ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

< Go back to Immigration Daily

	[Congressional Record: May 23, 2000 (House)]
[Page H3568-H3576]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr23my00-73]                         



 
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE DATA MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT 
                                OF 2000

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4489) to amend section 110 of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4489

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 
     2000''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 110 OF IIRIRA.

       (a) In General.--Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1221 note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 110. INTEGRATED ENTRY AND EXIT DATA SYSTEM.

       ``(a) Requirement.--The Attorney General shall implement an 
     integrated entry and exit data system.
       ``(b) Integrated entry and exit data system defined.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `integrated entry and exit 
     data system' means an electronic system that--
       ``(1) provides access to, and integrates, alien arrival and 
     departure data that are--
       ``(A) authorized or required to be created or collected 
     under law;
       ``(B) in an electronic format; and
       ``(C) in a data base of the Department of Justice or the 
     Department of State, including those created or used at ports 
     of entry and at consular offices;
       ``(2) uses available data described in paragraph (1) to 
     produce a report of arriving and departing aliens by country 
     of nationality, classification as an immigrant or 
     nonimmigrant, and date of arrival in, and departure from, the 
     United States;
       ``(3) matches an alien's available arrival data with the 
     alien's available departure data;
       ``(4) assists the Attorney General (and the Secretary of 
     State, to the extent necessary to carry out such Secretary's 
     obligations under immigration law) to identify, through on-
     line searching procedures, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants 
     who may have remained in the United States beyond the period 
     authorized by the Attorney General; and
       ``(5) otherwise uses available alien arrival and departure 
     data described in paragraph (1) to permit the Attorney 
     General to make the reports required under subsection (e).
       ``(c) Construction.--
       ``(1) No additional authority to impose documentary or data 
     collection requirements.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to permit the Attorney General or the Secretary of 
     State to impose any new documentary or data collection 
     requirements on any person in order to satisfy the 
     requirements of this section, including--
       ``(A) requirements on any alien for whom the documentary 
     requirements in section 212(a)(7)(B) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(B)) have been waived by 
     the Attorney General and the Secretary of State under section 
     212(d)(4)(B) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(4)(B)); or
       ``(B) requirements that are inconsistent with the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement.
       ``(2) No reduction of authority.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to reduce or curtail any authority of the 
     Attorney General or the Secretary of State under any other 
     provision of law.
       ``(d) Deadlines.--
       ``(1) Airports and seaports.--Not later than December 31, 
     2003, the Attorney General shall implement the integrated 
     entry and exit data system using available alien arrival and 
     departure data described in subsection (b)(1) pertaining to 
     aliens arriving in, or departing from, the United States at 
     an airport or seaport. Such implementation shall include 
     ensuring that such data, when collected or created by an 
     immigration officer at an airport or seaport, are entered 
     into the system and can be accessed by immigration officers 
     at other airports and seaports.
       ``(2) High-traffic land border ports of entry.--Not later 
     than December 31, 2004, the Attorney General shall implement 
     the integrated entry and exit data system using the data 
     described in paragraph (1) and available alien arrival and 
     departure data described in subsection (b)(1) pertaining to 
     aliens arriving in, or departing from, the United States at 
     the 50 land border ports of entry determined by the Attorney 
     General to serve the highest numbers of arriving and 
     departing aliens. Such implementation shall include ensuring 
     that such data, when collected or created by an immigration 
     officer at such a port of entry, are entered into the system 
     and can be accessed by immigration officers at airports, 
     seaports, and other such land border ports of entry.
       ``(3) Remaining data.--Not later than December 31, 2005, 
     the Attorney General shall fully implement the integrated 
     entry and exit data system using all data described in 
     subsection (b)(1). Such implementation shall include ensuring 
     that all such data are available to immigration officers at 
     all ports of entry into the United States.
       ``(e) Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each year 
     following the commencement of implementation of the 
     integrated entry and exit data system, the Attorney General 
     shall use the system to prepare an annual report to the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     and of the Senate.
       ``(2) Information.--Each report shall include the following 
     information with respect to the preceding fiscal year, and an 
     analysis of that information:
       ``(A) The number of aliens for whom departure data was 
     collected during the reporting period, with an accounting by 
     country of nationality of the departing alien.
       ``(B) The number of departing aliens whose departure data 
     was successfully matched to the alien's arrival data, with an 
     accounting by the alien's country of nationality and by the 
     alien's classification as an immigrant or nonimmigrant.
       ``(C) The number of aliens who arrived pursuant to a 
     nonimmigrant visa, or as a visitor under the visa waiver 
     program under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1187), for whom no matching departure data have 
     been obtained through the system or through other means as of 
     the end of the alien's authorized period of stay, with an 
     accounting by the alien's country of nationality and date of 
     arrival in the United States.
       ``(D) The number of lawfully admitted nonimmigrants 
     identified as having remained in the United States beyond the 
     period authorized by the Attorney General, with an accounting 
     by the alien's country of nationality.
       ``(f) Authority to Provide Access to System.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (d), the Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall 
     determine

[[Page H3569]]

     which officers and employees of the Departments of Justice 
     and State may enter data into, and have access to the data 
     contained in, the integrated entry and exit data system.
       ``(2) Other law enforcement officials.--The Attorney 
     General, in the discretion of the Attorney General, may 
     permit other Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     officials to have access to the data contained in the 
     integrated entry and exit data system for law enforcement 
     purposes.
       ``(g) Use of Task Force Recommendations.--The Attorney 
     General shall continuously update and improve the integrated 
     entry and exit data system as technology improves and using 
     the recommendations of the task force established under 
     section 3 of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data 
     Management Improvement Act of 2000.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 
     2008.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 is amended by amending the item relating to section 
     110 to read as follows:

``Sec. 110. Integrated entry and exit data system.''.

