ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

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

[Congressional Record: April 12, 2002 (Senate)]
[Page S2609-S2623]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access []


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to consideration of H.R. 3525, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3525) to enhance the border security of the 
     United States, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is time to enact the Enhanced Border 
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act.
  I thank my colleagues, Senators Brownback and Kyl, on the Judiciary 
Committee, the Republican leaders on the Judiciary Committee and on 
this issue, and also acknowledge the very strong leadership of my 
colleague and friend from California, Senator Feinstein. We have worked 
very closely together. We all had different legislation in different 
forms and shapes, but all on a similar subject matter. We have worked 
closely to make a unified recommendation to the Senate which reflects 
our best judgment.
  It also reflects the best judgment of those who have had the 
opportunity to study the issues that we have included, and we have 
benefited from a number of recommendations. I am very grateful to all 
of our colleagues for all of the good work they have done. We present 
this as a unified team.
  This legislation would strengthen the security of our borders, 
improve our ability to screen foreign nationals, and enhance our 
ability to deter potential terrorists. This legislation addresses the 
significant national security challenges we face today.
  The House passed the Border Security Act in December. The Senate 
action is long overdue.
  I believe there are five dimensions to our security challenge today. 
First is the military. The Armed Forces are performing superbly, and 
they are well led. Secondly, we have a new intelligence challenge that 
deals primarily with the control of nuclear and biological materials in 
the former Soviet Union, and the gaps in what we know about terrorist 
groups. A third involves a cracking-down on money laundering and 
improving our ability to follow the financial trail of terrorist groups 
through the international monetary system, and we have seen important 
legislation on that subject successfully completed in this body.
  Fourth is the area of bioterrorism. Senator Frist and I have worked 
closely together to enact the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act 
signed by the President in the year 2000. We are in conference now with 
the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. We have very good bipartisan support 
for this legislation--Congressman Tauzin, House Members--and we are 
very close to making recommendations with a conference report sometime 
next week or very shortly thereafter. We have worked very closely in a 
bipartisan, bicameral way to meet this particular challenge.
  Finally, there is the security of our borders, which remains the 
challenge that needs attention.
  As the recent mistakes of the INS demonstrate, the need is urgent to 
close the loopholes in our immigration system. Border security is the 
shared responsibility of the INS, the State Department, intelligence 
agencies, and the Customs Service, and requires improved technology, 
enhanced intelligence capacity, and dynamic information sharing, 
updated training for border officials and Foreign Service offices, and 
expanded monitoring of foreign nationals already in the United States.
  Additional restructuring within agencies to streamline the 
implementation of this multi-faceted goal may be necessary over time, 
but are not a precondition to the passage of this legislation.
  The pressing need for enhanced border security must proceed without 
further delay.
  As I mentioned, the reorganization, restructuring of the INS is 
  I and others have introduced that restructuring in the 105th and 
107th Congresses. Basically, that incorporated the recommendations of 
what we call the Barbara Jordan Commission. The Commission itself spent 
over a year evaluating and examining the series of recommendations 
about how to make the whole INS more effective and efficient and 
respond to both its enforcement as well as its service needs. It is a 
solid base from which we should move ahead.
  But it does seem to all of us that it is important we get about this 
business now in terms of border security first and not wait for the 
more general

[[Page S2610]]

kinds of debates on the restructuring and reorganizing, because 
whatever is going to be done with that, these provisions that we will 
be accepting and endorsing today will be well incorporated into that 
  In strengthening our security at our borders, we must also safeguard 
the unobstructed entry of the more than 31 million persons who enter 
the United States legally each year as visitors, students, and 
temporary workers. Many others cross our borders from Canada and Mexico 
to conduct daily business or visit close family members. We are talking 
about 550 million people who come and go from the United States every 
year--with the possibility of some visitors who might pose some danger 
to our country and society in the form of terrorism. It is really like 
finding a needle in the haystack.
  We have to use technology to the greatest effect we can--with well-
trained people and good technology at the entry level. With this new 
technology, we will be able to track when individuals acquire a visa 
and follow that individual while they are in the United States to know 
when they are leaving or when they should leave the United States. This 
technology will keep alive the knowledge and the whereabouts of 
individuals who are visiting our country. That capability does not 
exist today. It is key in terms of trying to deal with the challenges 
of border security. And now that we have recognized that the terrorists 
were visitors to this country who acquired visas, we understand the 
importance of trying to deal with this issue and deal with it 
  We believe the legislation we are supporting is not going to answer 
all of the problems, but it is going to move us into the modern 
technology age and will take advantage of all the new technology to 
help provide security for our country.
  We also must live up to our history and heritage as a nation of 
immigrants. We can go to a more restrictive kind of border security. It 
probably would not be responsive to the nature of the terrorists, and 
it would have important implications in terms of families and in terms 
of commercial relationships. We want to provide a recommendation 
consistent with our historical and economic interests, but also use the 
best of technology in terms of identifying it and seeking out those who 
mean to do harm to our society.
  Continued immigration is a part of our national well-being, our 
identity as a nation, and our strength in today's world. In defending 
America, we are also defending the fundamental constitutional 
principles that made us strong in the past and will make us even 
stronger in the future. Our action must strike a careful balance 
between protecting civil liberties and providing the means for law 
enforcement to identify, apprehend, and detain potential terrorists. It 
makes no sense to enact reforms to severely limit immigration into the 
United States. ``Fortress America,'' even if it could be achieved, is 
an inadequate and ineffective response to the terrorist threat. This 
legislation strikes the balance. Immigrants are not the danger; 
terrorists are. We have to keep that in mind.

  Our legislation creates increased and improved layers of security by 
providing multiple opportunities for our government to turn away or 
apprehend potentially dangerous visitors and travelers.
  Our first layer of security is the intelligence information provided 
to consular offices, the INS, and border guards. Our efforts to improve 
border security must therefore include targeted intelligence gathering 
and analysis to identify potential terrorists, and coordinated 
information-sharing within and between the Department of State, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the law enforcement and 
intelligence agencies.
  This legislation will require the President to submit and implement a 
plan to improve the access to critical security information. It will 
create an electronic data system to give those responsible for 
screening visa applicants and persons entering the United States the 
information they need in real time and the tools they need to make 
informed decisions. It also provides for a temporary system until the 
President's plan is fully implemented.
  Now, most foreign nationals who travel here must apply for visas at 
American consulates overseas. We must improve the ability of the 
Foreign Service officers to detect and intercept potential terrorists 
before they arrive in the United States. Traditionally, consular 
offices interviewing visa applicants have focused on trying to 
determine whether the applicant is likely to violate his or her visa 
  Although this review is important, consular offices must also be 
trained specifically to screen for security threats, not just potential 
visa violators.
  We are basically talking about two concepts. One is in terms of the 
technology and the shared information and the other is the training. 
Too often we find that the intelligence agencies refuse to provide 
information in terms of the dangers of individuals who may pose a 
threat to the United States and share that with the consular offices 
that are making decisions and judgments with regard to whether they 
ought to give that person a visa. And it has been a bureaucratic snafu 
that continues too often, even today.
  The intelligence community believes that if they provide that 
information, they are somehow potentially sacrificing their sources in 
a given country because there are foreign nationals in the consular 
offices and they will be able to get wind of what is happening and 
endanger their sources of information with regard to those who pose us 
a threat. So in many instances they will not make those individuals and 
the dangers of those individuals available to the consular offices. 
Clearly, if the consular offices, no matter how well-trained, don't 
have that information, then they are unable to make a judgment about 
the kinds of threats that individual poses for the United States. That 
has to stop.
  There is no question, with the level of technology that is available 
at this time and the whole processing that can be utilized, we can meet 
the responsibilities of the intelligence community, as well as ensuring 
that well-trained consular offices are going to have the kinds of 
information they are going to need in order to make a solid judgment in 
terms of the individual. That is a key element. We need to have the 
training of the consular offices so they are not just looking at the 
usual judgments, whether individuals may overstay, based upon family 
relationships; but they need the additional kind of training in order 
to be able to detect and determine, to the extent that the training 
can, whether individuals pose us a threat. Those two factors are 
included in this legislation and strongly supported. It is extremely 
important, right at the very beginning, to make sure you are going to 
have the best information that is going to be available to that visa 
officer, and that the visa officer is going to have the best possible 
training to not only understand their responsibility on individuals who 
want to get a touring visa, but also they are going to be carefully 
trained in order to use their skills to be able to root out those who 
may potentially be a threat. Those are very important parts of this 

  Terrorist lookout committees will be established in every U.S. 
consular mission abroad in order to focus the attention of our consular 
officers on specific threats and provide essential critical national 
security information to those responsible for issuing visas and 
updating the database. So if the other intelligence agencies are going 
to be able to pick up information, as we have seen happen at different 
times, that a particular area is a potential threatened area, that 
information can be made available as well to the consular offices to 
put them on a higher alert. That too often does not exist today. That 
has to be altered and changed. This legislation does that.
  This legislation will close gaps on restrictions on visas for foreign 
nationals from countries that the Department of State has determined 
are sponsors of terrorism. It prohibits issuing visas to individuals 
coming from countries that sponsor terrorism, unless the Secretary of 
State has determined on a case-by-case basis that the individual is not 
a security threat.
  The current visa waiver program, which allows individuals from 
participating countries to enter the United States for a limited period 
of time without visas, strengthens relations between the United States 
and those

[[Page S2611]]

countries and encourages economic growth around the world. Given its 
importance, we must safeguard its continued use, while also ensuring 
the country's designation as a participant in the program does not 
undermine the U.S. law enforcement and security. This legislation will 
only allow a country to be designated as a visa waiver participant--or 
continue to be designated--if the Attorney General and Secretary of 
State determine that the country reports instances of passport theft to 
the U.S. Government in a timely manner.
  There is a criterion for selecting those countries. Those countries 
are eligible for a visa waiver if they demonstrate that 97 percent of 
those who are granted visas return. That has been reviewed and studied 
over a period of time. Rather than using the personnel when we know 
individuals will be returning, part of all of this effort is to use the 
resources we have, which are not infinite, to target the areas where 
there is the greatest need.
  We have 22 million visitors who come from these visa waiver 
countries. There is not a careful monitoring of those individuals when 
they are here or when they are returning. That has to change. This 
legislation ensures the INS will know when those individuals come here, 
their whereabouts, and when they are going to leave. That is enormously 
  Another provision is the student waiver program. We have 22,000--
listen, 22,000--educational institutions that can grant an educational 
visa. We do not now know when the individual comes in, once they get by 
the port of entry, whether they ever go to the college, whether they 
ever attend for any period of time, or, quite frankly, whether they 
graduate, which is an enormous loophole. That has to change.
  There are provisions in this legislation that do that. We have 
accomplished this with the cooperation of the universities and the 
educational centers. They cooperated. They helped us. We will have a 
chance to go through this in greater detail to the extent Members want 
to, but that is included in this legislation as well.
  We must require also that all airlines electronically transmit 
passenger lists to destination airports in the United States, so that 
once the planes have landed, law enforcement officers can intercept 
passengers on the lookout list. United States airlines already do this, 
but some foreign airlines do not do it. Our legislation requires 
airlines to electronically transmit passenger manifest information 
prior to arrival in the United States. That information is going to be 
put into the computers so we know when the visa is granted and that it 
is based on the most current information. We will know when that 
individual purchased a ticket. That information will be shared. We will 
know by the tracking of that ticket when the person enters. When the 
border security person sees that individual at the port of entry, they 
are going to have up-to-date information and ultimately will have 
biometric technology to make sure the person standing before them is 
the same person who was granted the visa. That does not exist today, 
and it creates enormous opportunities for abuse. We make that 
commitment in this legislation.
  We do not minimize the complexity in achieving all of this, but we 
believe it represents our best effort in how we can improve our current 
  Enforcement personnel at our ports of entry are a key part of the 
battle against terrorism, and we must provide them greater resources, 
training, and technology. These men and women have a significant role 
in the battle against terrorism. This legislation will ensure that 
enforcement personnel receive adequate pay, can hire necessary 
personnel, are well trained to identify individuals who pose a security 
threat, have access to important intelligence information, and have the 
technologies they need to enhance border security and facilitate cross-
border commerce.
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service must be able to retain 
highly skilled immigration inspectors. Our legislation provides 
incentives to immigration inspectors by providing them with the same 
benefits as other law enforcement personnel. They do not have that 
today. Our bill does.

