has nothing to do with them, nothing to do with them.
Also, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) says the people we
are talking about, under section 245(i), came into this country
illegally. No, they did not. They came in legally under a tourist visa
or a student visa or a work visa, and they met all the requirements
over the years to get a green card and a permanent residence. But the
bureaucracy of the INS frustrated them by delaying approval of that
green card, and completion of the bureaucratic work passed the
expiration of their visa. For that reason, under current law, they have
to leave the country.
They may have to leave their family. Perhaps they married while in
America and perhaps they have children who are American citizens. They
have to leave their country, go abroad, perhaps for years, reapply, and
then wait for the INS bureaucracy to finish what they should have
finished beforehand.
That is cruel. That is separating families from American citizens.
That is unnecessary. That is all we are talking about here. All talk
about amnesty and terrorism is nonsense and irrelevant to this bill,
and so I urge the passage of this bill.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Enhanced Border
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. This is important legislation that
builds up our security against future terrorist attacks. I am, however,
disappointed in the scope of the 245(i) extension included in this
bill. I believe this 245(i) extension is insufficient in time and
stingy in scope.
The White House has continually stated support for an extension of
245(i) for 6 to 12 months. This new proposal of a limited 4-month
extension with restrictions is not consistent with the spirit of
President Bush's letter where he advocated for policies that strengthen
families and recognized that there was not enough time with the
previous four-month extension.
In December 2000, when Congress passed a 245(i) extension that
expired April 30, 2001, it took the INS over 3 months to issue the new
regulation, causing great panic and confusion among immigrants and
creating an opportunity for unscrupulous and fraudulent immigration
"advisors." While this new provision will help some individuals and
families, it will need new regulations and there will be delays and
chaos similar to what happened last time.
A 245(i) provision helps people in this country who otherwise qualify
for legal permanent residency. It is not an amnesty, but rather a way
for people with deep roots in this country to reunite their families
and work their way towards citizenship and full participation in their
adopted country. A meaningful extension must go beyond 4 months and
should not impose new arbitrary requirements.
At this time, I support this proposal because it is a step in the
right direction, but I urge my colleagues to continue discussions and
continue to work to pass and implement a comprehensive solution for
families that are separated from their loved ones.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1885, the
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, that is
before the House today. This bill will extend Section 245(i) of the
Immigration and Naturalization Act to certain immigrants as well as
[[Page H809]]
incorporate the provisions of H.R. 3525 which would help us in our
fight against terrorism by generally strengthening border security. I
voted for both of these bills in the past and continue to support their
goals as represented in today's bill.
I support today's bill because it recognizes, at least on a limited
level, the needs of certain immigrants who have strong ties here, have
families here, have jobs and pay taxes here. This bill is also
important because it recognizes that we must protect ourselves against
further terrorist threats.
However, though on 245(i) this is a step forward, we must recognize
that is only a small step. As I have said before and will say again,
the 245(i) debate is not over. While this bill extends 245(i) to
immigrants who were physically in the United States on December 21,
2000, and have established family or work ties on or before August 15,
2001, that is not enough. We must work for permanent reinstatement of
245(i). This bill today will move us in the right direction, but we
need to work on a permanent solution. To stop the debate at this point
would prevent us from securing a more meaningful extension of the
provision for individuals with established lives, who work hard and
contribute to our society.
Without supporting a permanent extension of 245(i), the Republican
leadership in the House fails to adequately recognize the importance of
reuniting immigrant families and the important role that these
individuals and their families play in promoting our country's
prosperity. It is long overdue and we must continue to push for
permanent extension of 245(i).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1885
and its provision to extend Section 245(i) of the Immigration and
Naturalization Act.
I support the foundation of H.R. 1885. It is designed to reform and
enhance border security and visa screening procedures. As we mark the
six-month anniversary of the attack on America, we need to take these
important steps to bolster homeland security and protect our citizens
and institutions.
That's why I am outraged that this Administration and this
Congressional Leadership would support inserting the Section 245i
extension into this bill. In my opinion, the two major provisions of
H.R. 1885 work at dangerous cross-purposes. While the border security
and visa screening reforms will enhance homeland security, the 245(i)
extension will actually jeopardize homeland security by subjecting
illegal aliens to a just cursory domestic police record check before
allowing them permanent legal residence here. The extension also
rewards individuals who have already violated our U.S. law.
This extension is wrong, dangerously wrong, for important reasons:
It allows hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to stay permanently
without going through face-to-face interviews in our embassies abroad,
conducted in their native languages.
It entices millions more foreign nationals to enter the country
without screening in hopes that they, too, will be rewarded for their
lawbreaking.
It increases permanent U.S. population growth by creating a new tidal
wave of amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and the
enticement for millions more to move to the U.S.
Finally, I am deeply concerned that Section 245(i) places the
responsibility for background checks with the INS, an agency that has
been justifiably criticized for its lack of effectiveness--ineptitude
that has been highlighted since 9-11.