     SEC. 3. TASK FORCE.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
     Commerce, and the Secretary of the Treasury, shall establish 
     a task force to carry out the duties described in subsection 
     (c) (in this section referred to as the ``Task Force'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Chairperson; appointment of members.--The Task Force 
     shall be composed of the Attorney General and 16 other 
     members appointed in accordance with paragraph (2). The 
     Attorney General shall be the chairperson and shall appoint 
     the other members.
       (2) Appointment requirements.--In appointing the other 
     members of the Task Force, the Attorney General shall 
     include--
       (A) representatives of Federal, State, and local agencies 
     with an interest in the duties of the Task Force, including 
     representatives of agencies with an interest in--
       (i) immigration and naturalization;
       (ii) travel and tourism;
       (iii) transportation;
       (iv) trade;
       (v) law enforcement;
       (vi) national security; or
       (vii) the environment; and
       (B) private sector representatives of affected industries 
     and groups.
       (3) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of 
     the Task Force. Any vacancy shall be filled by the Attorney 
     General.
       (4) Compensation.--
       (A) In general.--Each member of the Task Force shall serve 
     without compensation, and members who are officers or 
     employees of the United States shall serve without 
     compensation in addition to that received for their services 
     as officers or employees of the United States.
       (B) Travel expenses.--The members of the Task Force shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of service for the Task Force.
       (c) Duties.--The Task Force shall evaluate the following:
       (1) How the Attorney General can efficiently and 
     effectively carry out section 110 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1221 note), as amended by section 2 of this Act.
       (2) How the United States can improve the flow of traffic 
     at airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry 
     through--
       (A) enhancing systems for data collection and data sharing, 
     including the integrated entry and exit data system described 
     in section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note), as 
     amended by section 2 of this Act, by better use of 
     technology, resources, and personnel;
       (B) increasing cooperation between the public and private 
     sectors;
       (C) increasing cooperation among Federal agencies and among 
     Federal and State agencies; and
       (D) modifying information technology systems while taking 
     into account the different data systems, infrastructure, and 
     processing procedures of airports, seaports, and land border 
     ports of entry.
       (3) The cost of implementing each of its recommendations.
       (d) Staff and Support Services.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may, without regard 
     to the civil service laws and regulations, appoint and 
     terminate an executive director and such other additional 
     personnel as may be necessary to enable the Task Force to 
     perform its duties. The employment and termination of an 
     executive director shall be subject to confirmation by a 
     majority of the members of the Task Force.
       (2) Compensation.--The executive director shall be 
     compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate payable for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 
     5, United States Code. The Attorney General may fix the 
     compensation of other personnel without regard to the 
     provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of 
     title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of 
     positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the 
     rate of pay for such personnel may not exceed the rate 
     payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5316 of such title.
       (3) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee, with the approval of the head of the appropriate 
     Federal agency, may be detailed to the Task Force without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status, benefits, or privilege.
       (4) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
     The Attorney General may procure temporary and intermittent 
     services for the Task Force under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals not to exceed 
     the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (5) Administrative support services.--Upon the request of 
     the Attorney General, the Administrator of General Services 
     shall provide to the Task Force, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Task Force 
     to carry out its responsibilities under this section.
       (e) Hearings and Sessions.--The Task Force may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings, sit and 
     act at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence 
     as the Task Force considers appropriate.
       (f) Obtaining Official Data.--The Task Force may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out this section. 
     Upon request of the Attorney General, the head of that 
     department or agency shall furnish that information to the 
     Task Force.
       (g) Reports.--
       (1) Deadline.--Not later than December 31, 2002, and not 
     later than December 31 of each year thereafter in which the 
     Task Force is in existence, the Attorney General shall submit 
     a report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and of the Senate containing the findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations of the Task Force. Each 
     report shall also measure and evaluate how much progress the 
     Task Force has made, how much work remains, how long the 
     remaining work will take to complete, and the cost of 
     completing the remaining work.
       (2) Delegation.--The Attorney General may delegate to the 
     Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, the 
     responsibility for preparing and transmitting any such 
     report.
       (h) Legislative Recommendations.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall make such 
     legislative recommendations as the Attorney General deems 
     appropriate--
       (A) to implement the recommendations of the Task Force; and
       (B) to obtain authorization for the appropriation of funds, 
     the expenditure of receipts, or the reprogramming of existing 
     funds to implement such recommendations.
       (2) Delegation.--The Attorney General may delegate to the 
     Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, the 
     responsibility for preparing and transmitting any such 
     legislative recommendations.
       (i) Termination.--The Task Force shall terminate on a date 
     designated by the Attorney General as the date on which the 
     work of the Task Force has been completed.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 2003.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING INTERNATIONAL BORDER 
                   MANAGEMENT COOPERATION.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Attorney General, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
     Commerce, and the Secretary of the Treasury, should consult 
     with affected foreign governments to improve border 
     management cooperation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks, and to include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4489 represents a bipartisan collaborative bill. 
Many people deserve credit, including Senator Spencer Abraham and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh), the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the gentleman

[[Page H3570]]

from New York (Mr. Quinn), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Also, I want to thank the Travel Industry of America, Americans for 
Better Borders, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Trucking 
Association, the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance, the INS, the 
Canadian Embassy, the Mexican Embassy, the Border Trade Alliance, and 
the U.S. Caucus of Mayors for giving us their valuable input and 
support.
  Over a dozen meetings were held over several months' time with the 
interested parties. The efforts of John Lampmann, chief of staff for 
the 21st Congressional District, and Lora Ries, Counsel for the 
Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary, were 
crucial to obtaining the desired results.
  H.R. 4489 focuses on an integrated entry and exit data system that 
will be funded, developed, and implemented by 2005. This bill will 
integrate all INS and State Department databases that support the entry 
and exit of aliens at airports, seaports, and land border ports of 
entry.
  The database systems that the INS currently use are often independent 
from each other. As a result, INS officers and inspectors and State 
Department consular officers are unable to learn an alien's prior U.S. 
travel activities from the INS and State Department consular offices. 
Without this information, aliens can slip through the cracks, as we saw 
in the case of Mr. Resendez, the recently convicted railroad killer.
  This bill emphasizes that the INS needs to integrate its entry and 
exit data system so that INS officers and inspectors and State 
Department consular officers can access any entry and exit information 
with respect to an alien before them.
  Once the INS implements the entry exit data system, the Attorney 
General is required to submit an annual fiscal year report to the 
Committees on the Judiciary of the House and Senate. A task force will 
be funded to examine specific ways to further the development of the 
integrated entry and exit data system. The Attorney General is expected 
to update and improve the integrated entry and exit data system as 
technology improves and as recommendations of the task force are 
received.
  The task force will examine how technology can facilitate the flow of 
people through ports of entry, whether by air, sea, or land. By using 
the speed of technology and the Nation's immigration system, the bill 
both speeds the flow of the traffic through ports of entry and 
contributes to the development and usefulness of the integrated entry 
and exit data system over time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  H.R. 4489, the ``INS Data Management Improvement Act,'' is intended 
to amend section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), to require the implementation of 
an integrated entry and exit data system at airports, seaports, and 
land border ports of entry at new, specified deadlines, and to 
establish a task force to assist the Attorney General in implementing 
section 110.