  Expanding the use of biometric technology is critical to prevent 
terrorists from traveling under false identities. This legislation is 
needed to bring our ports of entry into the digital and biometric age 
and equip them with biometric data readers and scanners. These secure 
travel document scanners will verify that a person entering the country 
is the same person who was issued the passport and the visa.
  We must expand the use of biometric border crossing cards. The time 
frame previously allowed for individuals to obtain these cards was not 
sufficient. This legislation extends the deadline for individuals 
crossing the border to acquire the biometric cards. There are some 
instances where individuals, particularly in Mexico, have the cards and 
we have not put the investment into the technology that is necessary to 
read these cards.
  The USA PATRIOT Act addressed the need for machine-readable passports 
but did not focus on the need for machine-readable visas issued by the 
United States. This legislation enables the Department of State to 
raise fees through the use of machine-readable visas and use the funds 
collected from these fees to improve technology at our ports of entry. 
The fee raising has been enormously successful. It has funded these 
programs. It makes a great deal of sense.
  We must also strengthen our ability to monitor foreign nationals 
within the United States. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation 
mandating the development of an automated entry/exit control system to 
record the entry of every non-citizen arriving in the United States and 
to match it with the record of departure. Although the technology is 
available for such a system, it has not been put in place because of 
the high costs involved. Our legislation builds on the antiterrorism 
bill and provides greater direction to the INS for implementing the 
entry/exit system.
  Also, we include in the legislation a very interesting proposal, and 
that is to first look north and then south at perimeter security. We 
are not only looking at our border with Canada, but we are also working 
with Canada to find out who is coming into Canada as a first line of 
defense. That is shared information, with the idea that we can set up 
systems that are going to be cooperative and interchangeable with the 
exchange of information and intelligence on individuals.
  The Canadian Government is responding very positively. Our Ambassador 
to Canada, the former Governor of Massachusetts, Paul Cellucci, 
testified before our committee about the steps that are being taken. 
That will take time to work through. Then we can obviously think about 
doing the same job on the southern perimeter. Most of those who worked 
on the whole security issue believe that can be enormously important 
and very worthwhile.
  It is time for the Senate to support this bill. The security concerns 
addressed by this legislation cannot be ignored, action cannot be 
postponed, and the cost is reasonable. The estimated cost of the 
legislation is $1.2 billion in 1 year, $3.2 billion for full 
implementation. It is a small price to pay for the security this bill 
will provide the American public.
  Some have urged Congress to delay the passage until we have had, as I 
mentioned, the opportunity to restructure the INS. But the many 
important goals of this bill, including developing an interoperable 
data system to give immigration and consular officers access to 
relevant law enforcement and intelligence information, requiring 
biometric identifiers be included in travel documents, and 
strengthening the training of consular officers and immigration 
inspectors are important reforms that need to be enacted regardless of 
how our agencies are organized.
  These reforms cannot wait for a bureaucratic arrangement to be 
resolved, as we have seen the risks are too great. While reorganization 
of the INS is a top priority, which Congress plans to quickly address, 
we cannot afford to wait until that task is implemented to undertake 
the necessary changes advanced in the border security bill.
  The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act has the broad 
bipartisan support of 60 Senators and the support of numerous 
coalitions such as the National Border Patrol Council, the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, Americans for Better Borders,

[[Page S2612]]

International Biometric Industry Association, the American Immigration 
Lawyers Association, the Association of International Educators, the 
Leadership Council for Civil Rights, National Council of La Raza, 
National Immigration Forum, the American Federation of Government 
Employees, and the AFL-CIO.
  The USA PATRIOT Act was an important part of the effort to improve 
immigration security, but further action is needed. This legislation is 
a needed bipartisan effort to strengthen the security of our borders 
and enhance our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks while also 
reaffirming our tradition as a nation of immigrants.
  I see my colleague and friend Senator Feinstein is in the Chamber. At 
this time, I state for the record the very strong support from the 
National Border Patrol, which represents 9,000 nonsupervisory Border 
Patrol employees, talking about the very important aspects of this 
legislation, and rest assured we can count on the support of the 
National Border Patrol Council to secure the passage of this 
legislation. Americans for Better Borders, similarly they have 
indicated their strong support and state that given the importance of 
this legislation, they urge swift passage in the Senate. Also included 
are the groups I have indicated in this chart, which are as broad a 
range of groups in support of this legislation as one could hope for in 
this body.
  One of the most important groups that support this--and I intend to 
yield in a moment--are the Families of September 11. We heard marvelous 
eloquence today from MaryEllen Salamone, who is the director of the 
Families of September 11. These families testify about the importance 
of this legislation. They are attempting not only to try and bring 
their lives together, but also in areas of public policy they are 
expressing their views in ways of ensuring, to the extent that we can, 
that we will not have a similar kind of tragedy as September 11.
  We heard testimony so powerful today in support of legislation from 
that group. I will include those letters of support, as well as from 
the International Biometric Industry, as to why they believe this 
legislation is so important. I have letters from the Alliance, which is 
the International Education and Cultural Exchange, and the Association 
of International Educators. There is strong support from those who 
would be impacted by this legislation.
  This is good legislation. It is necessary, and I hope the Senate will 
support it. I am so glad to see my colleague and friend from 
California, who I have indicated has been a driving force in this area 
as in so many other areas, and she has been an essential partner. We 
always enjoy the opportunity to work closely with her, and we always 
learn from that experience.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referred to be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            American Federation of

                                         Government Employees,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 2002.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Senate Committee on 
         Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy: On behalf of the American Federation 
     of Government Employees, I would like to express our strong 
     support for S. 1749, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa 
     Entry Reform Act of 2002. In our view, the combination of 
     improved technology, better training and higher pay will do 
     much to improve our border response capability.
       We are particularly gratified that this legislation 
     includes a long overdue increase in the journeyman pay grade 
     for immigration inspectors and border patrol agents. 
     Currently, the journeyman pay grade for these two groups of 
     employees is GS-9, among the lowest for all federal law 
     enforcement personnel. This, coupled with the lack of law 
     enforcement retirement benefits for immigration inspectors, 
     has created an attrition crisis at the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service.
       According to statistics provided by the I&NS, the current 
     attrition rate for border patrol agents is 14 percent and is 
     expected to rise to a staggering 20 percent by the end of the 
     fiscal year. For immigration inspectors, the current rate is 
     10.1 percent and it is expected to reach 15 percent by the 
     end of the year. We have been told that over 50 percent of 
     our nation's border patrol agents have applied for air 
     marshal positions. The tremendous loss of experienced 
     personnel to other law enforcement agencies has a devastating 
     effect on agency effectiveness and employee morale.
       W3 applaud you for your leadership on this issue and look 
     forward to working with you to secure full funding for this 
     important measure.
                                                       Beth Moten,
     Legislative Director.

         National Immigration and Naturalization Service Council 
           of the American Federation of Government Employees,
                                                   April 11, 2002.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the National Immigration 
     & Naturalization Service Council and its 6,800 members, I 
     would like to express our appreciation for your efforts to 
     increase the journeyman pay grade for INS inspectors from GS-
     9 to GS-11. We believe this is a long overdue step that will 
     help stem the double digit attrition rate currently 
     experienced within the ranks of INS inspectors. It will also 
     begin to close the gap between their pay rates and that of 
     most other federal law enforcement agencies.
       For this reason, we want to lend our strong support to S. 
     1749/H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
     Reform Bill of 2002. We look forward to working with you to 
     secure the necessary appropriation to implement the pay grade 
       We also look forward to working with you in the future on 
     legislation that would grant immigration inspectors their 
     right as federal law enforcement officers to receive law 
     enforcement retirement benefits. It is a gross injustice that 
     these individuals, who make countless arrests, are required 
     to carry firearms and place themselves in danger on a regular 
     basis and are denied such retirement benefits.
       If there is anything we can do to assist you in your 
     efforts to enact this bill, please let us know.
                                                Charles J. Murphy,

                                     Families of September 11,

                                                  Great Falls, VA.
       Dear Senator: On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked 
     America. They hijacked four planes and crashed into the World 
     Trade Centers and the Pentagon. They took over 2800 lives, 
     they left 15,000 children without one or both parents, and 
     they ruined thousands and thousands of families. They left 
     America in fear.
       Senate Bill 1749, The Enhanced Border Security and VISA 
     Entry Reform Act addresses immigration security issues. The 
     events of September 11 illustrated most clearly the 
     weaknesses of our immigration monitoring systems and Congress 
     responded with this well thought out and carefully written 
     legislation. It passed in December, without delay, in the 
       It is disturbing to learn that this legislation is 
     presently blocked from a vote on the Floor of the Senate. In 
     honor of our loved ones lost, our organization, the Families 
     of September 11, Inc., is committed to promoting legislation 
     and policies which will prevent the recurrence of such a 
     horrific tragedy. We implore you, as an elected official of 
     this country, not just of your state, to do the same. All 
     legislation necessary to improved homeland security must be 
     passed without delay. There is no justification to compromise 
     the safety of the United States of America. Senate Bill 1749 
     needs to be passed, and it needs to be law.
       This is not a time for politics in our country, it is a 
     time for action. The families affected by the events of 
     September 11 have already paid the ultimate price for 
     freedom. We have a reasonable expectation that neither we, 
     nor anyone, should have to pay such a great price as ours for 
     the liberty of this country again. And we have a reasonable 
     expectation that it should be your obligation to ensure this. 
     Please exert any effort necessary to effect a vote on S1749 
     on the Floor of the Senate. And please vote in its favor, 
     homeland security needs to be of the utmost priority in these 
     dangerous times.
       Thank you for your attention and dedication to the 
     resolution of this issue.
     MaryEllen Salamone,
     Carie Lemack,

                                           International Biometric

                                         Industry Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 10, 2002.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the International Biometric 
     Industry Association (IBIA), I am writing to express warm 
     support for swift enactment of the Enhanced Border Security 
     and Visa Reform Act of 2001.
       The IBIA and other industry stakeholders understand the 
     critical importance of this legislation to help counter 
     vulnerabilities in national infrastructure security that were 
     so tragically demonstrated on 9/11. Incorporating biometric 
     identification technology into the new security program 
     called for by the bill will vitally strengthen border 