Consular officers in embassies overseas, not the INS, should have the
responsibility to conduct background checks. They are the ones with the
expertise in the language and procedures of the countries in which they
are stationed, as well as longstanding relationships with police
officials in the home country. Consular officials are the ones who
develop hands-on knowledge of local customs, including criminal
enterprises and terror groups. That's precisely why they are stationed
in-country. They are more prepared and better positioned than INS
officials here in the United States to screen potential immigrants
effectively.
Mr. Speaker, we are a country of laws. One of the shining principles
of our democracy is equal justice under the law. In this context, we
cannot choose which laws we will obey and which ones we will ignore.
Extension of 245(i) will send the message around the globe that the
United States tolerates and, indeed, encourages individuals to break
our immigration laws. By effectively rewarding individuals who either
entered the country illegally or overstayed their legal welcome, we are
harming thousands of immigrants who played by the rules every year.
They followed our procedures. They waited patiently in their home
countries for entry visas. Today's debate tells them they were naive
and stupid to wait.
Frankly, I am shocked and appalled that this debate is taking place.
Just yesterday, this nation paused to mark the six-month anniversary of
the attack on America. Many of my colleagues attended solemn ceremonies
in New York, at the Pentagon, at the White House and in Pennsylvania.
And how does this House mark the anniversary? By debating a bill that
promotes illegal behavior in our immigration policy and, in the
process, leaves our nation vulnerable to potential terror attack.
If September 11th taught us anything, it taught us that no threat to
American security can be taken lightly any longer. The Administration,
the Congress, the courts, the states, law enforcement, the American
people must work together to ensure our national safety. Passage of
this extension has the potential to increase the threat to that safety
by allowing criminals, ranging from drug pushers to thieves to
murderers to suicide bombers, to remain in America legally.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the bill on the floor today is
an amended version of H.R. 1885, which is a bill to extend Section
245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act permits certain
undocumented immigrants in the U.S. to adjust their status and become
lawful permanent residents.
More specifically, section 245(i) allows persons--who qualify for an
immigrant visa by having a close relative or employer petition filed on
their behalf, but entered without inspection or otherwise violated
their status and thus are ineligible to apply for adjustment of status
in the United States--to apply if they pay a $1,000 penalty.
Not only must an undocumented immigrant be eligible for an immigrant
visa and have a visa immediately available to him or her in order to
make use of section 245(i), but the person can also not be barred by
some other provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Without section 245(i), most undocumented immigrants who are
otherwise eligible for an immigrant visa would be required to leave the
United States in order to adjust their status. This would subject them
to the long bars to their admissibility. Furthermore, it is important
to note that Section 245(i) does not protect an undocumented immigrant
from deportation if the alien is encountered by authorities prior to
his or her visa becoming available; section 245(i) is simply a device
that an immigrant can use at the time of his or her adjustment to avoid
having to go back to his or her home country to pick up his or her
visa.
Section 245(i) was first enacted in 1994 for a three year period. It
was reauthorized in 1996, and again in 1997. The reauthorization in
1997 required that only those who had filed applications or petitions
for an immigrant visa by January 1998 could make use of it. The 106th
Congress extended the filing deadline to April 30, 2001, requiring at
that time that applicants be in the United States prior to December 21,
2000.
However, after Congress extended the filing deadline to April 30,
2001, the regulations for section 245(i) were only introduced on March
26, 2001--giving people a month to find out about the law as well as
take action and file petitions or applications before the April 30,
2001 filing deadline.
In addition to the short amount of time in which people had access to
the regulations, massive misinformation about section 245(i) had been
spread--starting out with a widespread belief that 245(i) was a general
amnesty, which it was not.
As was estimated, thousands of people who were expected to benefit
did not have enough time to file the proper petition or application.
Many of those who waited in lines at INS offices nationwide never
made it to the front of the line. And many people were turned away
because they were not prepared to file the correct application or
petition, because of a lack of accurate information. Others tried to
seek legal counsel in time but were unsuccessful due to attorneys
having been booked for appointments due to the flood of people seeking
help.
The Senate amended H.R. 1885 in an attempt to address the unfair
situation caused by the regulations being published so close to the
April 30, 2001.
The amended H.R. 1885, extends section 245(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act until November 30, 2002, or 120 days after the
promulgation of final or interim final regulations implementing the
bill, whichever occurs earlier. It requires, as well, that the
relationship giving rise to the petitions (i.e., marriage) be entered
into by August 15, 2001. So the familial relationship must have existed
by August 15, 2001, or the application for labor certification that is
the basis of such petition for classification was filed before August
15, 2001.
Although I recognize the importance of the compromise legislation and
the fact that it will benefit many people, the House is about to pass a
section 245(i) extension that is not the
[[Page H810]]
measure that we hoped for these past months. In addition, the bill also
includes a damaging provision that extends the filing deadline for
employment-based applications only for people who have filed a labor
certification by August 15, 2001. This already expired filing date puts
people in the untenable position of having waited for an extension of
section 245(i), only to find that it is too late if they have not
already filed the underlying qualifying application. Now we find that
people seeking to benefit from the extension must have filed their
labor certification applications before August 15, 2001.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong opposition to
specific portions of H.R. 1885, the 245(i) Extension Act. As you know,
a House amendment to H.R. 1885 added the text of H.R. 3525, the
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, that the House
passed by voice vote on December 19, 2001.