                               background

  In 1996, the Congress overwhelmingly passed IIRIRA. Section 110 of 
IIRIRA called for an automated entry-exit control system no later than 
two years after the date of enactment of IIRIRA, which was September 
30, 1996. Without defining the control system, section 110 required 
that the system collect a record of departure for every alien departing 
the United States and match the departure records with the record of 
the alien's arrival into this country. The system also required that 
the Attorney General be able to identify electronically lawfully 
admitted nonimmigrants who remain in the United States beyond their 
authorized period of stay.
  In addition to the entry-exit control system, section 110 required 
the Attorney General to submit to the congressional Judiciary 
Committees annual reports on the system. The reports should include the 
number of departure records collected; the number of departure records 
successfully matched to records of the alien's prior arrival in the 
United States; and the number of aliens who arrived as nonimmigrants or 
under the Visa Waiver Program for whom no matching departure record has 
been obtained as of the end of the alien's authorized period of stay.
  Finally, section 110 required information regarding aliens who have 
overstayed their visas to be integrated into data bases of the INS and 
State Department, including those used at ports of entry and at 
consular offices.
  Subsequently, section 110 was amended to change the deadlines of the 
automated entry and exit control system. The deadline for the system at 
airports was changed to October 15, 1998, and the deadline for land 
border ports of entry and seaports was changed to March 30, 2001.
  With the March 30, 2001, deadline less than a year away and the INS 
no closer to having a control system at land border ports of entry, 
various Members of Congress and interest groups grew concerned. They 
wanted to repeal section 110 out of fear that trade and tourism would 
be hurt by new data collection requirements at the land border ports of 
entry, causing delays at the border to grow.
  This bill focuses on the task the INS faces in implementing an entry/
exit system. The idea is that it should be an electronic data base 
system. With technology advancing so rapidly, technology will drive the 
INS' ability to collect information on who are entering and exiting the 
U.S. and who are overstaying their visas. As such, H.R. 4489 focuses on 
the INS' ability to use technology to improve its current collection 
database systems and to integrate its systems. The database systems 
that the INS currently uses are often independent from each other. As a 
result, INS officers and inspectors, and State Department consular 
officer are often unable to learn an alien's prior travel activities in 
another part of the United States or in another country. Without this 
information, aliens can slip through the cracks, as in the case of Mr. 
Resendez, the recently convicted ``railroad killer.'' Therefore, this 
bill emphasizes that the INS needs to integrate its entry and exit data 
system so that INS officers and inspectors and State Department 
consular officers can assess any entry and exit information with 
respect to an alien before them.
  In addition, the bill creates a task force to study and recommend 
methods to continuously improve and update the INS' database system as 
technology advances. This infrastructure in support of the INS 
integrated system development allows for private-public 
recommendations, a major contribution of the bill.


                                the bill

  H.R. 4489 requires the Attorney General to implement an integrated 
entry and exit data system. The intent behind this system is that any 
arrival and departure data that the INS and the State Department are 
authorized or required to create or collect must now be entered 
electronically into a database. In addition, the database must be 
integrated and provide access to other ports of entry, internal 
enforcement, and consular offices. As technology improves, so should 
the data system improve.
  The bill is different from the current section 110 of IIRIRA because 
it now defines the entry/exit system. This system is to: (1) provide 
access to and integrate alien arrival and departure data; (2) use this 
data to produce a report of arriving and departing aliens by country of 
nationality, classification as an immigrant or nonimmigrant, and date 
of arrival in, and departure from the United States; (3) match an 
alien's arrival data with the alien's departure data; (4) assist the 
Attorney General and the Secretary of State to identify electronically 
lawfully admitted nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas; and (5) 
permits the Attorney General to make reports.
  Nothing in this bill should be interpreted as requiring the Attorney 
General or the Secretary of State to collect new types of documents or 
data from aliens, particularly aliens who have had  document 
requirements waived under section 212(d)(4)(B) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State 
acting jointly on the basis of reciprocity with respect to foreign 
contiguous territories or adjacent islands. However, this bill does not 
affect the authority of the Attorney General or the Secretary of State 
to create new documentary or data collection requirements in other 
provisions of law.

  The integrated entry and exist data system is to be implemented at 
airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry. However, because 
each type of port of entry has different infrastructure and processing 
procedures, it does not make sense to have one uniform deadline for 
implementation. Since section 110 was enacted in 1996, the INS is 
already implementing such a system at airports and seaports. Thus, 
implementation of the data system at airports and seaports is due by 
December 31, 2003.
  Land border ports of entry will require additional time to implement 
the entry/exit data system. Also, traffic, infrastructure, and 
resources used at all of the land border ports of entry vary greatly. 
While some land ports receive heavy traffic and use a significant 
amount of resources, other ports receive minimal traffic and have few 
resources. Because the former group of land ports will require less 
time and resources to implement the entry/exist data system that the 
latter group, the former group has an earlier deadline. The 50 land 
border ports of entry determined to serve

[[Page H3571]]

the highest numbers of arriving and departing aliens are to have the 
system implemented by December 31, 2004. The entry/exit data system is 
due at the remainder of the land border ports of entry by December 31, 
2005. Implementing at the land ports of entry with the highest traffic 
first is also an efficient method of gathering arrival and departure 
information.
  Once the INS implements the entry/exit data system at a defined group 
of ports of entry, the Attorney General is required to submit an annual 
fiscal year report to the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate. 
These reports will include and analyze the following information: (1) 
The number of aliens for whom departure data was collected, including 
country of nationality; (2) the number of departing aliens whose 
departure data was successfully matched to the alien's arrival data, 
including country of nationality and an alien's classification as an 
immigrant or nonimmigrant; (3) the number of aliens who arrived with a 
nonimmigrant visa or under the visa waiver program for whom no matching 
departure date was obtained as of the end of the alien's authorized 
stay, including the country of nationality and date of arrival in the 
U.S.; and (4) the number of nonimmigrants identified as having 
overstayed their visas, including the country of nationality.
  The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 
will determine which officers and employees of the Justice and State 
Departments may enter data into and have access to the data contained 
in the entry/exit data system. Likewise, the Attorney General has the 
discretion to permit other federal, state, and local law enforcement 
officials to have access to the data for law enforcement purposes.
  The Attorney General is expected to continuously update and improve 
the integrated entry and exit data system as technology improves and 
using the recommendations of the task force.
  H.R. 4489 requires the Attorney General, in consultation with other 
involved Secretaries, to create a task force made up of government and 
private sector representatives of agencies and industries interested in 
port of entry issues. The primary duty of the task force is to evaluate 
how the Attorney General can efficiently and effectively carry out 
section 110. Advancing technology should drive such an evaluation. As 
the INS uses advanced technology at ports of entry, the flow of traffic 
at ports of entry will improve, thereby increasing trade and tourism, a 
universal goal.
  In this study, the task force is encouraged to examine how to 
simplify the entry/exit documents currently collected by the INS and 
State Department, without decreasing the quality of the information 
obtained. For example, in reviewing how to improve the flow of traffic 
at ports of entry, the task force should examine the current 
documentary requirements for business people and tourists entering the 
United States, including those entering from Mexico by air. After 
completing such review, the task force may develop recommendations 
concerning how these requirements can be streamlined to improve the 
flow of persons between the United States and Mexico in accordance with 
the substantial growth in goods and services trade that has occurred 
since enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that this bill will not 
cause direct spending.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