[[Page S2613]]

       The IBIA and its partner organizations in research and 
     education in biometrics believe that biometrics must be 
     deployed in ways that both advance security and protect 
     privacy and civil liberties. This legislation is consistent 
     with that goal while making great strides toward removing the 
     cloak of anonymity used by those who have no regard for such 
     personal freedoms and the safety of our citizens.
       IBIA is a tax-exempt, nonprofit trade association founded 
     in 1998 to advance the collective interests of the biometric 
     industry. IBIA impartially serves all biometric technologies 
     in all applications. IBIA's membership includes leading 
     manufacturers of hand recognition, iris, facial fingerprint, 
     voice and signature biometrics, and leading integrators of 
     layered biometrics.
       Thank you for your farsighted leadership.
                                                 John E. Siedlarz,

                                           Federation for American

                                           Immigration Reform,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 2002.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: It is my distinct pleasure to offer 
     the full support of the Federation for American Immigration 
     Reform (FAIR) for S. 1749, the Enhanced Border Security and 
     Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001. As you know, FAIR has worked 
     tirelessly with you and with other members of both the House 
     and Senate to develop and advance this critically important 
     homeland security legislation. Senate consideration of this 
     measure separately from other controversial legislation to 
     extend Section 245(i) is the only supportable means for 
     handling this landmark legislation.
       Absent the important provisions of this legislation, the 
     United States will remain perilously vulnerable to attack by 
     terrorists because the nation presently lacks any federal 
     capacity to monitor or track foreign nationals who violate 
     the terms of their visas. Without this important legislation, 
     the United States will continue to lack knowledge of who has 
     entered and departed the country. Similarly the nation will 
     continue to lack knowledge of whom and how many have failed 
     to depart and remain illegally in the country.
       As we have seen since the attacks of September 11, our 
     federal investigative agencies are fragmented, uncoordinated 
     and lack the ability to share important information needed to 
     identify terrorists either attempting to enter our country or 
     who are already here. S. 1749 will mandate interoperability 
     of investigative databases, making it at least possible to 
     detect, intercept and quickly apprehend terrorist suspects 
     before their deadly plans are consummated. The mandates to 
     implement an exit-entry system, inter-agency information 
     sharing and the use of verifiable biometric identifiers on 
     visas and passports make enforcement of laws against all 
     forms of illegal immigration far more feasible.
       Senator Feinstein, we applaud the steadfast determination 
     you have shown in ending the logjam holding up Senate 
     consideration of this bill since last December. The nation is 
     in your debt.
                                                        Dan Stein,
     Executive Director.

         National Border Patrol Council of the American Federation 
           of Government Employees,
                                        Campo, FL, April 12, 2002.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Immigration Subcommittee, Judiciary Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The National Border Patrol Council, 
     representing over 9,000 non-supervisory Border Patrol 
     employees, appreciates your leadership on immigration issues 
     and support of the dedicated men and women who protect our 
     nation's borders. Your recent efforts to provide enhanced 
     technology, more training, and higher pay through the pending 
     Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 
     (S. 1749/H.R. 3525) are greatly appreciated. As you are aware 
     attrition within the ranks of the Border Patrol is at an all-
     time high, and continues to climb at an alarming rate. 
     Increasing the journeyman pay level of these employees is an 
     important step in addressing this severe problem. Rest 
     assured that you can count on the support of the National 
     Border Patrol Council to secure the passage of this 
     legislation. After it is enacted, your continued assistance 
     in the effort to fully fund the pay increase authorization 
     will prove invaluable.
                                                      T.J. Bonner,

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the 
Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue. It is very 
clear to me we would not be where we are today had it not been for his 
leadership, both as a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and as 
the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, and as a 40-year member 
of this great body.
  I am very pleased to join with Senators Kennedy, Brownback, and Kyl 
in sponsoring the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 
2001. This legislation, I think it is fair to say, represents a 
consensus. It draws upon the strength of both the Visa Entry Reform Act 
of 2001, which I introduced with my colleague from Arizona, Senator 
Kyl, and the Enhanced Border Security Act of 2001, which Senators 
Kennedy and Brownback introduced.
  How did this happen? Senator Kyl and I, in the Technology and 
Terrorism Subcommittee, held hearings and came upon many of the same 
things I think Senators Kennedy and Brownback did in the full 
Subcommittee on Immigration. In any event, the final result, as Senator 
Kennedy has said, garnered widespread support from both sides of the 
aisle. We now have a total of 61 cosponsors, and I think that is pretty 
much unprecedented for an immigration bill, particularly one of this 
  September 11 clearly pointed out the shortcomings of our immigration 
and naturalization system. For example, all 19 terrorists entered the 
United States legally. They had valid visas. Three of the hijackers had 
remained in the United States after their visas had expired. One 
entered on a foreign student visa. Another, Mohamed Atta, had filed an 
application to change status to M-1, which was granted in July. 
However, Mr. Atta sought permission and was admitted to the United 
States based on his then current B-1 visitor visa.
  On March 11, 6 months from the date of the attacks, 6 months after 
Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi flew planes into the World Trade 
Center, the Immigration and Naturalization Service notified a Venice, 
FL, flight school that the two men had been approved for student visas.
  I think the sheer volume of travelers to our country each year 
illustrates the need for an efficiently run and technologically 
advanced immigration system. This is extraordinarily difficult if we 
just look at some of the numbers. I want the record to reflect some of 
these numbers.
  We have in our country between 8 and 9 million people who are 
residents without any legal status. They either entered illegally or 
they overstayed a temporary visa. Actually, 40 percent of the total 
were visa overstays. We had 30.1 million nonimmigrants entering the 
United States during the year 1998. That is the most recent year for 
which INS has statistics.
  As Senator Kennedy pointed out, 23 million of them entered as 
tourists on the visa waiver program. Nobody knows really whether they 
ever went home again. Six million of them were issued nonimmigrant 
visas as students, tourists, temporary workers, and other temporary 
visitors; 660,000 were foreign students who had entered in the fall of 
2001. If that is not enough, we have about 500 million border crossings 
back and forth each year, combining Americans who cross the border with 
non-Americans who cross the border, and 350 million of the 500 million 
are non-Americans crossing the border.
  So if one talks about securing borders, our country is a giant sieve. 
This sieve is virtually our strength in times of peace, and at times of 
war it is our greatest insecurity.
  Of these 666,000 foreign nationals who held student visas in 2001, 
more than 10,000 enrolled in flight training, in trade schools, in 
other nonacademic programs, and more than 16,000 came from terrorist-
supporting countries.
  Senator Kennedy pointed out--my numbers are 2,000 different from 
his--that we have some 74,000 U.S. schools that are allowed to admit 
foreign students, but checks of the schools on the current INS list 
found that some had closed. Yet students still come in. Others have 
never existed; therefore, they were fraudulent schools set up clearly 
to bring in people on student visas.
  Exactly 6 months after the 9-11 attacks, as I pointed out, Huffman 
Aviation received student visa approval forms for Mohamed Atta and 
Marwan al-Shehhi.
  There is a big problem out there, and I think the sheer volume of 
travelers to our country each year points out eloquently the problems 
we face.

[[Page S2614]]

  This is one of the reasons why we have to change a paper-driven 
agency into a much more active agency, with better management, with 
more technologically modern tools, and I think knowing what we now know 
to secure our borders. It is visa entries, change the processes, and 
improve the border. This bill aims to do that.

  I will talk for a moment about the visa waiver program. I mentioned 
visa waivers: Some 23 million people, from 29 different countries. I 
mentioned nobody knows where they go in the United States or whether 
they leave once their visas expire. The INS estimates over 100,000 
blank passports have been stolen from government offices in 
participating countries in recent years. Why would 100,000 passports be 
stolen? The answer is, to use them fraudulently. Abuse of the visa 
waiver program poses threats to U.S. national security. It also 
increases illegal immigration.
  For example, one of the co-conspirators in the World Trade Center 
bombing of 1993 deliberately chose to use a fraudulent Swedish passport 
to attempt entry into the United States because of Sweden's 
participation in the visa waiver program. That clearly says we have to 
change the program. What we do in this bill is mandate all these 
passports must be machine readable, so they can be read when the 
individual enters the country, they can be read when the individual 
leaves the country, and also the information can be provided to know 
what these people are going to do while they are in the country.
  Let me talk about the foreign student visa program. I mentioned that 
more than 500,000 foreign nationals enter each year. Within the last 10 
years, 16,000 came from such terrorist-supporting States as Iran, Iraq, 
Sudan, Libya, and Syria. The foreign student visa system is one of the 
most underregulated systems we have today. We have seen bribes, 
bureaucracy, and other problems with this system that leave it wide 
open to abuse by terrorists and other criminals.
  For example, in the early 1990s, 5 officials at 4 California colleges 
were convicted in Federal court of taking bribes, providing counterfeit 
education documents, and fraudulently applying for more than 100 
foreign student visas. It is unclear what steps the INS took to find 
and deport the foreign nationals involved in this scheme, even after 
these five officials were convicted.
  Each year, we have 300 million border crossings. For the most part, 
these individuals are legitimate visitors in our country, but we have 
no way of tracking all of these visitors. Mohamed Atta, the suspected 
ring leader in the attack, was admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor in 
July 2001. He traveled frequently to and from the United States during 
the past 2 years. According to the INS, he was in legal status the day 
of the attack. Other hijackers also traveled with ease throughout the 
  It has become all too clear that without an adequate tracking system, 
our country becomes the sieve that it is today. That creates ample 
opportunities for terrorists to enter and establish their operations 
without detection.
  I sit as chair of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on 
Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information. Last October, the 
subcommittee held a hearing to explore the need for new technologies to 
assist our Government agencies in keeping terrorists out of the United 
States. The testimony at that hearing was very illuminating. We were 
given a picture of an immigration system in chaos and a border control 
system rife with vulnerabilities. Agency officials don't communicate 
with each other, computers are incompatible, and even in instances 
where technological leaps have been made, as in the issuance of 4.5 
million smart border crossing cards with biometric data, the technology 
is not even used because the laser readers have never been purchased 
and installed.