While this Member strongly supports the provisions of H.R. 3525 that
would include establishing a government-wide electronic data base on
persons with terrorist ties, installing a new high-tech visa system to
reduce fraud and counterfeiting, increasing the number of full-time
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) employees and requiring a
system to electronically track all foreign visa students in the United
States; this Member, however, remains strongly opposed to the original
provisions of H.R. 1885 regarding the extension of Section 245(i).
This Member's opposition relates to the provisions whereby Section
245(i) allows illegal aliens to buy legal permanent residence for
$1,000. Ironically, on September 11, 2001, the House was scheduled to
debate H.R. 1885 on the Floor. Of course, all House action for that day
was pre-empted by the horrific and unspeakable terrorists act
committed, in part, by illegal aliens. In light of those events, this
Member remains amazed that some of his colleagues continue to seek a
policy which permits paying for citizenship by persons who entered this
country illegally; that simply is not in the best interest or
principles of the United States or in U.S. national security interests.
Although the current legal immigration structure is by no means
perfect, it does provide for crucial health screening and criminal
record background checks which determine if potential immigrants will
place the well-being and security of American citizens and legal
immigrants in danger. To make such determinations is not only the right
of the United States as a sovereign country it should be among our
foremost responsibilities, especially in light of the September 11th
terrorist attacks.
Mr. Speaker, Section 245(i) ultimately rewards those people who have
thwarted the legal immigration structure by entering the country
illegally or by allowing their legal status to lapse. Simultaneously,
the policy penalizes potential immigrants who have patiently waited
many years, completed many forms, and undergone appropriate screenings
for the privileged opportunity to be reunited with family members and
to work in the United States. The amendments by the other body only
worsened the bill by extending the time illegal aliens have to apply.
Mr. Speaker, Section 245(i) was a bad policy when it was first
enacted in 1994. It most assuredly was not worthy of being re-instated
during the previous 106th Congress, and it should not be further
extended. Furthermore, since H.R. 3525 has already passed the House, a
"no" vote on H.R. 1885 would not impede the progress of those
important border security and visa entry reform provisions. Extending
Section 245(i) is certainly a grave mistake that we should not make at
this critical juncture in our country's war on terrorism.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong
support for H.R. 1885, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry
Reform Act.
Section 245(i) is a vital provision of U.S. immigration law, allowing
eligible immigrants on the cusp of becoming permanent residents to
apply for their green cards in the U.S., rather than returning to their
home countries to apply. Section 245(i) is available to immigrants
residing in the U.S. who are sponsored by close family members, or by
employers who cannot find necessary U.S. workers, and on whose behalf
petitions were submitted prior to April 1, 2001.
People who apply under Section 245(i) are screened for criminal
offenses, health problems, the potential of becoming a public charge,
fraud, misrepresentation, and other grounds of inadmissibility. Each
applicant will pay a $1,000 processing fee, thereby generating revenue
for the Immigration and Naturalization Service--at no cost to
taxpayers.
The issue is not whether these individuals are eligible to become
permanent residents--because they already are, but rather the issue is
the location from which they are eligible to apply.
Restoring 245(i) is pro-family, pro-business, and fiscally prudent.
These individuals have jobs, pay taxes, contribute to the economy, and
pay into Social Security. Section 245(i) allows business to retain
valuable employees, provides INS with millions of dollars in annual
revenue, and allows immigrants to remain with their families while
applying for legal permanent residence.
Under H.R. 1885, any immigrant petitions filed before either April
30, 2002, or four months after regulations are issued, would form the
basis of Section 245(i) eligibility. However, those who file after
April 30, 2001 must demonstrate that the "familial relationship"
existed before August 15, 2001, or that the application for labor
certification (which is the basis of such petition for classification)
was filed before August 15, 2001. Thus, family relationships must have
existed before August 15, 2001. For employment-based labor
certifications, the labor certification application must have been
filed by August 15, 2001.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this common sense
legislation to provide hard working individuals who are on the brink of
becoming permanent residents the opportunity to apply for their
residency here in the U.S.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment that H.R.
1885 does not include a permanent extension of the Section 245(i)
program, or at the very least a one-year extension. I am also very
concerned that this measure imposes unfortunate new eligibility
restrictions that will greatly limit the pool of potential
beneficiaries.
Each day without a permanent extension of this program, Americans
with immigrant spouses or children face separation from their families.
Statistics from the INS show that approximately seventy-five percent of
the immigrants who apply for 245(i) relief are the spouses and children
of United States citizens and permanent residents.
Extending 245(i) permanently is common sense. It is pro-family, pro-
business, and fiscally prudent. It strengthens families by keeping them
united; it allows businesses to retain valuable employees; and it
provides the INS with millions in annual revenue, at no cost to United
States taxpayers.
H.R. 1885 does not do enough to help immigrants in need. While I will
support it because it is a good starting point, I urge Congress and the
Administration to work together in the future to implement either a
one-year or permanent extension of 245(i).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution
365.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