               sec. 2. amendment to section 110 of iirira

       Section 2 amends section 110 of IIRIRA through the sections 
     that follow.
       Section 110(a) requires the Attorney General to implement 
     an ``integrated entry and exit data system.'' Section 110(b) 
     defines ``integrated entry and exit data system'' as an 
     electronic system of alien arrival and departure data that is 
     integrated and provides access to INS ports of entry, the INS 
     interior inspection sites, interior offices, and State 
     Department consular offices. The arrival and departure data 
     used in the system is composed of that which is authorized or 
     required to be created or collected by law. The electronic 
     system uses the data to create a report of arriving and 
     departing aliens by country of nationality; classification as 
     an immigrant or nonimmigrant, and date of arrival in, and 
     departure from the United States. The system is also required 
     to match an alien's arrival data with the alien's available 
     departure data. It should assist the Attorney General and 
     the Secretary of State to identify, electronically, 
     lawfully admitted nonimmigrants who may have remained in 
     the United States beyond their authorized period. Finally, 
     the system should enable the Attorney General to create 
     the annual congressional reports required in section 
     110(e).
       Section 110(c) explains that nothing in section 110 should 
     be interpreted as requiring the Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of State to collect new types of documents or data 
     from aliens, including those aliens who have had either or 
     both of the requirements of section 212(a)(7)(B)(i) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act waived by the Attorney 
     General and the Secretary of State acting jointly on the 
     basis of reciprocity with respect to nationals of foreign 
     contiguous territory or of adjacent islands and their 
     residents have a common nationality with such nationals. In 
     addition, section 110 does not permit the Attorney General or 
     the Secretary of State to require documents or data from 
     aliens that are inconsistent with the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement. While section 110 restricts the Attorney 
     General and the Secretary of State from imposing new 
     documentary or data collection requirements upon aliens, 
     section 110 does not reduce the authority of the Attorney 
     General or the Secretary of State from creating new 
     documentary or data collection requirements in any other 
     provision of law.
       Section 110(d) imposes staggered deadlines upon the 
     Attorney General to implement the integrated entry and exit 
     data system at the different types of ports of entry. By 
     December 31, 2003, the Attorney General is to be using 
     available alien arrival and departure data described in 
     subsection (b)(1) with respect to aliens arriving in, or 
     departing from, the United States at an airport or seaport. 
     This implementation includes ensuring that the data collected 
     or created by an immigration officer at an airport or seaport 
     are entered into the system and is accessible by immigration 
     officers at other airports and seaports.
       Section 110(d)(2) requires the Attorney General to 
     implement the integrated entry and exit data system using the 
     data already implemented at airports and seaports, combined 
     with available alien arrival and departure data described in 
     subsection(b)(1) pertaining to aliens arriving in, or 
     departing from, the United States at the 50 land border ports 
     of entry serving the highest numbers of arriving and 
     departing aliens. Such implementation is due no later than 
     December 31, 2004, and should ensure that when the data is 
     collected or created by an immigration officer at a port of 
     entry, is entered into the system and can be accessed by 
     immigration officers at airports, seaports, and other land 
     border ports of entry.
       Section 110(d)(3) requires the Attorney General to fully 
     implement by December 31, 2005, the integrated entry and exit 
     data system, using all of the data described in subsection 
     (b)(1). This implementation should include ensuring that all 
     data are available to immigration officers at all ports of 
     entry into the United States.
       Once the Attorney General begins implementing the 
     integrated entry and exist data system, section 110(e) 
     requires the Attorney General to submit an annual fiscal year 
     report to the Judiciary Committees on the House and Senate by 
     December 31. These reports will include and analyze the 
     following information: (1) the number of aliens for whom 
     departure data was collected during the reporting period, 
     including the departing alien's country of nationality; (2) 
     the number of departing aliens whose departure data was 
     successfully matched to the alien's arrival data, including 
     country of nationality and an alien's classification as an 
     immigrant; or non immigrant; (3) the number of aliens who 
     arrived with a nonimmigrant visa or under the visa waiver 
     program for whom no matching departure date was obtained as 
     of the end of the alien's authorized stay, including the 
     country of nationality and date of arrival in the U.S.; and 
     (4) the number of nonimmigrants identified as having 
     overstayed their visas, including the country of nationality.
       Section 110(f) permits the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, to determine which 
     Justice and State Department officers and employees may enter 
     data into, and have access to the data contained in, the 
     integrated entry and exit data system. The Attorney General, 
     in his or her discretion, may also permit other Federal, 
     State, and local law enforcement officials to have access to 
     the data contained in the data system for law enforcement 
     purposes.
       Sectiono 110(g) requires the Attorney General to 
     continuously update and improve the integrated entry and exit 
     data system as technology improves and using the 
     recommendations of the task force created in section 3 of 
     this bill.
       Section 110(h) authorizes appropriations to carry out 
     section 110 such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 
     2001 through 2008.


                           sec. 3. task force

       Section 3(a) Establishment. Section 3(a) requires the 
     Attorney General to consult with the Secretary of State, 
     Secretary of Commerce, and Secretary of Treasury to establish 
     a task force no later than six months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       Section 3(b) Membership. Section 3(b) establishes that the 
     Attorney General will be the chairperson of the task force 
     and will appoint the other 16 members. In appointing the task 
     force members, the Attorney General shall include 
     representatives of federal, state, and local agencies with an 
     interest in the duties of the task force, including agencies 
     with an interest in immigration and naturalization; travel 
     and tourism; transportation; trade; law enforcement; national 
     security; or the environment. In addition, the Attorney 
     General must include private sector representatives of 
     affected industries and groups as members of the task 
     force. Each member of the task force will be appointed for 
     the life of the task force. Any vacancy should be filed by 
     the Attorney General. Members of the task force will not 
     be compensated for their service on the task force.
       Section 3(c) Duties. Section 3(c) requires the task force 
     to evaluate the following: (1) how