  It is astonishing that a person can apply for a visa and be granted a 
visa by the State Department and there is no mechanism by which the FBI 
or the CIA can raise a red flag with regard to the individual if he or 
she is known to have links to a terrorist group or otherwise pose a 
threat to national security.
  In the aftermath of September 11, it is unconscionable that a 
terrorist might be permitted to enter the United States simply because 
our Government agencies don't share information. We heard testimony 
from the head person of the State Department in the consular division. 
She testified that they feel terrible because they granted these visas. 
They granted them from abroad. But they had no information on the 
individuals, no reason at the time to deny the visas.
  We have discovered since then the perpetrators of these attacks 
clearly had a certain confidence that our immigration laws could be 
circumvented either because the law itself was not adequate to protect 
us or the enforcement of existing law is too lax. It almost seemed 
effortless the way the terrorists got into this country. They did not 
have to slip into the country as stowaways on sea vessels or sneak 
through the borders evading Federal authorities. Most, if not all, 
appeared to have come in with temporary visas, which are routinely 
granted to tourists, to students, and to other short-term visitors to 
our country.
  This brings me to why the provisions we have cosponsored are so 
important and should be enacted without further delay. Right now, our 
Government agencies use different systems with different information 
and different formats. They often refuse to share that information with 
other agencies within our Government. This clearly, in view of 
September 11, is no longer acceptable. When a tourist presents himself 
or herself at a consular office asking for a visa or at a border 
crossing with a passport, we need to make sure his or her name and 
identifying information are checked against an accurate, up to date and 
comprehensive database.
  Under the pending legislation, the administration would be required 
to develop and implement an interoperable law enforcement and 
intelligence data system which would provide the INS and the State 
Department immediate access to relevant law enforcement and 
intelligence information. The database would be accessible to foreign 
service officers issuing visas, to Federal agents determining the 
admissibility of aliens to the United States, and law enforcement 
officers investigating and identifying aliens.
  In addition, the interoperable data system would include 
sophisticated, linguistically based, name-matching algorithms so that 
the computers can recognize that, for example, Muhamad Usam Abdel 
Raqeeb and Haj Mohd Othman Abdul Rejeeb are transliterations of the 
same name. In other words, this provision would require agencies to 
ensure that names can be matched even when they are stored in different 
sets of fields in different databases.
  Incidentally, this legislation also contains strict privacy 
provisions limiting access to this database to authorized Federal 
officials only. The bill contains severe penalties for wrongful access 
or misuse of information contained in the databases.
  I wish to address one other problem. Some people say if you give the 
date that is in the legislation, it is too soon, they cannot approve 
it. I don't believe that. We have been after them for years to do 
things like this, and I believe, after talking with several people from 
the private sector, that the private sector can come in and provide the 
software very quickly for the kinds of databases we are discussing.
  They have assured me this is possible. I think one of the problems we 
have is we don't employ the experts in the private sector we have--the 
technologically hypersensitive people who know the most modern 
technology and how to apply software, how to get the system up and 
running, how to get the data entered, and then stay with the system.
  I remember when I was mayor of San Francisco when we did the first 
latent fingerprint database in the United States. NEC did it for us. 
NEC sent their people to San Francisco to install the system and to 
establish the software. They remained for 5 years to see that the 
programming was done adequately. This was done on a request for 
proposal of bid from the private sector.
  I believe very strongly, if we are going to ever get this section of 
the bill properly instituted, that not only does the private sector 
have to come in, but they have to stay for substantial periods of 
time--at least 5 years--to supervise the data entry as that data is put 
in, as the databases are checked, as

[[Page S2615]]

they are revised. I think that is critical to a system.
  I mentioned briefly the Visa Waiver Program. With 123 million people 
and 29 different countries, we would require tamper-resistant, machine-
readable biometric passports. Each country participating in the visa 
waiver program would issue tamper-resistant, machine-readable biometric 
passports to its nationals by 2003. This must happen. No excuse should 
be tolerated. If they cannot meet it, they should be dropped out of the 
  Prior to admitting a foreign visitor from a visa waiver country, the 
INS inspector must first determine that the individual does not appear 
in any lookout database. As a condition of a country's continued 
participation in the visa waiver program, the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of State must consider whether that country keeps the United 
States apprised of the theft of blank passports. One-hundred thousand 
of them have been stolen. Again, why? Fraud.
  This is important because terrorist organizations have made use of 
stolen or counterfeit passports from countries participating in the 
visa waiver program. The INS would be required to enter stolen or lost 
passport numbers into the interpretable visa data system within 72 
hours of notification of loss or theft. Until that system is 
established, the INS must enter that information into an existing data 
system. So when they come through on the visa waiver program with a 
stolen passport, that number is hot. That number pops up. Whoever is 
waving them through knows it.
  We know the September attacks were connected with al-Qaeda, which has 
links in some 60 to 70 countries around the world. It has, in fact, 
established bases in visa waiver countries such as Albania, Belgium, 
Bosnia, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, 
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
  Al-Qaeda cells exist in these countries. Stolen passports become 
available. They come in, and no one knows what happened after that 
time. Clearly, we cannot allow this program to become a passageway for 
terrorists into our country.
  We also have new requirements for passenger manifests. All commercial 
flights and vessels coming to the United States from international 
ports must provide manifest information about each passenger, crew 
member, and other occupants prior to the arrival of that flight or that 
vessel. That is critical to closing some of these loopholes. The 
manifest has to get to the INS prior to the arrival of the ship or the 

  I have checked with airlines as to whether this can be done and 
whether it is practical. The answer is yes.
  In addition, each vessel or aircraft departing from the United States 
for any destination outside of the United States must provide manifest 
information before departure. By 2003, the manifest must be transmitted 
  The Attorney General would be authorized to extend manifest 
requirements to any public or private carrier transporting persons to 
or from the United States.
  The Attorney General may impose a fine on carriers that fail to 
provide manifest information or those who provide inaccurate, 
incomplete, or false information.
  This section of the bill also eliminates the 45-minute deadline to 
clear arriving passengers which now exist in law.
  This legislation also includes other concrete steps to restore 
integrity to the immigration and visa process, including the following 
new travel document requirements.
  The bill would require all visa, passports, and other travel 
documents to be fraud and tamper resistant and contain biometric data 
by October 26, 2003.
  The legislation would also require all foreign nationals to be 
fingerprinted, and when appropriate submit other biometric data to the 
State Department when applying for a visa.
  That is reasonable. It has to be done. This provision should help to 
eliminate fraud as well as identify potential threats to the country 
before they gain access.
  There is a provision on nonimmigrants from certain countries. The 
bill would prohibit the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to nationals 
from countries designated as state-sponsored international terrorism, 
unless the Secretary of State, after consulting with the Attorney 
General and the heads of other appropriate agencies, determines that 
the individual poses no safety or security threat to the United States.
  Student visa reforms: We worked closely with the university community 
in crafting new strict requirements for the student visa program to 
crack down on fraud--to make sure that students really are attending 
classes, and to give the Government the ability to track any foreign 
national who arrives on a student visa but fails to enroll in school.
  Prior to 9-11, I think it is fair to say that the American academic 
community didn't really want to have this responsibility. After 9-11, 
to some extent, they still didn't.
  That is when I came forward with perhaps a moratorium on the student 
visa program. Then they came in and agreed to assume additional 
  I am very grateful to the university associations for their 
leadership in this matter. I know it is additional work for schools. 
But I also think if the schools receive the tuition, and if the schools 
receive the individuals, there has to be a private sector sharing of 
this responsibility as well. That is just, and that it is appropriate. 
I believe the university community now agrees with this.
  I am very grateful to them for their cooperation. The legislation 
also reforms the student visa process by doing the following: It would 
require the Attorney General to notify schools of the student's date of 
entry and require the schools to notify--this is important--the INS if 
a student has not reported to school within 30 days of the beginning of 
an academic term.
  The monitoring program does not preselect such information as the 
student's date of entry, the port of entry, the date of school 
enrollment, the date the student leaves the school, graduates, or quits 
the degree program or field of study. That, and other significant 
information, will now be collected.

  I think it is important. I do not believe the people of my State or 
the people of America want us to give advanced nuclear training to 
those who would conduct a nuclear program and use that program against 
us. We know we have trained the head of the Iraqi nuclear program. We 
know we have given a higher education to the head of the Islamic Jihad. 
I do not think our people want us to do that. I, as one Member of this 
Senate, really rebel against that kind of thing. I don't want to train 
people who will create enormous danger to all of our citizens.
  I think we can't entirely avoid it, but we can have those systems in 
place that guard against it. We at present do not.
  We would also require the INS, in consultation with the State 
Department, to monitor the various steps involved in admitting foreign 
students and to notify the school of the student's entry. This does not 
presently happen.
  It would also require the school to notify INS if a student has not 
reported for school no more than 30 days after the deadline for 
registering for classes. So if you are supposed to register and you do 
not register for 30 days, right now the INS doesn't know that. You can 
be long gone. They do not know it. This would be the school's 
responsibility. The schools are prepared to accept that responsibility.
  We would also mandate the INS to conduct a periodic review of 
educational institutions to monitor their compliance with recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements. If an institution or program fails to 
comply, their authorization to accept foreign students may be revoked. 
While the INS currently reviews educational institutions, reviews have 
not been done consistently in recent years, and some schools are not 
diligent in their recordkeeping and reporting responsibilities.
  As to more border personnel, this section authorizes an increase of 
at least 1,000 INS inspectors. If you were there--and I believe you 
were, Madam President, this morning at our hearing--you heard the 
immigration specialist say how very important the INS

[[Page S2616]]

inspector is; how overburdened--and underpaid, I would add--they are. 
This bill would change both of those. It would add 1,000 INS 
investigative personnel, 1,000 Customs Service inspectors, and 
additional associated support staff in each of fiscal years 2002 
through 2006, to be employed at either the northern or southern border.
  As to better INS pay and staffing, to help INS retain Border Patrol 
officers and inspectors, this section would raise their pay grade and 
permit the hiring of additional support staff.
  As to enhanced Border Patrol and Customs training to enhance our 
ability to identify and intercept would-be terrorists at the border, 
funds are provided for the regular training of Border Patrol, Customs 
agents, and INS inspectors. In addition, funds are provided to agencies 
staffing U.S. ports of entry for continuing cross-training, to fully 
train inspectors in using lookout databases and monitoring passenger 
traffic patterns, and to expand the carrier consultant program.
  As to better State Department information and training, this section 
authorizes funding to improve the security features of the Department 
of State screening of visa applicants. Improved security features 
include better coordination of international intelligence information, 
additional staff, and continuous ongoing training of consular officers.
  The bill contains a number of other related provisions as well, but 
the gist of this legislation is this: Where we can provide law 
enforcement more information about potentially dangerous foreign 
nationals, we do so. Where we can reform our border crossing system to 
weed out and deter terrorists and others who would do us harm, we do 
so. And where we can update technology to meet the demands of modern 
war against terror, we do that as well.

  As we prepare to modify our immigration system, we must be sure to 
enact changes that are realistic and feasible. We must also provide the 
necessary tools to implement them, and the money to pay for it all. I 
think Senator Byrd was eloquent this morning in expressing that.
  We have a lot to do, but I am confident that we will move swiftly to 
address these important issues. The legislation Senators Kennedy, 
Brownback, Kyl, and I crafted is an important and strong first step, 
but this is only the beginning of a long and difficult process because 
our entire intent, our body language, our laws, our philosophy, has 
been to have a very liberal, open border. Now we cannot afford to do 
  Madam President, I would like to respond to any concern anyone might 
have that this bill is anti-immigrant. We are a nation of immigrants. 
The United States takes more immigrants legally each year than all of 
the other industrialized nations on Earth put together. So we are a 
nation of immigrants. We recognize it; we respect it. It is what the 
Statue of Liberty stands for. And we have followed it.
  The overwhelming percentage of people who come to live in this 
country do so to enjoy the blessings of liberty, equality, and 
opportunity. The overwhelming percentage of the people who visit this 
country mean us no harm, but there are several thousand innocent 
people, including foreign nationals, who were killed on September 11--
in part because a network of fanatics determined to wreak death, 
destruction, and terror. They exploited the weaknesses of our 
immigration system to come here, to stay here, to study here, and to 
kill here.
  We learned at Oklahoma City that not all terrorists are foreign 
nationals. But the world is a dangerous place and the world is peopled 
with regimes that would destroy us if they had a chance.
  We are all casualties of September 11. Our society has necessarily 
changed as our perception of the threats we face has changed. The 
blinders have fallen from our eyes. Clearly, we need to address the 
vulnerabilities in our immigration system that September 11 painfully 
  O, that we had done it after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade 
  When one of the bombers was being moved after 9-11, he said to the 
FBI agent moving him: If I only had the money and explosives, I could 
have done what was done on September 11, in 1993.
  The changes we need to make in our system will inconvenience people. 
Let there be no doubt. Once implemented, however, those changes will 
make it easier for law-abiding foreign visitors either to visit or to 
study here, and for law-abiding immigrants who want to live here to do 
so. More importantly, once they are here, their safety--and our 
safety--will be greatly enhanced.

  We must do everything we can to deter the terrorists, here and 
abroad, who would do us harm. From the Pentagon to downtown Manhattan, 
we have learned just how high the stakes are. It would dishonor the 
innocent victims of September 11 and the brave men and women in our 
Armed Forces who are defending our liberty at this very instant if we 
failed in this effort.
  So it is extraordinarily important that we enact the Enhanced Border 
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. I urge the bipartisan leadership of 
the Senate to join with us in gaining final passage of this important 
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I would also like the Record to 
reflect the following:
  In fiscal year 1999, the Department of State identified 291 potential 
nonimmigrants as inadmissible for security or terrorist concerns. Of 
that number, 101 aliens seeking nonimmigrant visas were specifically 
identified for terrorist activities, but 35 of them were able to 
overcome the ineligibility.
  Including the 19 September 11 hijackers, 47 foreign-born individuals 
have been charged, pled guilty, or been convicted of involvement in 
terrorism on U.S. soil in the last 10 years. Of the 47 terrorists, at 
least 13 had overstayed a temporary visa at some point prior to taking 
part in terrorist activity, including September 11 ring leader Mohamed 
Atta. Therefore, tracking visa overstays is a very important part of 
what we are trying to do.
  One other fact: Some reports indicate that Khalid Al Midhar, who 
probably flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, was 
identified as a terrorist by the CIA in January 2001, but his name was 
not given to the watch list until August 2001. Unfortunately, he had 
already reentered the United States in July 2001.
  I should point out that there is some debate about exactly when the 
CIA identified him as a terrorist. But if it really did take the CIA 
several months to put his name on the list, as PBS's ``Frontline'' has 
reported, then that is a serious problem because we might have stopped 
him from entering the country had they shared this information sooner. 
This, of course, speaks to the issue of sharing information between 
Federal agencies.

  Let me just add some information on absconders and detainees.
  In December 2001, INS estimated that 314,000 foreigners who have been 
ordered deported are at large. More recent estimates, released in March 
2002, suggest there may be at least 425,000 such absconders. At least 
6,000 were identified as coming from countries considered al-Qaeda 
  In a report released in February 2002, the U.S. General Accounting 
Office said that antifraud efforts at the INS are ``fragmented and 
unfocused'' and that enforcement of immigration law remains a low 
priority--that enforcement of immigration law remains a low priority.
  The report found that the agency had only 40 jobs for detecting fraud 
in 4 million applications for immigrant benefits in the year 2000. I 
think that is a clear indication that the additional personnel provided 
for in this bill are truly necessary.
  Since there is no one else on the floor at the present time, I would 
like to also put in the Record some border agency statistics.
  There are 1,800 inspectors at ports of entry along the U.S. borders.
  The Customs Service has 3,000 inspectors to check the 1.4 million 
people and 360,000 vehicles that cross the border daily--1.4 million 
people and 360,000 vehicles daily.
  The 2,000-mile-long Mexican border has 33 ports of entry and 9,106 
Border Patrol agents to guard them.

[[Page S2617]]

  In October 2001, there were 334 Border Patrol agents assigned to the 
nearly 4,000-mile-long northern border between the United States and 
Canada. This number of agents clearly cannot cover all shifts 24 hours 
a day, 7 days a week, leaving some sections of the border open without 
  The Office of the Inspector General found that one northern border 
sector had identified 65 smuggling corridors along the 300 miles of 
border within its area of responsibility.
  INS intelligence officers have admitted that criminals along the 
northern border monitor the Border Patrol's radio communications and 
observe their actions. This enables them to know the times when the 
fewest agents are on duty and to plan illegal actions accordingly.
  The primary tool available to INS inspectors during the inspections 
process is the Interagency Border Inspection System, known as IBIS, 
which allows INS inspectors to search a variety of databases containing 
records and lookouts of individuals of particular concern to the United 
  A 1999 Office of the Inspector General report found, however, that 
INS inspectors at U.S. ports of entry were not consistently checking 
passport numbers with IBIS. INS officers also failed to enter lost or 
stolen passports from visa waiver countries into IBIS in a timely, 
accurate, or consistent manner. One senior INS official from Miami 
International Airport told the OIG that he was not even aware of any 
INS policy that required the entry of stolen passport numbers.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I know Senators Brownback, Kyl, and 
Dorgan will come to the Chamber shortly to speak. In the interim before 
they appear, I wanted to just make a couple of budget points, at least 
as I understand them.
  The committee, I believe the Appropriations Committee as well, has 
the INS-anticipated budget numbers--Senator Kennedy referred to them--
that the total cost to implement the bill, according to the INS, is 
$3,132,307,000. The amount of the first year's cost is $1.187 billion. 
There is $743 million additional in the President's budget, which 
leaves a net deficit of $187,959,000.
  Of the $40 billion we appropriated after the 9-11 attacks, $20 
billion to New York City and $20 billion for discretionary funding, it 
is my understanding the administration has allocated all but $327 
million of that $10 billion. I don't know whether that money is 
available to be put into this program. We certainly will look and 
determine that.
  I agree with those in the Senate who believe homeland defense is 
extraordinarily important; that this asymmetrical warfare we are 
engaged in is going to last a substantial period of time, perhaps a 
decade or more; and that when we took this oath of office, we ought not 
only uphold the Constitution but also protect and defend our people. 
Therefore, if we are really to carry this out, this becomes a very high 
priority item.
  I am hopeful the money will be appropriated. I believe it will. There 
is now a commitment on both sides of the aisle to do so. It is going to 
take much more money than we even recognize at the present time, but I 
believe the American people want us to do that. Therefore, we certainly 
  I don't see any of the other Senators in the Chamber at this time. I 
ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter by Bruce Josten 
on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supporting the bill.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    March 1, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce, I would like to urge you to bring to the floor as 
     soon as possible the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
     Reform Act of 2001 (H.R. 3525/S. 1749). As you know, the 
     Chamber and its members have been long concerned about the 
     security and efficiency of our borders for commerce and 
     travel. We believe this legislation goes a long way toward 
     achieving those goals and is particularly necessary following 
     the tragic events of September 11. The legislation has broad 
     bipartisan support, and already passed the U.S. House of 
     Representatives by voice vote on December 19, 2001.
       This legislation takes a careful and reasoned approach to 
     the issue of border security, and we strongly support the 
     provisions to increase resources for technology and personnel 
     for our Immigration and Customs Services, enhance data 
     sharing capabilities expand pre-clearance and pre-inspection 
     programs, and direct Federal agencies to work with our NAFTA 
     partners to ensure our joint security while enhancing the 
     flow of legitimate commerce and travel across shared borders. 
     These changes are long overdue.
       While we understand that Congress must provide adequate 
     funding if the ambitious deadlines set forth in the 
     legislation are to be met, further delay in this legislation 
     will only postpone the needed reforms that can provide both 
     security and efficiency to our inspections processes. Such 
     changes will allow business to look to the future of cross-
     border travel and trade with some sense of stability.
       We look forward to working with you to secure passage of 
     this legislation, and working with the Congress and the 
     Administration on its implementation.
                                                  R. Bruce Josten.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
letters from a number of other organizations: the American Council on 
International Personnel; the Alliance for International Education and 
Cultural Exchange; Americans for Better Borders; and the host of 
agencies that are reflected by the Family of September 11th Victims; 
and by the Association of International Educators; and the University 
of California as well.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             NAFSA: Association of

                                      International Education,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 2002.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government 
         Information, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I write on behalf of the Nation's 
     largest association of international education 
     professionals--with more than 8,000 members nationwide, 
     including 992 in California--to express our strong support 
     for S. 1749, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
     Reform Act.
       We have a particular interest in those parts of the bill 
     that pertain to international students and scholars. We have 
     worked closely with your offices to ensure that the bill 
     includes any necessary provisions with respect to visa 
     screening and student tracking, while at the same time 
     maintaining the openness to international students and 
     scholars that is itself important to our Nation's security. 
     In our judgment, the bill strikes that crucial balance, and 
     we congratulate you for your work.
       We look forward to early enactment of this legislation, and 
     we pledge our ongoing cooperation to ensure its successful 
                                               Marlene M. Johnson,
     Executive Director and CEO.

                                 Americans for Better Borders,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2002.
     To Members of the U.S. Senate:
       We urge you to help bring S. 1749 to the floor, the 
     Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 
     sponsored by Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Feinstein, and Kyl. 
     In December, the House passed H.R. 3525, the companion 
     measure, by voice vote. The Senate should quickly follow 
       Almost six months have passed since the September 11 
     terrorist attacks. Since that time we, like the rest of the 
     nation, have focused on how to enhance our Nation's security 
     through constructive changes to our immigration policies. 
     This legislation takes a significant step in ensuring that 
     our Nation's immigration policies are in line with our common 
     goal of effectively deterring terrorism. It includes many 
     long-overdue reforms that will deter terrorism by developing 
     layers of protection both outside and within the U.S., and 
     help our country increase its intelligence capacity. It 
     provides authorization for increased funding to support 
     additional personnel and technology at our border agencies, 
     mandates better cooperation among border agencies, and 
     encourages further cooperation on a North American Security 
     Perimeter with Canada and Mexico. The bill requires new and 
     advance information sharing between the privates sector and 
     government agencies, and enhances the use of biometrics in 
     our visas and passports.
       While we support all of these efforts, we are aware that 
     this bill also poses significant challenges to the agencies 
     and Congress to implement new technologies and processes in 
     very short deadlines. Congress must allocate

[[Page S2618]]

     adequate, ongoing resources to ensure that these deadlines 
     are met and new systems are property maintained and updated 
     into the future. Reliance on user fees will not be adequate 
     for this national security priority. Furthermore, if it 
     proves impossible to meet the deadlines in this legislation, 
     Congress must be willing to revisit them to ensure that the 
     legitimate cross-border flow of people, commerce and goods 
     can continue, or our economic security may be jeopardized.
       Given the importance of this measure, we urge its swift 
     passage in the Senate and signature by the President. For our 
     part, we in the private sector pledge to work closely with 
     Congress and the agencies to ensure swift and effective 
     implementation of these needed reforms.
       American Council on International Personnel.
       American Hotel & Lodging Association.
       American Immigration Lawyers Association.
       American Trucking Associations.
       Bellingham (WA) City Council.
       Bellingham/Whatcom Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
       Bellingham Whatcom Economic Development Council.
       Border Trade Alliance.
       Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance.
       Detroit Regional Chamber.
       Eastman Kodak Company.
       Fresh Produce Association of the Americas.
       Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce.
       Greater Houston Partnership.
       International Mass Retail Association.
       International Trade Alliance of Spokane, WA.
       National Alliance of Gateway Communities.
       National Association of RV Parks & Campgrounds.
       National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of 
       National Retail Federation.
       National Tour Association.
       Pacific Corridor Enterprise Council (PACE).
       Plattsburgh-North Country Chamber of Commerce.
       Quebec-New York Corridor Coalition.
       Southeast Tourism Society.
       The National Industrial Transportation League.
       Travel Industry Association of America.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
       Western States Tourism Policy Council.