[[Page H3572]]

     the Attorney General can efficiently and effectively carry 
     out section 110 of HRIRA, as amended by this bill; (2) how 
     the U.S. can improve the flow of traffic at airports, 
     seaports, and land border ports of entry by better use of 
     technology, resources, and personnel; increasing cooperation 
     between the public and private sectors; increased cooperation 
     among federal and state agencies; and modifying information 
     technology; and (3) the cost of implementing each of its 
     recommendations.
       Section 3(d) Staff and Support Services. Section 3(d)(1) 
     permits the Attorney General to appoint and terminate an 
     executive director and any other additional personnel 
     necessary to enable the task force to perform its duties. The 
     employment and termination of an executive director is 
     subject to confirmation by a majority of the task force 
     members.
       Section 3(d)(2) establishes a compensation rate ceiling for 
     the executive director at level V of the Executive Schedule. 
     The Attorney General may fix the compensation of other 
     personnel, except the pay rate may not exceed level V of the 
     Executive Schedule.
       Section 3(d)(3) permits any federal government employee, 
     with approval by the head of the appropriate federal agency, 
     to be detailed to the task force without reimbursement and 
     without interference or loss of civil service status, 
     benefits, or privilege.
       Section 3(d)(4) allows the Attorney General to obtain 
     temporary and intermittent services for the task force at 
     compensation rates not to exceed level V of the Executive 
     Schedule.
       Section 3(d)(5) requires the Administrator of General 
     Services to provide, at the Attorney General's request, 
     administrative support services necessary for the task force 
     to carry out its responsibilities.
       Section 3(e) Hearings and Session. Section 3(e) permits the 
     task force to hold hearings, sit and act at times and places, 
     take testimony, and receive evidence as the task force deems 
     appropriate.
       Section 3(f) Obtaining Official Data. Section 3(f) allows 
     the task force to directly secure from any United States 
     department or agency information necessary to perform its 
     duties. It also requires the head of the department or agency 
     to furnish the information to the task force upon the request 
     of the Attorney General.
       Section 3(g) Reports. No later than December 31, 2002, and 
     no later than December 31 of each year thereafter in which 
     the task force is in existence, the Attorney General must 
     submit a report to the Judiciary Committees of both the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate containing the findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations of the task force. Each 
     report will also measure and evaluate how much progress the 
     task force has made, how much work remains, how long the 
     remaining work will take to complete, and the cost of 
     completing the remaining work. In addition, the Attorney 
     General may delegate to the INS Commissioner the 
     responsibility of preparing and transmitting these reports.
       Section 3(h) Legislative Recommendations. Section 3(h) 
     requires the Attorney General to make such legislative 
     recommendations as the Attorney General deems appropriate to 
     implement the task force's recommendations and to obtain 
     authorization for the appropriation of funds, the expenditure 
     of receipts, or the reprogramming of existing funds to 
     implement such recommendations. The Attorney General is 
     permitted to delegate to the INS Commissioner the 
     responsibility of preparing and transmitting any such 
     legislative recommendations.
       Section 3(i) Termination. Section 3(i) terminates the task 
     force on a date designated by the Attorney General once the 
     task force work is completed.
       Section 3(j) Authorization of Appropriations. Section 3(j) 
     authorizes appropriations such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal years through 2003.


  sec. 4. sense of congress regarding international border management 
                              cooperation

       Section 4 states that the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, should consult with affected 
     foreign governments to improve border management cooperation.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking everyone that has 
worked on this measure. This is a very positive ending to what was 
originally a very rancorous matter in our committee because H.R. 4489 
would eliminate the entry-exit data collection system required by 
section 110 of the immigration law for the U.S. and Canadian and 
Mexican borders.
  I have long opposed the section 110 entry and exit system because of 
the adverse impact it would have on the people and businesses of 
Michigan and other border States. Implementation of this section at 
land ports of entry would cause massive traffic congestions along our 
borders, bringing personal and business travel at many border points to 
stands still. This would have a crippling effect on trades and tourism.
  For example, at the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, more than 30,000 
crossings per day take place. As little as a fraction of a minute added 
to the processing time of each of these vehicles would result in miles 
and miles of snarled traffic on both sides of the border. Tourists 
would be less likely to visit our border towns, and businesses, 
particularly those dependent on just-in-time delivery, would suffer.
  These prices are far too high to pay for a data collection system 
that, sadly, is unlikely to achieve its primary objective, dealing more 
effectively with persons who come to this country as visitors and 
overstay their visas. Under section 110, the INS would know who these 
individuals are but they would not know where they are. The information 
would probably have very little enforcement value.
  By contrast, H.R. 4489 would replace the entry-exit data collection 
system with a system for making use of the vast quantity of information 
we already gather on individuals entering and exiting this country. The 
information would be entered into a database that would allow U.S. 
immigration officials and consular officers based overseas to access 
it. More importantly, it would not lead to new border delays.
  Canada and the United States benefit from an outstanding relationship 
between citizens and businesses. Last year, more than 13.4 million 
Canadians came to the United States to do business, shop, visit our 
restaurants and tourist sites. In my home State of Michigan alone, more 
than 1.2 million Canadians visited for one night or more and added $216 
million to the State's economy. H.R. 4489 will obviously help protect 
that flow of business and tourism.
  So my thanks, Mr. Speaker, to the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), and our friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and our ranking member on the 
subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). Their 
leadership on this bipartisan legislation was important, and I too 
would urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this bill is brought up under suspension of 
the rules, and usually those measures are brought up when they are 
noncontroversial. Until about a month or two ago this issue was very 
controversial. In fact, a year ago there were probably some of us on 
both sides of the aisle that were ready to do battle, with swords.
  This has been a tough battle, and I want to particularly commend the 
thoughtfulness and the hard work of my colleague, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith). There were a number of us that were able to get 
together with the gentleman from Texas on both sides of the aisle. We 
had a number of associations across the country as well, whether they 
be the White House, whether they be the Governors Association, the 
Chamber of Commerce, or Republicans and Democrats. The gentleman from 
New York (Mr. LaFalce) and I headed up the charge, on our side. And I 
had the privilege over the last couple of years, with others in this 
body that are on the floor now, of participating jointly with our 
Canadian counterparts, our colleagues from Canada.
  This has been the number one issue the last number of years. Why is 
that? In my home State of Michigan, we have more than a billion and a 
half dollars of trade that literally goes across the bridge into Canada 
every day. Every day. We have thousands of Americans and Canadians that 
cross the border to work, whether it be at hospitals or other places. 
And, sadly, under the old rules, I guess those that are still present 
today until this legislation becomes law, under that section 110, had 
it been allowed to come into play, it would have meant a delay for 
days, perhaps, for people to go simply from one side of the border to 
the other, whether it be for dinner, for a job, or whatever it might 
be.
  Thanks to the leadership of people on this floor today, particularly 
my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns),

[[Page H3573]]

and others, we were able to have a meeting of the minds. And in fact, 
we have legislation now that, when it is passed this afternoon, and 
thanks to the leadership of many in the Senate as well, instead of 
coming to war over this issue, like we almost did last year, in essence 
we are able to come shoulder to shoulder and do something for the 
American good that will help both countries, and Mexico as well, but 
our interest certainly has been Canada, for those of us from Michigan. 
But we are going to resolve this issue by using our heads and our minds 
and our words.
  I just want to commend again my colleague from Texas for allowing us 
to take this bill on a fairly rapid course through his subcommittee, 
our leadership by getting it to the floor today, and, in essence, 
getting away next year, instead of having that date come into play, 
when literally our borders would be locked and sealed and folks would 
be unable to cross the border for whatever purpose. In fact, this opens 
the door in a meaningful way; and one that I think was certainly the 
intent of the legislation that was passed.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Who said that this could not be done; fixing section 110? I want to 
thank the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee, and 
the chairman of the subcommittee for what I think is a very good 
resolution, along with the many others who have worked on this 
improvement of section 110.
  Let me briefly just suggest that being an original cosponsor of H.R. 
4489, I am glad now that it provides for continued input from 
government, business, and border communities. Now, under this 
legislation, the Attorney General would be required to create a task 
force made up of public and private representatives to evaluate and 
report on how the U.S. can improve the flow of traffic at airports, 
seaports, and land ports of entry. The Attorney General must make 
legislative recommendations to implement the findings of the task 
force.
  This bill would increase our security and use of technology, while 
not increasing delay or congestion at U.S. ports of entry, therefore 
bringing together the distinctive and disparate needs of our northern 
border and our southern border.
  Let me also say that this spreads a whole new light on the enormous 
tragedy that Angel Resendez-Ramirez brought on this country, with 
coming in on the southern border with very limited information and the 
tragedy that occurred.

                              {time}  1330

  If this was in place at that time, we would have had all of the data 
that would have suggested that this was, in fact, a bad actor in 
anyone's definition and, hopefully, at that time would have been able 
to save lives.
  Let us hope perspectively that we will now be able to save lives. 
But, at the same time, I think it is important to note of a tragedy 
that is occurring at the border that I hope that we will be able to 
resolve perspectively, and that is the tragic killings of individuals 
that is increasing by those who live along the border who are 
frightened and fearful of those who do come across the border illegally 
seeking a better opportunity.
  We know that all of those individuals are not criminals. We have to 
address that, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to address 
that in a way that provides the safety of a community but, yet, does 
not make those of us who live in this country predators and causing the 
loss of life of individuals who certainly would do us no harm.
  This legislation, however, brings into balance the necessity of 
protecting the United States and, as well, balancing the business and 
tourism issues and interests that we might have.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and help us move 
further into solving other problems that we incur on a regular basis at 
our respective borders.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to come to the floor today to 
address an issue that has been controversial over the years as a result 
of the 1996 Immigration law, and that is Section 110 of that law.
  Section 110 of the '96 law currently requires the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service to establish an automated entry and exit control 
system at all airports, seaports and land border ports of entry by 
March 30, 2001. The system is to collect a record of the departure for 
every alien departing the U.S. and matching the records of departures 
with the record of the alien's arrivals in the United States.
  I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of H.R. 4489, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act. 
I want to commend Subcommittee Chairman Smith and his staff for working 
with me and my staff to make the appropriate changes to Section 110 of 
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996. These changes will encourage and expand trade, tourism and 
commerce to the United States while at the same time achieving 
important U.S. border law enforcement objectives.
  H.R. 4489, a bill drafted through compromise, bipartisan and 
bicameral negotiations, eliminates the Section 110 requirements for 
implementing an entry and exit control system by March 30, 2001. 
Instead, H.R. 4489 would create an ``integrated entry and exit data 
system'' to enable INS to develop a computerized database of the 
information currently required to be collected by law at U.S. ports of 
entry.
  H.R. 4489 sets out a plan for this system to be implemented in stages 
so that the database would eventually be accessible at all airports, 
seaports and land border ports, as well as U.S. consular offices. This 
new system would not create new data collection authority to impose 
documentary requirements. More importantly, this system would allow the 
billions of dollars of U.S. trade and travel which streams through our 
ports of entry to continue to flow uninterrupted.
  Texas has one of the longest international borders of any U.S. state 
that borders Canada or Mexico. With eleven ports of entry, Texas is the 
largest U.S. state in exports to Mexico. Exports from Texas to Mexico 
reached $41.4 billion in 1999. Many of these goods flowed through 
Houston ports of entry. Nearly $6 billion of total merchandise flowed 
to and from Mexico through Houston. The metropolitan area of 
Houston alone exports well over $2.4 billion in goods to Mexico in 
1998.

  H.R. 4489 also protects the free flow of people through our ports. 
Texas ranks 4th in the nation in overall visitor spending. Nearly 19 
million visitors traveled to the Greater Houston area in 1997, and in 
1996 visitors spent just under $5 billion, which resulted in 85,000 
tourism-related jobs in the area.
  H.R. 4489 provides for continued input from government, business and 
border communities. Under this legislation, the Attorney General would 
be required to create a task force made up of public and private 
representatives to evaluate and report on how the U.S. can ``improve 
the flow of traffic at airports, seaports, and land ports of entry.'' 
The Attorney General must make legislative recommendations to implement 
the findings of the task force. This bill would increase our security 
and use of technology while not increasing delay or congestion at U.S. 
ports of entry.
  I am also gratified that this new system will prevent fugitives like 
Angel Resindez-Ramirez, the infamous railway killer from entering this 
country undetected. This is very important.
  Just a short list of the business and community organizations in 
support of H.R. 4489 is impressive. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, the American Trucking 
Associations, the Travel Industry Association of America, the American 
Immigration Lawyers Association and our friends to the north and south, 
Canada and Mexico support this legislation. I agree and urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Houghton).
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I have just two points to make here. First 
of all, I am from New York, and I guess we have a lot of New Yorkers 
around here. But this is really important not only economically but in 
terms of all the relations we have with Canada. So that is number one.
  But number two, I have just been with my friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton), at a Canadian American delegation meeting. We 
talked about many issues, free trade to the Americas, the issue of 
trade with the European Union. We talked about agricultural issues, the 
whole variety of things. As we left yesterday that delegation, they 
said, do not forget