         Alliance for International Education and Cultural 
                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 2002.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government 
         Information, Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I write on behalf of the Alliance 
     for International Educational and Cultural Exchange, an 
     association of 65 American nongovernmental organizations that 
     conduct exchange programs of all types. We wish to 
     congratulate you and express our strong support for S. 1749, 
     the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act.
       We have worked with your staffs as the legislation has 
     developed, and have had opportunities for input to help 
     ensure that the bill strikes the right balance between our 
     strong national interests in increased security and in 
     continued openness to exchange visitors, students, and 
     scholars from around the world. We believe you have succeeded 
     in accomplishing that important goal.
       We look forward to the passage of this legislation, and to 
     continuing to work with you to ensure that the United States 
     remains fully, and safely, engaged with the world.
                                                  Michael McCarry,
     Executive Director.

                                                    March 8, 2002.
       Dear Senator: We write to urge you to cosponsor and help 
     enact S. 1749/H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and 
     Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001, and to commend Senators 
     Feinstein, Kyl, Brownback and Kennedy for their leadership in 
     developing this important measure. We support their 
     compromise version.
       This legislation includes constructive changes to our 
     immigration policies that can help strengthen our nation's 
     security. These changes fill current gaps in our immigration 
     system and will increase our nation's intelligence capacity 
     as well as develop layers of protection both outside and 
     within the U.S. Among other provisions, this bill:
       Provides consular and border personnel with the training, 
     facilities and data needed to prevent the entry of people who 
     intend to do this country harm.
       Calls for vital improvements in technology to provide more 
     timely information.
       Authorizes increased funding for the Department of State 
     and the Immigration and Naturalization Service so that they, 
     along with other federal agencies, can coordinate and share 
     information needed to identify and intercept terrorists.
       Calls for a study to determine the feasibility of an North 
     American Perimeter Safety Zone. This study includes a review 
     of the feasibility of expanding and developing pre-clearance 
     and pre-inspections programs with protections for persons 
     fleeing persecution.
       Includes provisions for a workable entry-exit control 
       Provides for a one-year extension of the deadline for 
     individuals crossing the border to acquire biometric border 
     crossing cards.
       S. 1749/H.R. 3525 is a bipartisan effort that merits your 
     cosponsorship and swift passage. The House passed this 
     measure in December. We urge the Senate to immediately take 
     up and pass this measure as well.
       American Immigration Lawyers Association.
       Church World Service.
       Episcopal Migration Ministries.
       Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
       Immigration and Refugee Services of America.
       Institute of International Law and Economic Development.
       Leadership Conference for Civil Rights.
       Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services.
       National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
       National Council of La Raza.
       National Immigration Forum.

                                               American Council on

                                International Personnel, Inc.,

                       New York/Washington, DC, December 11, 2001.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: The American Council on 
     International Personnel (ACIP) would like to thank you for 
     your leadership in enhancing our Nation's security. ACIP 
     believes the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform 
     Act of 2001 (S. 1749) takes appropriate measures to better 
     screen and track foreign visitors without imposing 
     unreasonable burdens on the mobility of international 
     personnel so vital to our Nation's economy.
       ACIP is not-for-profit organization of 300 corporate and 
     institutional members with an interest in the global mobility 
     of personnel. Each of our members employs at least 500 
     employees worldwide; and in total our members employ millions 
     of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in all industries 
     throughout the United States. ACIP sponsors seminars and 
     producers publications aimed at educating human resource 
     professionals on compliance with immigration laws, and works 
     with Congress and the Executive Branch to facilitate the 
     movement of international personnel.
       ACIP has long supported the enhanced use of electronic 
     communications and information technology to process 
     immigration petitions and visas, assess risks, identify 
     fraud, and speed legitimate foreign visitors across the 
     borders. ACIP members are heavy users of the INSPASS and Visa 
     Waiver programs. We believe that in the long run, machine-
     readable documents and biometric technology will make these 
     programs even more successful. We fully support the expansion 
     of preclearance, the integration of agency databases and the 
     electronic transmission of visa files and passenger manifests 
     and hope this will eventually be used to facilitate 
     legitimate travelers as well as to apprehend those who pose a 
     threat. Efforts to standardize our laws with neighboring 
     countries is also a welcome step that should facilitate 
     commerce. In addition, ACIP is authorized to maintain an 
     Umbrella J Visa program for international trainees employed 
     by our member companies. While it is unclear whether the 
     Foreign Student Monitoring Program will eventually be 
     extended to programs such as ours, ACIP would be pleased to 
     participate in any pilot programs.
       We appreciate that S. 1749 provides authorizations to 
     implement and maintain these important programs. We look 
     forward to your leadership in ensuring that adequate funds 
     are appropriated to enable the agencies to carry out these 
     missions within the ambitious timeframes. ACIP looks forward 
     to assisting you in this important work.

                                         Lynn Frendt Shotwell,

                                        Legal Counsel and Director
     of Government Relations.

                                      University of California

                                    Oakland, CA, December 3, 2001.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of the University of 
     California, I am pleased to express our support for the 
     provisions regarding student visas in The Enhanced Border 
     Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001. This legislation 
     reflects a well-crafted balance between the nation's need to 
     enhance security with the benefits of international 
       The University of California has more than 9,000 
     undergraduate and graduate foreign students and approximately 
     23,000 foreign students in our Extension programs. We value 
     the contributions these students, and all of our students, 
     are making to education and research. Like you, we recognize 
     the tremendous benefits that UC students provide to 
     California and to our nation. International education is one 
     of our nation's best tools for sharing democratic ideas 
     around the world; we believe the instruction and research 
     opportunities UC provides are helping to better shape our 
     nation and democracy abroard.
       The legislation you have introduced with Senator Kyl, 
     Senator Kennedy, and Senator Brownback will strengthen and 
     accelerate implementation of the foreign student tracking 
     system (SEVIS), and will provide interim measures until that 
     system is operational. On October 12, I wrote President Bush 
     asking him to support your request of $36.8 million

[[Page S2619]]

     for SEVIS. It is my hope that Congress and the administration 
     recognize the need to fund fully this tracking system. You 
     may be interested to know that our campuses are already 
     working with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
     to ensure the effective deployment of this system.
       My colleagues and I appreciate your effort to work with us 
     in developing language that is agreeable to the University 
     and addresses your concerns about strengthening the student 
     visa system. As we have stated, the University of California 
     is ready to work with the INS and other relevant agencies in 
     implementing this legislation. Furthermore, we hope that 
     cooperative discussions will continue regarding the 
     collection of the fee associated with the tracking system.
       Thank you for your leadership on national security issues 
     and your interest in working with the University of 
                                              Ricahrd C. Atkinson,

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I note the distinguished Senator from Arizona has 
come to the Chamber. He is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Technology and Terrorism and has been the driving force behind this 
legislation. I thank him for all his help. It has been a long road, but 
we are almost there, we hope. I know he wants to make some remarks at 
this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, Senator Feinstein, and I have been working 
on issues relating to terrorism from the time I first came to the 
Senate. We have been either chairman or ranking member, respectively, 
of the committee ever since that time. I can think of few issues that 
have galvanized our attention and effort--I can't think of any that 
have accomplished that--as much as this legislation.
  Of course, the reason is it is in response to what we found in the 
aftermath of September 11--specifically, how the 19 terrorists who came 
into the country and performed their evil deeds actually got here. What 
we found, through testimony before the committee, was that they had all 
gotten here legally with visas. When we talked to the people who 
granted those visas and worked in the system, many of them expressed 
great sorrow and disappointment that they had granted the visas. But 
one in particular testified that, of course, she had no choice because 
she had no information that would have told her she should deny the 
  That one little story is a metaphor for what is in this legislation. 
If we had provided information to the people who grant visas, that 
would have raised a red flag, at least with respect to some of these 
terrorists, that would have caused the consular offices to say, wait a 
minute, maybe we should not grant this visa.
  I remember the testimony of one official saying, it is like the 
driver of the car who is going through the school zone at 15 miles per 
hour and a child runs out from between parked cars. You hit the child 
and injure that child. You feel horrible about it, but you say: There 
is nothing I could do about it; I was driving 15 miles an hour through 
the school zone, doing what I was supposed to do, and the child ran out 
in front of me. I could sense the degree of angst when she testified 
saying: Yes, we granted this visa to Mohamed Atta, but we didn't know. 
They could not know because we didn't have the system in place to tell 
them that some of these people should have been denied visas.
  We also had people coming in on student visas and then they stopped 
going to class. This legislation that Senator Feinstein has talked 
about closes loopholes in the existing law that permit people who mean 
to do us harm to come into this country and stay here without being 
detected. There is no question that, even if we passed this 
legislation, it would still be possible for a terrorist to sneak into 
this country and do something wrong. But if we pass this law and get it 
effective immediately, we can reduce substantially the probability that 
terrorists, such as those who came here prior to September 11, will 
ever be able to do that again.
  That is the essence of the bill. I am not going to take the time this 
afternoon to go through the bill piece by piece. I will just mention a 
couple of features of it in very general terms to make my point.
  Due to Senator Feinstein's work, we found that prior to September 11, 
schools in the United States actively recruited foreign students 
because they paid a pretty high tuition to come to the schools, and the 
schools need money. We know that all of our schools, from the 
prestigious universities down to trade schools, can use extra money. So 
they advertise for foreign students, who come here by the hundreds of 
thousands. We welcome them with open arms. But Senator Feinstein at one 
point said: Do you think we should be a little more careful about who 
actually gets visas? The school said: Oh, no, we need the money. That 
may not be exactly what they said, but that was the reason for being 
skeptical of any limitations that might be placed on their recruitment 
of these students.
  So what Senator Feinstein said--and I joined her in this effort--was 
let's craft a series of procedures that accompany the application for 
the student visa, the accounting for that visa to the INS and Customs 
and the State Department, and the confirmation back to the school that 
the individual should be arriving because the student visa has been 
granted, and a confirmation back to the U.S. Government that the 
student is in fact enrolled in school, and so on--a series of 
procedures that make it much more likely that the students these 
schools recruit actually will come to the school, attend classes, and 
won't be involved in terrorism.

  The multiple forms they used to have that INS used--the so-called I-
20 form--will no longer be filled out by lots of different schools that 
each accept the student for attendance. All of those forms, in the 
past, have been either sold or shopped around in one way or another for 
people to come into the United States ostensibly with a proper I-20 
form from a school by which they have been accepted. But, of course, it 
was a fraud because the student only went to 1 of the 10 schools by 
which he was accepted. He shopped around the other forms to friends who 
used them to come into the United States.
  That is one of the many ways we have tightened up the law. We found 
that people were coming into the country from nations that are on our 
terrorist list, such as Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism. Even after 
September 11, it was into the teens--I think something like 19 students 
wanted to come and learn how to fly big airplanes in the United States 
from a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism, so designated by 
the State Department. Our legislation makes it much more difficult for 
that to happen. In fact, it puts the burden on the students to prove 
they are not going to be engaged in terrorism. They can still come, but 
they have a burden of proof there.
  One of the most important things we do is coordinate information that 
we gather on people abroad who want to come here, whether it is the 
CIA, FBI, INS, State Department, or even international agencies such as 
Interpol, or anyone else who may have information that would cast doubt 
on whether an individual should be granted a visa.
  All of that information will be available. It will not be put 
together in one database, but it is going to be accessible to the 
people who make the decision whether to grant a visa. The consular 
officer will be able to scroll down the list, and when he finds the 
name of the person involved, he will see whether or not there is a red 
flag there. It may say don't grant a visa because he is wanted for a 
felony. That is fairly easy. It may say there is information pertaining 
to this individual that can only be shared with a very limited number 
of people, but it has a bearing on potential terrorism, and therefore 
you need to back this up to your supervisor who can have access to the 
classified information. One way or the other, though, any information 
that should be available to the people who make the decisions will be 
made available. That is probably the central feature of this 
legislation. It is going to cost money.
  Senator Byrd spoke before the Immigration Subcommittee this morning,

[[Page S2620]]

and he said: I sure hope that if we pass this bill, you will all 
support the appropriations necessary to fund it. We all made the 
commitment that we indeed would do that--that, clearly, we are going to 
have to have the support of the INS and the appropriators in Congress 
and the rest of us to ensure that once we authorize this closing of 
loopholes, the programs we put into place to do that will be funded 
properly and will be administered by the INS.
  Senator Byrd raised the question about whether or not we should 
reform INS first. I don't think there is one of us here who doesn't 
think they need to reform INS. But, clearly, we cannot wait. We cannot 
allow terrorists to come into this country while we are trying to 
figure out how to reform INS. We have to ask the people at INS who work 
hard and try hard to begin to put into place the protections that are 
embodied in this legislation.

  While we are also going about figuring out how to reform the INS, we 
cannot afford to not proceed with this bill, which would begin to close 
those loopholes. So I hope our colleagues will come to the floor and 
  One of the questions was: Should we do this by unanimous consent or 
should we have debate on the floor? We agreed to have debate. So 
anybody who wants that opportunity for debate now has it. I think that 
after today, and perhaps Monday, if they have not come to the floor, we 
can conclude that in fact there is no more debate necessary on the bill 
and we can move to its adoption. I hope we can do that very quickly.
  I encourage my colleagues who want to speak to come here and do so. 
If they have amendments, fine, we will consider those. We think it is 
pretty good without amendments. We are taking up the House-passed bill, 
and it would be much easier to be able to pass that bill. If there are 
amendments, let's see what they are. I hope we can quickly get this 
bill to the President. He said he wants to be able to sign it. I have 
personally spoken with Governor Tom Ridge, who is anxious to move 
forward as quickly as possible to get this done.
  I think we can at least say we have done what we can do. We cannot do 
everything to prevent terrorism, but we know we can do some things in 
the Senate. I have felt pretty bad for the last several months that we 
have not put this into place. I have asked, have I done everything I 
can do to get this bill on the floor and get it started on closing the 
loopholes. The Senate can do something to fight this war on terrorism, 
and that needs to be done now. I will feel a whole lot better when we 
have passed this bill and sent it on to the President and he has signed 
it into law. I will at least know I have done everything I can do, at 
least with respect to these issues, to make sure we are not again 
struck by people we should not have allowed into this country.

                        Tribute to Tom Alexander

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to take 2 minutes of my colleagues' 
time on an extraneous matter, if my colleagues will permit me. We would 
not be able to do the work we do--I see Senator Feinstein's staff and 
my colleagues can see my staff sitting here. LaVita and Elizabeth are 
people who have made it possible for us to get this legislation before 
the Senate.
  Our staff means a great deal to those of us who work with them 
closely. We know to a significant extent the successes we have are due 
to their efforts.
  Today one of my staff members is leaving my employment to go to the 
Department of Labor. It is our loss and Secretary Chao's gain. He has 
worked with me since 1994. Most staff members do not stay around that 
long. His name is Tom Alexander. There is not a staff member who has 
ever been employed by me who has worked harder, has been more 
dedicated, more loyal, and has been more effective on the issues that 
he has handled than Tom Alexander.
  I have told the rest of my staff that if they want an example of who 
to emulate, how to act, they should think of Tom. He is the kind of 
person who sets the example, I said, with one caveat: Do not stay 
around in the evening as long as Tom does. I have told him to go home 
at 8 or 9 o'clock at night, and that is staying too long. Other than 
working too hard, Tom has been that exemplary employee who, again, 
makes us look good.
  I will give a couple of notes about him so my colleagues have an idea 
of the kind of person he is.
  He is a former Missouri tax prosecutor and worked in the Reagan White 
House and served in the first Bush administration Labor Department.
  He also previously served on the legislative staff of Representative 
Jim McCrery. I talked with Representative McCrery before I offered Tom 
the job in my office. Jim recommended him highly and, as a result, I 
was able to hire him.
  He is married to Patricia. They have a son born last year, Shane. Tom 
also has a 14-year-old son, of whom I know he is very proud, a 
sophomore in high school.
  As I said, he has served on my staff since 1994 primarily--that, by 
the way, is January 1994--primarily working on health care matters. He 
has also served as my legislative director for the last year or so. He 
has worked on issues dealing with emergency medical treatment, EMTALA, 
Medicare private contracting, Patients' Bill of Rights, IHS off-
reservation reimbursement issues for Native Americans, antitrust, 
antigag rule, HMOs, and the teacher tax credit--a variety of issues 
that are important to the people of Arizona and have resulted in good 
policies for all of the people of the United States.
  It is very rare I come to this Chamber to speak about an employee, 
but Tom Alexander is special, and I hope by doing so, it will allow 
folks who are not necessarily familiar with the staff of Senators to 
get just a little bit of an appreciation as to how much these people 
mean to us, how important they are in representing all Americans. They 
are what allow us to make the policies and do the work we do.
  From the bottom of my heart, I thank Tom Alexander for his service on 
behalf of the people of Arizona and the United States and service in my 
office. Thank you, Tom.
  Mr. President, I yield to Senator Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl for those remarks. 
One of the great treats of my tenure in the Senate, I guess now 9\1/2\ 
years, has been to work with him. I do not think we have ever had a 
cross word between us. It has been a wonderful working relationship. I 
am very grateful for it. When we can work across the aisle the way we 
have worked, we can be much more productive. So I thank the Senator 
from Arizona for his work. He is a great ranking member. He was a great 
chairman of the committee. I have enjoyed it thoroughly. I thank him 
for his work on this bill. I also thank his staff.
  I wish to comment about my staff also. She is LaVita Strickland 
sitting to my right. She is a Judiciary counsel. She is very mild 
mannered, but she has been very tenacious in the pursuit of the 
consideration of this bill and has become very forceful. LaVita is 
enormously talented. I am very proud of her. I thank her for many hours 
of hard work. I think we have a good product. Thank you very much, 
  I see the Senator from Kansas, the ranking member of the Immigration 
Subcommittee, has come to the Chamber. I wish to turn this over to him 
and also thank him for his cooperation. Senator Kyl and I sat down with 
Senators Kennedy and Brownback and had some good discussions and were 
able to put this together. Our respective staffs followed up.
  I am very grateful to him for his cooperation and leadership as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I acknowledge Senator Feinstein. She 
has talked about our cooperation and working together. I share the 
pleasure she has had in that relationship. There is nobody I have 
worked closer with in the Senate, Republican or Democrat, than Senator 
Feinstein. It has not only been a good experience but has produced good 
results, such as this legislation.
  Since she mentioned LaVita Strickland, I will mention Elizabeth Maier 
of my staff. Elizabeth is one of the experts on immigration in the 
Senate. Working with Senator Brownback's staff and Senator Kennedy's 
staff, those four staff people, working together in a bipartisan 
manner, might

[[Page S2621]]

suggest to Senators how we can work together in the future. I 
appreciate the work all of them did. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, is 
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my 
colleagues for putting this bill forward. I particularly thank Senators 
Kennedy, Feinstein, and Kyl for their great work and leadership on this 
  I am delighted that we have this broad bipartisan bill to deal with a 
serious security issue in this country. I am hopeful we will pass this 
in short order so we can provide better border security for our Nation. 
It is a delight to be with them in the Chamber and with my staff, David 
Neal, who has worked so hard on getting this legislation to the point 
where we can consider it and hopefully pass it.
  The House has acted. The President wants it. We can act in short 
order and provide greater security at our borders. I thank my 
colleagues for their leadership and all they have done on this 
particular bill.
  Mr. President, this really is a time of trial for our Nation. Those 
were horrific acts on September 11 of last fall. We were shocked, and 
this Nation went into a situation of prosecuting the war on terrorism 
and building up our defenses at home at the same time. This bill is a 
key component of building those defenses at home.
  Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Kyl, and myself have worked on the bill. 
We have to make sure we are secure at home. We have to make sure the 
people who come into the United States seek to not do us harm but to do 
us good.
  We have millions of border crossings each year. The number I have 
seen is about 250 million total legal border crossings into the United 
States each year of people who are not U.S. citizens.
  Out of that, we are looking for a handful that seek to do us harm. We 
have to be able to be very smart about this and very targeted about 
this in stopping them. We literally are looking for a needle in a 
  I talked previously about it being a needle in a haystack. This 
literally is a needle in a hayfield.
  On September 11, we fell victim to evil of such incomprehensible 
barbarism we did not see it coming. Confronted with the unthinkable, we 
find our Nation now being tested. Do we have the ingenuity to defend 
ourselves from this evil? What protections will we take to safeguard 
our people and our way of life? Can we thwart terrorism without 
compromising the freedoms and values that make us strong?
  That is the balance Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, 
and myself really sought to try to achieve in this legislation, that 
balance of protection and safeguarding the freedoms that are America.
  I have no doubt we are up to this task. President Bush and the 
dedicated men and women of the Armed Forces, of law enforcement, and of 
public service diligently fight the good and noble fight. To all of 
these people we are very grateful.
  I commend the administration for everything it has done and is doing 
to safeguard our great Nation. However, September 11 has shaken the 
public's confidence in the laws and institutions that guard our 
borders. There are nagging concerns about whether our Government is 
fully prepared to intercept and prevent terrorists as they seek to 
cross our borders. That is why last fall my distinguished colleagues, 
Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, Senator Feinstein, and I, combined our 
efforts to craft legislation that would close the security gaps in our 
immigration system and make needed reform to our visa practices.
  We assembled the legislation before us, the Enhanced Border Security 
and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, to address several critical 
weaknesses in our border security. Let me underscore this point: Our 
legislation does not make desirable changes to our law and practices; 
It makes essential changes. It makes essential changes that we need not 
now do; we needed them yesterday.
  The importance of doing such now is critical. We should have done it 
yesterday, but now is the time we can finally do it. These are not 
desirable; they are essential. We do not need them today. We needed 
them yesterday. We have to get this done.
  The provisions in this legislation are not created out of hurried or 
rash deliberation. Far from it. The border security bill was carefully 
vetted with our colleagues in the Senate before its introduction last 
November, and it was carefully manipulated and worked in bicameral 
negotiations before its passage by the House last December. There were 
lots of negotiations, discussions, and people from whom we solicited 
input on what we should be doing.
  This legislation has widespread support in the Senate, including the 
majority leader, the minority leader, the chairman and ranking member 
of the Judiciary Committee, the chairman and ranking member of the 
Immigration Subcommittee, and the chairman and ranking member of the 
Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee.
  This legislation has ringing endorsements from a wide array of 
interests in the public, including family groups, business groups, law 
enforcement and academic institutions. We have extensively consulted 
experts from both within the executive branch and outside it. In short, 
we have utilized the insights of the affected agencies and the affected 
public. Even though the legislation may contain some tough provisions, 
the people and entities affected by this legislation see the wisdom in 

  This bill has broad bipartisan support for it carefully balances all 
the competing interests in the immigration equation. Our Nation 
receives millions of foreign nationals each year, persons who come to 
the United States to visit family, to do business, to tour our sites, 
to study and to learn. Most of these people enter lawfully. They are 
our relatives, our friends, and our business partners. They are good 
for our economy and a witness to our democracy and our way of life. 
They become our ambassadors of goodwill to their own countries.
  We do not want terrorists to shut our doors to the people we want to 
visit. At the same time, we must take intelligent measures to keep out 
the small fraction of people who mean us harm. This legislation 
requires such measures and makes them possible.
  The terrorists of September 11 exploited our lack of information and 
governmental coordination. The border security bill recognizes that the 
war on terrorism is, in large part, a war of information. To be 
successful, we must improve our ability to collect, compile, and 
utilize information critical to our safety and our national security. 
This bill, therefore, requires that the agencies tasked with screening 
visa applications and applicants for admission to the United States, 
namely the Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, be provided with law enforcement and intelligence information 
necessary for them to identify terrorists.
  By directing better coordination and access, this legislation will 
bring together the agencies that have the information and others that 
need it, making prompt and effective information sharing between those 
agencies a reality.
  Of course, to the degree we can realistically do so, we should seek 
to intercept terrorists well before they reach our borders. We must, 
therefore, consider security measures to be placed not only at domestic 
ports of entry but also at foreign ports of departure. To that end, 
this legislation directs the State Department and the Service to 
examine, expand, and enhance screening procedures to take place outside 
the United States, such as preinspection and preclearance. It also 
requires international air carriers to transmit passenger manifests for 
prearrival review by the Service.
  Further, it eliminates the 45-minute statutory limit on airport 
inspections which compromises the Service's ability to screen arriving 
flights properly.
  Finally, this bill requires these agencies to work with Canada and 
Mexico to create a collaborative North American security perimeter, and 
this is a point that I want to emphasize, as some of my colleagues have 
already. We need to extend the perimeters of our borders in this 
country to include Canada and Mexico.
  I was with the Attorney General last spring, in March of last year, 
before September 11, at the El Paso INS detention facility. At that 
detention facility were people who had tried to come across our borders 

[[Page S2622]]

There were people there from 59 different countries, many of whom had 
come in through Central America, some places in South America, had 
taken land transportation up through Central America, through Mexico, 
to our borders. We need to extend that perimeter to include Canada and 
Mexico and work closely and cooperatively with them to be able to stop 
these people when they are in the process of trying to enter illegally 
into the United States.

  While this legislation mandates certain technological improvements, 
it does not ignore the human element in the security equation. This 
bill requires that terrorist lookout committees be instituted at every 
consular post and the consular offices be given special training for 
identifying would-be terrorists. It also provides special training to 
Border Patrol agents, inspectors, and Foreign Service officers to 
better identify terrorists and security threats to the United States.
  This legislation considers certain classes of aliens that raise 
security concerns for our country, nationals from states that sponsor 
terrorism and foreign students from those countries. This bill 
expressly prohibits the State Department from issuing a nonimmigration 
visa to any alien from a country that sponsors terrorism until it has 
been determined that the alien does not pose a security threat to the 
safety or national security of the United States.
  As for students, this legislation fills data and reporting gaps in 
our foreign student programs by requiring the Service to electronically 
monitor every stage in the student visa process. It also requires the 
school to report a foreign student's failure to enroll, and the Service 
to monitor a school's compliance with this reporting requirement.
  We certainly should be careful not to compromise our values or our 
economy in this border security measure. However, we must take 
intelligent steps to enhance the security of our borders, and we must 
do so now.
  This legislation, which was already urgently needed when it was 
introduced and put forward last fall, does just what I have articulated 
and does so without compromising our values or our economy. I certainly 
will urge the swift passage of this critical legislation.
  I inform Members we held a hearing this morning on this piece of 
legislation. We had an expert from the American Immigration Lawyers 
Association, Miss Kathleen Cambell Walker, who went through the various 
provisions of the bill and her strong support for it. She noted a 
couple of key things I will pass on to Members. She felt it was 
critical to put the increased funding for inspectors into the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. It is good what we are doing. 
She supports the legislation and thinks it is the right thing to do, 
but we need more inspectors to enforce it, not just Border Patrol but 
inspectors to make sure the laws are followed.
  Senator Byrd appeared before our committee after her and testified 
about his desire to adequately fund this task, his desire to do it last 
fall, and the need to be able to do that now. Within the President's 
budget is $742 million to help fund the enhanced border security 
  The committee, in our deliberations, from the information we received 
from the Department of Justice, said this would take about $3.1 billion 
for total implementation, about $1.13 billion this year for the initial 
first year implementation, to give Members some idea of the cost we are 
talking about. Over half, two-thirds, of the cost for this year's 
implementation is already built into the Bush budget. That is an 
important step we are taking to get the money needed to help enhance 
this legislation and get it passed.
  We have to have this information sharing. We have talked about it, 
but the key point I make is currently we collect information from a 
number of different sources. INS has information, CIA has information, 
DIA, the FBI has information. They are mostly in stovepipes. We have to 
get the information shared when we are looking for the needle in the 
haystack, this bad person who seeks to come into our country and do 
harm, among the millions who seek to come to our country and do good. 
We need to know this of somebody desiring ill toward the United States 
so we will be able to get at them. That information sharing is 
  We need to have resources in the system to make sure if we put in 
biometric cards we have biometric readers at the borders, equipment 
that can read that. That funding will be critical to this legislation.
  Down the road, we are going to have to consider reorganization of the 
INS. Bills are pending in the House to do that. We are working on one 
now in the Senate. We should not wait on that reorganization before we 
do the border security enhancement. It is important we do this border 
security enhancement now. The reorganization of the INS will take some 
time. We needed this legislation yesterday, last year. We should not 
wait on that to hold up this piece of legislation.
  I discussed the preinspection and the passenger manifest list, the 
student program. We get a number of foreign students in the United 
States. It is important we have them. We have to have better tracking 
of the foreign students. It is reported in the committee that two 
involved in September 11 were here on student visas. They did not 
report to their student sites. We need better monitoring of foreign 
students. We can head some of this off in the future if we monitor 
foreign students.
  We have other provisions but those are the most important. We need to 
pass this bill. We should not take more than, I hope, a day or two to 
get it debated and consider any amendments, to get this passed and to 
the President. The House has acted. It has passed this measure. We need 
to act and get it to the President to secure our borders.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001, of which I 
am an original cosponsor. I am relieved that the Senate is finally 
considering this bill, which the House has passed not once, but twice, 
and has the strong support of President Bush.
  With the passage of the USA Patriot Act, Congress resolved some of 
the ambiguities in the Immigration and Nationality Act as it related to 
the admission and deportation of terrorists. We also provided the 
Attorney General the power to detain suspected terrorists before they 
could do further harm. The changes to the law were very necessary, but 
more must be done.
  The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001 closes 
additional loopholes in our immigration law, procedure, and practice 
that have in the past provided terrorists access to our country. First, 
it strengthens our initial line of defense--the borders and our 
embassies abroad--by providing additional staff and training. Moreover, 
it breaks down some of the barriers that have prevented a comprehensive 
data sharing operation between intelligence agencies, law enforcement, 
the State Department, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
and compels the use of biometric technology to enhance our ability to 
confirm the identity of those seeking admission into our country.
  Second, it restricts the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to nationals 
of countries that sponsor terrorism by requiring that our government 
first conclude that the admission of that person poses no safety or 
national security threat to the United States. And it repeals that 
provision of the law compelling a 45-minute clearance time for arriving 
aliens at our ports of entry, which has, to date, handcuffed the INS's 
ability to properly screen all incoming travelers.
  Finally, it solves some of the problems with our foreign student 
program. The bill provides for increased data collection from students 
so we can know more precisely who they are and where they will reside 
while in the United States. Also, under this bill, the State Department 
must now confirm that the student has been admitted to a qualified 
educational institution before it can issue any student visa, and the 
schools themselves will be placed under the affirmative obligation of 
reporting, every single term, those who fail to attend. Finally, the 
bill requires the INS to periodically review the educational 
institutions and other entities authorized to enroll or sponsor foreign 
students to determine whether they

[[Page S2623]]

are complying with prescribed reporting requirements.
  This bill deserves our support. The House of Representatives moved 
quickly on its passage last December and, again, last month. They 
recognized the need for its provisions. Likewise we should move, and 
move quickly, to send this bill to the President for his signature. We 
can delay no longer. The principal parties, and I commend them, 
Senators Brownback, Kyl, Kennedy, and Feinstein and their staffs 
deserve a tremendous amount of credit for the many hours of discussion, 
meetings, and negotiations which have led to the end result. This bill 
has the support of our government, the State and Justice Departments, 
and represents a very common-sense approach to further immigration 
reform. Thankfully, many of you agree, as evidenced by the nearly 60 
cosponsors to the original bill. I am confident, then, that the Senate 
will pass this profoundly significant legislation and I look forward to 
that result.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have had a good presentation from our 
colleagues on the issue of border security that has had several hours. 
I am enormously grateful for the presentation of my friend and 
colleague, Senator Feinstein, and also Senator Brownback, Senator Kyl, 
and the thoroughness of their presentations. During the course of the 
day, since we have been considering this bill, we have been responding 
to a number of questions that have been brought up.
  For all intents and purposes, I don't know another of our colleagues 
wanting to speak. I don't intend to foreclose that possibility, but I 
think we were prepared to consider amendments this afternoon. We 
understood, as the majority leader indicated, there would not be any 
votes, but we were hopeful at least that we would be able to consider 
some amendments and set those aside and at least have the opportunity 
to review them this afternoon and put them in the Record so our 
colleagues could examine them on Monday next. But we will look forward, 
when we resume this discussion on Monday, to considering other 
amendments. We invite colleagues, if they have them and if they would 
be good enough, to share those amendments with myself or the other 
principal sponsors. We will do the best we can to respond to them, and 
those who are related we may be willing to accept. We will consider 
them and indicate to Members if they are acceptable and, if not, why 
they are not.
  We are thankful to the leaders for their cooperation in arranging for 
us to be able to bring this matter before the Senate. I will not repeat 
at this time why there is a sense of urgency about it. I think that 
case has been well made.
  Earlier today, we had a good hearing on this subject matter and we 
received additional support for this measure, for which we are very 
grateful. So I think it represents our best judgment on a matter that 
we consider to be important to the security of our country. I hope we 
will be able to dispose of this legislation in the early part of next 
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there an order for business following 
the consideration of the pending legislation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not. We are on the border security