[[Page H3574]]

that the single most important issue is this sword of section 110 
hanging over our heads.
  So I just want to say to my colleagues, as I am sure others have said 
far more eloquently, this is very important and I am enthusiastically 
supportive of H.R. 4499.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), a distinguished colleague of 
mine and the ranking member of another committee.
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I give special thanks to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), for working so closely with me 
over the past several years and especially to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. He has at all times been a scholar and a gentleman with respect 
to this issue. I do not want to praise this bill too much because I am 
afraid he might change his mind.
  When the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) was up here, he said 
that we are almost at sword's point over this issue, section 110. That 
is true. But the biggest sword was the Damoclean sword that was hanging 
over the heads of the border communities along both our northern and 
southern borders since passage of the 1996 immigration law.
  Our largest trading partner is Canada. Our second largest trading 
partner is Mexico. It was my judgment that implementation of section 
110, while not intended to do so, would have had the primary effect of 
basically stopping commerce and virtually all forms of intercourse 
amongst our nations. That was not intended, but I fear that would have 
been the primary effect.
  Today, by working together, we are removing that Damoclean sword. But 
that is playing successful defensive football. We need to go beyond 
that now after passage of this bill. We have to go on the offensive. 
And what does that mean? That means that we have to improve things.
  We need more personnel on both our northern and our southern borders 
in order to expedite the flow of commerce and people. We need more 
technology in order to expedite the flow of commerce and people. We 
need infrastructure improvements with the Federal Government involved 
to expedite the flow of people and commerce with respect to the 
northern border and my communities of Buffalo and Niagara Falls and 
Lewiston and surrounding areas so affected.
  Prime Minister Chretien and President Clinton a few years ago agreed 
upon what we call the Shared Border Accord. We call upon the President, 
we call upon the Prime Minister to be more aggressive in pursuit and 
implementation of that Shared Border Accord so that eventually we can 
fulfill at least what I have as a vision, and that is not a border 
where we have difficulties, but a border between our countries similar 
to the border between the District of Columbia and Maryland and 
Virginia, a border similar to the borders that exist in Europe with the 
European Union, where we can have not simply interstate commerce, we 
can have truly internation commerce, expeditious, free. This would be 
the best thing we could ever do to the economies of our border regions.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. McHugh).
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is, as we have heard, the product of literally 
months and months of study and negotiations and also, as we have heard, 
at times more than just a little patience. But the positive outcome has 
been and is today that really the product before us represents a 
balance, a very delicate balance, but I think a very important one, 
between the critical objective of ensuring that our borders are secure 
against all kinds of illegal activities regardless of their design, 
with the inescapable reality that, in today's world, as we have heard 
so many say here today, the free flow of tourism and trade and commerce 
of all descriptions and people of good will, is not just something that 
is positive; it is, frankly, something that is absolutely essential.
  A lot of good folks, many of whom have spoken here directly, my 
friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton); the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers); my good colleagues, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Quinn) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton); and, of 
course, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce); and so many others 
have had the opportunity to come together on this.
  But I certainly want to pay particular attention to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith), the subcommittee chairman. No Member anywhere 
in this House on either side of the aisle has been a more valiant 
fighter for our secure borders. But, at the same time, his sensitivity 
and understanding in this issue has been exemplary. He took the time to 
travel from his home to the 1,000 Islands in the border crossing there 
at Alexandria Bay to help himself better understand the challenges and 
the need that we have. Thanks to his leadership, we have this afternoon 
what I think is a very fair, a very effective product that can take 
another important step in technology aspects to making our borders even 
more secure, while at the same time ensuring that that free flow of 
tourism and trade continues in a way that enures to the benefit of 
every citizen of this country.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to return our time. We have no further 
speakers.
  I want to thank the Judiciary staffers Perry Apelbaum, Noland Rappa-
port, and Leon Buck for the long, hard work they have put in in 
negotiating with other Members and staffers to reach what I think is a 
very useful accord.
  I think that this will hold our committee in good stead. We have come 
to a very good ending on this matter, and so I am very happy to have 
played a small role in it.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4489, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Improvement Act. This 
bipartisan legislation represents a good balance between the legitimate 
need to prevent visitors from overstaying their visas and the need to 
ensure efficient cross-border traffic. I do not oppose the goal of 
establishing an entry-exit system to monitor visa overstays. What I do 
oppose is establishing such a system with little disregard for its 
impact on trade and tourism. In my home state of Arizona, the Section 
110 system, as originally devised, simply will not work. At the same 
time, it would have had a devastating impact on our economy. That is 
why I worked very hard to ensure that Section 110 not be implemented 
until it could be shown that it would not bring travel and tourism to a 
virtual standstill.
  I want to commend Chairman Smith for taking these concerns into 
account in drafting today's compromise. H.R. 4489 amends Section 110 of 
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
by replacing the current requirement that by March 30, 2001, a record 
of arrival and departure be collected for every alien at all ports of 
entry with a requirement that INS develop an ``integrated entry and 
exit data system'' that focuses on data that the INS already collects. 
Using this data, the Attorney General will implement the integrated 
entry and exit data system by December 31, 2003, at airports and 
seaports and not later than December 31, 2004, at 50 land border ports 
of entry. This is a careful compromise which helps balance our need to 
monitor visa overstays with the need to preserve the smooth flow of 
trade and tourism.
  This bill is broadly supported by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS), the American for Better Borders, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, the Travel Industry Association of America, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the American Council of International 
Personnel, the American Trucking Association, the American Immigration 
Lawyers Association, the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance, the 
Border Trade Alliance, the Canadian Embassy, and the Mexican Embassy. I 
am pleased to be able to support this bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4489, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act 
of 2000.
  This measure is vital to tourism, trade and industry in Western New 
York State; and I am pleased to join Chairman Smith in sponsoring this 
legislation, and am grateful for all his hard work to ease border 
congestion while ensuring safety and efficiency.

[[Page H3575]]

  H.R. 4489 amends Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, replacing the current requirement 
that a record of arrival and departure be collected for every alien at 
every point of entry.
  Section 110 was an attempt to identify visa overstays in the U.S. 
Neither Canadian nor U.S. citizens require visas. However, the 
implementation of this part of the law had the potential to cause more 
problems than it solved.
  In 1998 alone, there were more than 76 million entries and exits to 
the U.S. by Canadian citizens.
  Some of the largest of those crossing points are along the New York-
Ontario border. In fact, Western New York is the largest port in the 
state of New York.
  More than $85 billion in goods and services moved back and forth 
between Western New York and Southern Ontario in 1998 alone. And about 
$140 million per day moves across its border crossings.
  It was anticipated that stopping every vehicle entering and exiting 
the U.S.--as Section 110 required--would have caused 30 hour crossing 
delays at busy international border points. Business and industry in 
Western New York hoping to grow from increased trade and commerce 
simply could not afford those types of delays.
  As NAFTA continues to encourage trade between the U.S., Canada and 
Mexico, the growth in traffic across the U.S./Canada border is expected 
to continue its 4%-7% annual growth rate over the next decade.
  Commercial vehicles must cross the northern border quickly and 
efficiently for U.S. companies to remain globally competitive and 
attract new foreign investment.
  Congress must correct the problems associated with Section 110 as 
currently written to facilitate international commerce and promote 
continuing economic development in New York State and across the 
country. This legislation does that and, on behalf of Western New York 
residents and businesses, I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see we have fixed the 
Section 110 problem by removing the cumbersome requirements made under 
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996. This is a very important issue to me, my constituents and all 
Americans living on our nation's borders. I have always made it a 
priority to see that no unnecessary burdens are placed on border 
residents. The implementation of Section 110, as proposed in 1996 would 
have crippled and severely restricted cross border trade, tourism and 
the environment.
  It should be highlighted that H.R. 4489 does not create any new 
documentary requirements. We have amended section 110 to create an 
integrated entry and exit database system. We have allowed our advanced 
technology to direct our policy. The new system, once implemented, will 
match an alien's arrival data with their departure data. It will also 
produce a report of an alien's country of nationality and identify any 
non-immigrant who may have overstayed their visas. The bill also 
creates a task force to study and recommend methods to continuously 
improve and update the INS' database system as technology advances. 
This will ensure we are always current with the most efficient and 
effective ways to safe and lawful border crossing.
  The people living on our borders will benefit from this legislation, 
as it will facilitate expedient, safe and lawful cross border trade and 
tourism.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
bipartisan agreement reached on Section 110 and presented to the House 
as H.R. 4489. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and 
ask all of my colleagues to support this legislation. This compromise 
legislation will achieve the enforcement goals of Section 110 without 
punishing communities along the border.
  H.R. 4489 eliminates the Section 110 requirements of implementing an 
entry/exit control system by March 20, 2001 and instead requires the 
INS to automate its ability to collect information on who is entering 
and exiting the U.S. This is good news for communities like El Paso 
that would have been devastated by the full implementation of Section 
110. Our ports-of-entry, which are already stressed, would have become 
parking lots. Business would have suffered and tourism would have 
disappeared. Trade, which is so important to my district and others 
along the border, would have suffered greatly.
  I commend Chairman Smith for this efforts during these negotiations. 
The goals of Section 110 are admirable. This bill allows us to make use 
of the information that we already gather on people entering and 
exiting this country. That is an important first step we must take 
prior to adding additional requirements to an already overwhelmed 
agency.
  What this entire debate has shown us is that we must do a better job 
of providing the INS and Customs with additional personnel to man the 
ports-of-entry. We must make it a priority to staff the ports-of-entry 
along the Southwest Border so that we can have all lanes open for 
traffic. Additional personnel will allow us to better manage our 
borders, enforce our laws, and facilitate the flow of commerce. This is 
a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support this compromise.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the immigration reform 
bill in 1996, no one in this body thought they were voting for a bill 
that would tie up our borders with Mexico and Canada.
  But that's what could happen unless we pass this corrective 
legislation today.
  Section 110 of the 1996 immigration bill was interpreted as requiring 
Canadian and Mexican citizens to obtain entry and exit documents when 
traveling to the United States--even though the authors of the bill 
acknowledged that was not its purpose.
  For communities at the border, Section 110 of the immigration bill is 
a disaster waiting to happen--clogged bridges, tunnels, and roads--
impacting commerce and tourism.
  I know that at the Blue Water Bridge, at Port Huron in Michigan, 
delays can already lead to hours waiting in line at our border with 
Canada. But improvements are being made to relieve the congestion.
  All the efforts that have been made to improve our borders will be 
for naught if the visa requirement is implemented.
  We don't need an onerous, unnecessary requirement that will further 
congest our borders.
  That's why we should pass this sensible compromise legislation today. 
I'm pleased to join as a cosponsor of H.R. 4489, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000.
  Tourism, trade, and border communities will be devastated if Section 
110 is not changed. This is our chance to make it right.
  We can patrol our border effectively if we give the INS and Customs 
Service the resources they need to do their jobs well.
  Let's use the opportunity we have today to correct this major flaw. 
Please join me in voting for H.R. 4489.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this consensus 
legislation, H.R. 4489, the INS Data Management Improvement Act.
  As a Representative of a region highly dependent upon economic ties 
with Canada, I have long been concerned that the implementation of 
Section 110 of the 1996 Immigration reform Act would adversely affect 
commerce, trade, and tourism for the North Country region of New York.
  I note that New York City and Montreal are the two largest 
metropolitan areas on the Eastern Seabord. The 22nd Congressional 
district of New York lies directly between them, providing tremendous 
economic opportunities for our residents.
  The compromise today allows for increased data collection and 
monitoring at our borders without compromising the flow of goods and 
tourists that are essential to the New York-Montreal trade corridor.
  New York exported $10 billion in goods to Canada in 1998 and hosted 
2.2 million Canadian visitors.
  This exchange is already hampered today by the outdated facilities 
and lack of resources and our border crossings in New York.
  This agreement today ensures that this situation of gridlock at our 
borders will not be worsened by the implementation of Section 110.
  I thank the Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Smith and the cosponsors for 
their hard work on this legislation.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4489, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act. 
As you all know, we have been grasping for a solution to the Section 
110 problem for several years now. And now, through months of hard work 
and negotiations, I am pleased to lend my full support to this 
bipartisan solution to this vexing problem.
  This legislation will amend Section 110 of the 1996 Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in two ways. First, 
this bill will create a database to integrate and centralize the 
information that is already collected about aliens entering and leaving 
the United States. This solution will impose no new information 
collection requirements.
  Second, the bill establishes a task force that will issue findings 
and recommendations on enhancing data collection. The task force will 
also study and make recommendations on how to improve congestion at 
border points and facilitate border crossings. This task force will be 
made up of representatives of the public sector including agencies with 
interests in trade, tourism, transportation, immigration, law 
enforcement, national security and the environment. The task force will 
also include private sector representatives from affected industries.
  Section 110, as written in the 1996 Immigration Reform law, would 
have had a devastating impact on the economies of border

[[Page H3576]]

communities. By requiring a record of every person entering and leaving 
the US, border crossings would have been effectively shut down. The 
lengthy delays that are already experienced at border crossings would 
have been increased to a near stand still. This legislation today, 
accomplishes the laudable goal for section 110, without effecting 
border traffic. Tracking aliens in the United States is something we 
need to facilitate. This bill will do that. I am thrilled that we have 
come to this important compromise.
  I would like to take a moment to thank Chairman Smith, for his 
willingness to sit down and spend the hours and days that it took to 
reach this solution. I would also like to thank Congressmen Upton, 
LaFalce, McHugh, Houghton, Reynolds and all of the other members and 
staff who spent so much time and effort to reach this compromise. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join this bi-partisan effort to 
improve the provisions of section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This much needed revision of 
section 110 seeks to ensure that the law enforcement objectives of the 
1996 law are preserved without adversely impacting Michigan's strong 
tourism and Trade industry. Mr. Speaker, to those of us who always 
opposed the provisions of section 110 that would produce enormous 
backups at our borders, this bill represents a much needed and long 
awaited compromise. The people of the great State of Michigan, some of 
whom cross the international border to Canada every day, are well 
served by this revision. I look forward to finding further ways we can 
improve our security and ensure the free flow of tourists and goods 
through the state of Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we had an additional speaker on the 
way, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), and he has not yet 
arrived. Without the presence of the gentleman, I will go on and say to 
the Speaker, I have no requests for additional time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4489.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


	


Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: