Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd amendment. This is a positive amendment in the overall bill, it is appropriate, and it was the topic of a great deal of discussion previously as we were putting together this bill overall. The bill, in its design, had a number of people working together to try to figure it out. One of the most contentious issues was this issue about the time deadline in which we would be able to accomplish these biometric identifiers. The administration had a great deal of concern about meeting the very aggressive dates set in the overall bill. A number of our colleagues involved in the negotiation said: We realize this may be aggressive, but we need to push it because this is such an important issue. A lot of people within the executive branch were saying: I don't know that we can meet this deadline. This amendment will be well received by a number of people who believed the time deadlines put forward in the original bill were just too aggressive to be accomplished. This will set a far more realistic date as to when we accomplish it. I know people in the executive branch will try to do this as quickly as possible. They are clearly going to be far more comfortable with this date as being more realistic, one that can be accomplished. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this Byrd amendment to the bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3164 (Purpose: To increase the penalty for noncompliance with the requirements to provide manifest information)

Mr. BROWNBACK. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be happy to yield for a question. I have yielded back the floor. If I could secure the floor, Mr. President, I would be happy to yield for a question from the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Kennedy, as ranking member on the Immigration Subcommittee to support this bill. This bill cleared the House of Representatives twice on a unanimous consent calendar. It is important. We still have problems at our borders. This bill deals with trying to get at the terrorists who seek to enter our land and not the legitimate people who are seeking to come here for reasons that are positive to the United States. This bill is a testament to the dedication of this body and in Congress. It is bipartisan. It has had the input of many Members. The bill reflects how truly united we as Americans stand before the threat of terrorism. The bill is the product of a lot of dedicated people, too many to name--elected officials from both sides of the aisle, from both Houses, and experts from both inside and outside of Government. The entire community in and around Washington and the country came together for this common goal of defending America. The bill is endorsed by the entire immigration spectrum. The groups that are the most impacted by it endorse it. They appreciate the hard decisions that have to be made after September 11 and see the wisdom in this legislation. We have legislation here that protects our borders without compromising our values or our economy. This legislation is a measured, intelligent response to an evil that we will defeat. I am proud to be a part of this bill. I will describe quickly, what we are trying to do--and we will get it done--is to get information sharing from the various governmental agencies--the INS, the State Department, but also the CIA, the FBI, the DIA, and, hopefully, even other intelligence sources--so that we will have information sharing so we can catch before they enter this country people who seek to do harm. That information sharing is not taking place to the degree it needs to be today. Senator Kennedy noted how many people yearly enter this country legally--over 300 million entries--and we are looking for those few who seek to come in here to do us harm. We are looking for a needle in a haystack, so we have to have that information sharing. We are trying to expand the perimeter around the United States. This would include working with Canada and Mexico to get our perimeter broader and more secure. I visited the El Paso INS detention facility 1 year ago. There at the detention center were people who had tried to enter our country illegally from 59 different countries, coming in through Central America, going up by land through Central America, through Mexico. We need to get the Mexican Government's support and help in protecting our perimeter. We require manifests from other countries before the flights leave so we can check those when they come in. We provide more monitoring of foreign students in this country once they come here. On September 11, unfortunately, some of those terrorists were here under student visas. We have to monitor the foreign students better in this country. This bill provides biometrics. It provides more information we can use in checking people at the border. We have a number of other provisions that are in the bill. It provides for more border security officials to be able to check to make sure we are getting our job done. In short, Mr. President, this bill has received a lot of work. We need to pass this legislation. I believe we will get it passed today. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as we are getting this matter wrapped up, I wish to recognize four key staff members who really helped shepherd this bill through. This is important safety legislation. I, first, recognize Senator Kennedy's lead staff on this, Esther Olavarria, who is a humble, diligent servant of the State and who does a wonderful job on these sorts of issues. She worked closely with my staff member, David Neal, who is relatively new to the process but has diligently worked to shepherd this legislation on through. Also, for Senator Feinstein and for Senator Kyl, two wonderful staff members who helped make the core nucleus in negotiating this through; Elizabeth Maier and LeVita Strickland are excellent people. I think at the end of the day when we look to strengthen the borders of this country to protect our people, these four great citizens really dedicated a lot of time and a lot of soul to be able to get this through. I want to note their tremendous activity in this regard.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the body for 1 minute.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I note a word of thanks to Senator Byrd. He has dealt with many of us for some period of time on this particular issue in some contentious situations. He has dealt with us privately, publicly, and in other forums. At the end of the day, we do come out with a better piece of legislation. For that I thank the Senator. At the time, going through it, I was not quite as thankful for that. He has done a service to the country. And at the end of the day, we will have a better piece of legislation. I thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Kyl, and Feinstein. Together we crafted a good piece of legislation. I am thankful to be a part of it. I think it will be a very positive move for our country. I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 3161

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3160

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, as well, to support the Byrd amendment. The reasons have been stated by both Senators Byrd and Kennedy. I think the important thing to look at and see here is that we have a number of foreign students in the United States, and this has been a very positive thing, overall, for the United States and for the rest of the world. I don't think anybody would disagree with that statement. Yet what we have had taking place is a system that, over time, has gotten far too loose, and we saw the effects of that on September 11, where a couple of these individuals who came into the United States and did this operation, this horrific thing that happened, came in under student visas because they were looking for weaknesses in the system to get into the United States in a less restrictive, reviewed area. So that is why this has been at the very heart of this bill. Senator Byrd puts in a good provision. There have been sporadic reviews by the Government of the educational institutions to see that they are doing this right, that they are taking the program seriously and not just finding some way of being able to bump up their student account and the number of students coming to the United States. We will have a regular reporting requirement and we will be able to monitor this much more closely. It should not inhibit legitimate students from coming here, nor the institutions that are legitimate and serious about what their projects are. It will be a bit more of a hindrance to those looking to increase their foreign student accounts and, hopefully, it will help us to get at those students who are here to do us harm. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is another strengthening amendment. We have teeth in this provision. They get bigger with the Byrd amendment. I think that is a good provision for us on the prearrival of aircraft coming into this country. For whatever reason, we have had some difficulty with airlines providing this manifest ahead of time. This is going to make this a more significant penalty. We need to have this information. We should have this information ahead of time. This is a key security issue. It is part of this extension to try to deal with terrorists trying to enter our land. This is a good strengthening amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. I congratulate and thank the Senator from West Virginia once again for helping to make what I think is a good bill better. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I take this moment to recognize Joyce Maish, a high school business teacher in Augusta, KS. Joyce was one of twelve teachers across the United States who was named Teacher of the Year by the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship. Joyce has been a teacher at Augusta High School for twenty-five years. At the high school, Joyce conducts a ``Youth Entrepreneurs for Kansas'' class, in which she attempts to focus the ideas and dreams of her students on the possibility that they could someday start their own businesses. Moreover, she has done an outstanding job of bringing in local business owners and officials from Augusta and Wichita to speak to her students to teach them about the realities of business enterprise. Joyce Maish is a role model teacher for Kansas and for the Nation. I am very pleased that the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship has honored Joyce for her years of excellence. I wish Joyce continued success in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could respond briefly on this, Senator Kennedy and I have the subcommittee with the primary jurisdiction on this. As to the figures being put forward, one is the first-year cost and the other is the total cost of implementation. Much of the cost involved here is for equipment because we are getting the biometric equipment up. We are getting it in position, in place, and that is why there is the difference in the figure. It is not an even figure over each of the 3 years. That is what is involved in that question that you raise. If I could also respond on the deadline dates because I think the Senator from West Virginia has put his finger on a very important topic. This was a matter of extensive negotiation between the various people involved because these are very aggressive dates. A number of people in the administration raised the concern saying: This is too aggressive. We don't think we can meet this. Other people within the administration were saying: It may be too aggressive, but we need to meet it, and we are going to push to meet it. There were differences of opinion on that. We, as the Members who were negotiating and trying to work this out, decided to go with the earlier date because of the importance of the issue. It is just critical we get this interoperable equipment in place, and that we get it done as quickly as possible, and not be left in a calendar position further down the road than it needs to be or just open-ended, saying, ``just do it as soon as you can.'' A number of the Members did not feel comfortable with that ``do it as soon as you can'' possibility, even though we thought there was a pretty strong commitment from the administration to do it just that way, to do it as soon as you can. But a lot of our colleagues said: No. We want a hard date, an aggressive date. If we have to come back and work with it again, we will, but we want this thing done; and we want it done now. That is why the aggressive dates, and that is also why the budgetary figures are different for year 1 than being equal throughout the 3 years. I yield the floor to my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the border security bill that is before us, and to also note, at the outset, the thousands of people who are gathering just outside the Capitol in a statement of support for Israel. It is an important gathering, particularly because of where this Nation is at this point in time and the importance of where Israel is right now: The difficulties and confrontations they have had with suicide bombers, which we witnessed on our soil and which we have dealt with in our own land as well. September 11 brings back very clear memories--vivid, difficult memories for many of us--when suicide bombers took planes in the United States and attacked two buildings in New York, the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a fourth plane that was perhaps headed even for this building that went down in a field in Pennsylvania, thanks to the heroic efforts of people onboard. Israel is trying to defend her land from suicide bombers and has been aggressively doing so. I know some people have questions about the tactics involved but not dealing with the issue. I certainly would like to state my strong support for Israel, a strong ally of the United States and has been and continues to be a strong ally of the United States, a democracy in a different and difficult region of the world, one that has worked and stood side by side with the United States in our times of need, and we should stand with Israel as well. I urge Israel to allow humanitarian groups in to make certain that people are cared for as much as possible; that civilian damage is limited as much as possible. In their dealing with terrorists, I think they should deal and they have dealt clearly aggressively with terrorism. Terrorism must be renounced. Chairman Arafat must renounce terrorism on behalf of the Palestinian people and say: No more terrorism. That should be a minimum statement. I hope Chairman Arafat will lead his people toward peace, but I have real doubt whether or not he wants to lead the Palestinian people toward peace. There was an incredible offer on the table from Prime Minister Barak--it was less than 2 years ago--and he walked away from that. I question whether or not he is willing to work toward peace. We need somebody within the Palestinian leadership who wants peace. I want to address some of the comments being put forward on the border security bill by our distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who is an outstanding Member of the body. I want to address the specific concerns he brought forward on this legislation. I believe we will pass the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001. The House passed it last year. The President wants the bill. It is up to this body to act. I believe we will act, and I believe we will have a large vote. I am hopeful we can do this within a minimum time period because there is so much other important pending business in front of this body. This is important legislation, but so is the energy bill that has been before the Senate; so is a bill I have to prevent human cloning, to stop human cloning. We need to get a budget through. We need to start through the appropriations process. It is not as if there are not a lot of issues stacked up. This is one of the major issues. I think it is time for us to pass this bill. There was actually very little opposition to it in the House. I think most people are very comfortable with the main provisions of this bill, and I am hopeful we can work through other provisions without much difficulty. I will note some of the major provisions of this bill for my colleagues who are following this debate: Restrictions on nonimmigration visas for aliens coming from countries that sponsor terrorism; reform of the visa waiver program; requirement of passenger manifest information for commercial flights and vessels; repeal of the 45-minute time limit on INS inspections of arriving passengers. That may cause inconvenience for some people. I want to note that, too, for my colleagues who are watching. The lines could be a bit longer, but we are talking about security in the United States, and it may be necessary for the time to be slightly longer to ensure people coming into our country mean us no harm. In this bill, there is the enhanced foreign student monitoring program. Several of the people who terrorized us, bombed us on September 11 were students. We need to get that procedure under control and know where these students are and if they are going to reputable schools in the United States. The magnitude of the problem we are dealing with is enormous. Immigration, the travel of people, non-U.S. citizens, in the United States is a key issue for our economy, it is a key issue for our culture, and it is a key issue for our society in the future. We are a land of immigrants. Outside of Native Americans, we all came here from somewhere else. This is a key part of who we are and who we will be in the future. To give some scale of magnitude of the issue with which we are dealing, 2 years ago, there were nearly 330 million--330 million--legal crossings over our borders by non-U.S. citizens. That has nothing to do with illegal crossings. There were 330 million legal crossings by non- U.S. citizens over our borders. This is a huge bit of commerce. There is a great deal of interaction that takes place and is very important. Out of that 330 million crossings universe, we are looking for a very small portion of those who want to do us harm. I talked on Friday about this being the equivalent of looking for a needle in a hay field--not a haystack, a hay field. We have to be intelligent about this and use the means at our disposal to find the people who are here trying to do us harm. One of the key elements is to make sure we have information sharing between various agencies--between INS, the Department of State, CIA, DIA, FBI, and I would like to think, as well, foreign information from foreign intelligence agencies that can point out: These are the people we are watching. If we are looking at 330 million people in a universe and are trying to hone this down to several hundred, we need a lot of information. Currently, all this information is in stovepipes, it is stacked up, and there is not the cross-communication we need to have. That is one of the things that is required in this bill. It takes time to get computers talking to one another. It is sometimes difficult getting people to talk to one another. Computers have to be wired. We can do that, and we need to do that. That is a key provision of a portion of this bill. We are trying to extend the perimeter of the United States to include both Canada and Mexico. I was at the El Paso INS detention facility about a year ago, and in that detention facility were people from 59 different countries who had come in through Central America, South America, had taken land transportation up and through Mexico, and then crossed over into our borders. We need to have that perimeter extended. Within this bill is a push to get that perimeter extended to include Canada and Mexico so we get more cooperation and help from them in dealing with our perimeter. That is important for us to be able to do. Now there were some questions raised about how will these be paid for? Those are certainly legitimate questions. This is an authorization bill. Some of these are authorizing features, not appropriations features, but much of this is going to require resources. It is put forward by the Department of Justice that the first-year implementation of this bill would cost about $1.186 billion. Of that, $743 million is in the current Bush budget. That is already put forward in the budget. So we are quite a ways along the way already with what is built into the current Bush budget. Plus, as I understand it, there are still some resources left from the $40 billion supplemental that was put forward last year to deal with the crisis and the current situation. I am supportive and will be supportive of additional resources to make sure we do fully fund this at the $1.186 billion level for this first year. Total implementation costs we have at $3.13 billion over the full lifetime of the program. That is the universe of the numbers we are talking about. We are well on the way to funding this. There has been concern raised about why was this not funded last year? There were people who put forward bills. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee put forward an additional $15 billion supplemental saying, let us fund it now. The President at that time said: No, I want to try to digest the $40 billion that has already been allocated and authorized before we step into another tranche of funds. I thought that was a wise and prudent course. That is why I did not at that time support the additional $15 billion; whereas now we have had some months to be able to think this through, to see where the gaps and the holes are. The President has built a portion of it into his budget, and we have about another $600 million that we are looking at to fully fund this program. That is what we are talking about. I think that is a prudent and wise approach for us. I thought it was at that time. We need time to be able to digest these sorts of changes and resources, and I think this is the right way for us to go. We are not getting the cart ahead of the horse. We are doing the authorization, which we are to do before we do the appropriation. So we authorize for what we in the Congress think we should do, and then we appropriate to follow on with that. I am committed to seeking those resources to get this fully appropriated. I think it is important we do that. Frankly, I like that we are doing this one right because typically or frequently we will do it backwards and not get that done. I do believe that with the nature of this priority, the nature of border security, the importance of that for our future and the security of our people, this will be able to secure the adequate resources it needs throughout the competition within the appropriations process. We should be able to put these forward and meet the higher priorities for the security needs of the country. The lead requirement for us is to provide for the common defense and, to me, in this day and age, it is to provide protection against terrorists. We are prosecuting our war overseas now. We are prosecuting it in Afghanistan. We have troops in Georgia. We are helping train troops in the former Soviet Union country of Georgia. We have troops in the Philippines as trainers to deal with terrorist groups. There may be troops in some other countries as we go to where the terrorists are to dig them out before they come this way, and then we enhance our border security so we can deal with the terrorists who try to get on our soil. I think the prosecution of the war is going well at this point in time. It would be my hope, as one of the cosponsors of this legislation, that we could move this through. If people have amendments, we ask for them to bring the amendments forward so we can see if we can get them handled appropriately. I would hope we could do this without too many amendments so we could get this to the House and get it passed. The House has passed this bill twice. We need to get it passed. I hope if people do have amendments that they want to bring they would bring them up now so we can deal with the legislation, deal with the amendments, and get the legislation passed and implemented into law because it has broad support throughout this body. I may make comments at a later time on this legislation, but at this time I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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 legislation. 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 hayfield. 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 it. 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 illegally. 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 measure. 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 critical. 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.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 90th anniversary of the Girl Scouts of the USA, GSUSA, this month. Girl Scouting began on March 12, 1912, when founder Juliet Gordon Low assembled 18 girls from Savannah, GA. She believed that girls should be given the opportunity to develop physically, mentally, and spiritually. This excellent organization empowers girls to develop their full potential, to relate positively to others and their community, and to promote sound values and community service. GSUSA continues to expand its programs to address contemporary issues affecting girls, while maintaining its original core values. The organization's foundation is still premised on the original 1912 ``Girl Scout Promise and Law.'' Today, Girl Scouting has a membership of 3.8 million, comprised of 2.7 million girl members and over 900,000 adult members, making this the largest organization for girls worldwide. Moreover, this American organization is a member of the larger worldwide family of 10 million girls and adults in 140 countries. Through Girl Scouting, girls acquire self-confidence and expertise, take on responsibilities, are encouraged to think creatively and act with integrity, all qualities essential for good citizenship and great leaders. At each level of Girl Scouting, girls engage in numerous activities including science and technology, sports, health and fitness, the arts, global awareness, community service, money management and finance, and much more. Importantly, the organization has established a research institute, receiving government funding to address violence prevention. It is also addressing the digital divide with activities that encourage girls to pursue careers in science, math, and technology. In 2001, GSUSA launched a major initiative rededicating themselves to their founder's vision of empowering girls to grow into healthy, resourceful citizens. They are diligently working to ensure that Girl Scouting is available to every girl in every community, reaching beyond racial, ethnic, socioeconomic or geographic boundaries. Girl Scout troops meet everywhere including suburban, urban and rural areas, homeless shelters, migrant farm camps, and juvenile detention facilities. Some girls meet online via the Internet. And through one of Girl Scout's signature initiatives, Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, girls meet in prisons where their mothers are incarcerated. Out of the almost one million adults in Girl Scouting, 99 percent are volunteers. While Girl Scouts enjoys the largest adult involvement of all such organizations, new leaders and mentors are constantly needed to serve the increasing number of participants who desire to be Girl Scouts. Though the first troops met before women were given the right to vote, 90 years later there is a ``Troop Capitol Hill'' made up entirely of Congresswomen who are honorary Girl Scouts. More than 50 million women are alumnae. Over two-thirds of our doctors, lawyers, educators, community leaders, and women Members of Congress were once members of Girl Scouting, as were 64 percent of the women listed in ``Who's Who of American Women.'' For 90 years this month, this respected organization has demonstrated a proven track record of empowering girls to become leaders, equipping adults to be positive role models and mentors for children, and helping to build strong communities. With the support and dedication of Congress, Girl Scouts will surely continue this fine tradition for the next 90 years and beyond.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Leahy in sponsoring S. 2031, a bill that will protect intellectual property rights fully and fairly by complying with the Court's new constitutional requirements. This bill builds upon the same common- sense goals as the statutes that Senator Hatch championed a decade ago. I would like to commend both members for their outstanding leadership in this area. My hope is that S. 2031 will finally bring closure to our efforts in trying to clarify a complex and difficult issue for both Congress and the Courts. There are two sides to this issue and both are compelling. For individuals and companies who make the investment and take the risk in creating new products and services, their property rights are at stake when a state infringes upon their intellectual property. States on the other hand also want to protect their sovereignty under the Constitution and want to assert their intellectual property rights especially in the context of private/public partnerships where ownership issues may be in doubt, creating the prospect for protracted litigation. That is why this inherent conflict demands congressional action. With the arrival of the digital revolution where exact copies and reproductions can be made without limitations, this is an important economic issue for individuals and companies trying to compete in the marketplace. The question is how to fashion a legislative remedy in light of recent Supreme Court decisions that struck down previous attempts to bring clarity to the issue. I believe the Leahy/Brownback bill is a reasonable compromise solution without running afoul of the constitutional issues highlighted by the Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe and the Florida Pre-paid cases. S. 2031 presents States with a choice. It creates reasonable incentives for States to waive their sovereign immunity in intellectual property cases. States that choose not to waive their immunity within 2 years after enactment would continue to enjoy many of the benefits in the intellectual property marketplace. However, like private parties that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for infringement will not be able to recover any money damages unless they waive their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases. All other remedial actions will continue to be available to State litigants. As Chairman Leahy previously observed, this is clearly constitutional and avoids the concerns raised by the Courts with regard to past statutes addressing this matter. Under the Constitution's Article I spending power, Congress can attach limited conditions to a State's receipt of Federal funds. Similarly, it would seem to me that a State's receipt of Federal intellectual property protection under Article I's intellectual property power can similarly be conditioned. Especially in light of the commercial implications of this bill, it seems reasonable to expect that a condition to respect the rights of others is a necessary and logical complement to obtaining the full protections of the Federal intellectual property rights. I would also add that a recent GAO study initiated by Senator Hatch when he chaired the Judiciary Committee confirmed the lack of alternatives or remedies against State infringers. I would also like to add that this matter has repercussions which extend far beyond the domestic realm. The United States is one of the leading proponents for the enforcement of intellectual property rights throughout the world. That's why we cannot afford to be inconsistent in our own observance of intellectual property rights. Through international agreements such as TRIPs and NAFTA, the United States has vigorously challenged international institutions and other nations to adopt and enforce more extensive intellectual property laws. When States assert sovereign immunity for the purpose of infringing upon intellectual property rights, it damages the credibility of the United States internationally, and could possibly even lead to violations of our treaty obligations. Any decrease in the level of enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world is likely to harm American businesses, because of our position as international leaders in industries like pharmaceuticals, information technology, and biotechnology. I urge my colleagues to support this bill which provides a balanced and appropriate intellectual property remedy for American inventors and investors without compromising the sovereign rights of States under our Constitution.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Leahy in sponsoring S. 2031, a bill that will protect intellectual property rights fully and fairly by complying with the Court's new constitutional requirements. This bill builds upon the same common- sense goals as the statutes that Senator Hatch championed a decade ago. I would like to commend both members for their outstanding leadership in this area. My hope is that S. 2031 will finally bring closure to our efforts in trying to clarify a complex and difficult issue for both Congress and the Courts. There are two sides to this issue and both are compelling. For individuals and companies who make the investment and take the risk in creating new products and services, their property rights are at stake when a state infringes upon their intellectual property. States on the other hand also want to protect their sovereignty under the Constitution and want to assert their intellectual property rights especially in the context of private/public partnerships where ownership issues may be in doubt, creating the prospect for protracted litigation. That is why this inherent conflict demands congressional action. With the arrival of the digital revolution where exact copies and reproductions can be made without limitations, this is an important economic issue for individuals and companies trying to compete in the marketplace. The question is how to fashion a legislative remedy in light of recent Supreme Court decisions that struck down previous attempts to bring clarity to the issue. I believe the Leahy/Brownback bill is a reasonable compromise solution without running afoul of the constitutional issues highlighted by the Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe and the Florida Pre-paid cases. S. 2031 presents States with a choice. It creates reasonable incentives for States to waive their sovereign immunity in intellectual property cases. States that choose not to waive their immunity within 2 years after enactment would continue to enjoy many of the benefits in the intellectual property marketplace. However, like private parties that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for infringement will not be able to recover any money damages unless they waive their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases. All other remedial actions will continue to be available to State litigants. As Chairman Leahy previously observed, this is clearly constitutional and avoids the concerns raised by the Courts with regard to past statutes addressing this matter. Under the Constitution's Article I spending power, Congress can attach limited conditions to a State's receipt of Federal funds. Similarly, it would seem to me that a State's receipt of Federal intellectual property protection under Article I's intellectual property power can similarly be conditioned. Especially in light of the commercial implications of this bill, it seems reasonable to expect that a condition to respect the rights of others is a necessary and logical complement to obtaining the full protections of the Federal intellectual property rights. I would also add that a recent GAO study initiated by Senator Hatch when he chaired the Judiciary Committee confirmed the lack of alternatives or remedies against State infringers. I would also like to add that this matter has repercussions which extend far beyond the domestic realm. The United States is one of the leading proponents for the enforcement of intellectual property rights throughout the world. That's why we cannot afford to be inconsistent in our own observance of intellectual property rights. Through international agreements such as TRIPs and NAFTA, the United States has vigorously challenged international institutions and other nations to adopt and enforce more extensive intellectual property laws. When States assert sovereign immunity for the purpose of infringing upon intellectual property rights, it damages the credibility of the United States internationally, and could possibly even lead to violations of our treaty obligations. Any decrease in the level of enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world is likely to harm American businesses, because of our position as international leaders in industries like pharmaceuticals, information technology, and biotechnology. I urge my colleagues to support this bill which provides a balanced and appropriate intellectual property remedy for American inventors and investors without compromising the sovereign rights of States under our Constitution.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to take this moment to recognize Kylie White, a fifth grade student at Lowther South Intermediate School in Emporia KS. Kylie was recently selected as the Kansas recipient of the Nicholas Green Distinguished Student Award from the National Association of Gifted Children. The NAGC--Nicholas Green Distinguished Student Awards program-- recognizes excellence in young children between third and sixth grade who have distinguished themselves in academics, leadership, or the arts. This program is funded by the Nicholas Green Foundation, established by Maggie and Reg Green, and the Nicholas Green Scholarship Fund, both created to honor the memory of the Green's seven-year-old son Nicholas, who was killed in a drive-by-shooting while vacationing in Italy in 1994. The program highlights high-ability students across the country, demonstrating that gifted and talented children come from all cultures, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and socioeconomic groups. The NAGC--Nicholas Green Distinguished Student Award honors America's outstanding students, who serve as role models for all of our Nation's children as they strive for excellence. I am proud that Kylie has been selected to receive this honor on behalf of the State of Kansas. I wish her continued success in all of her future endeavors. I ask consent that Kylie's NAGC--Nicholas Green Distinguished Student Award composition be printed in the Record following my remarks. The composition follows: ``Mama, a problem is only a problem until you solve it.'' These were the words I spoke when I was only three. Ever since then I have been solving all different kinds of problems, whether they only took a couple minutes or months to figure out. What I like about problems is that each and every one of them is different and you have to pull together all of your knowledge and creativity to figure them out. I got interested in problem solving when I was little. My Dad taught me how to solve all kinds of problems. Whether it was figuring out the money in Monopoly or deciding how to make a stable structure out of Legos all kinds of ``problems'' were tackled. I was very lucky to have great first and second grade teachers who daily stretched my skills and encouraged me to set high goals. Mrs. Davidson and Ms. Newton taught me how to really push myself. In second, third and fourth grades, my principal offered the ``Principal's Problem of the Week.'' These were optional challenging word or math problems that always got me thinking. I was awarded top ``Principal's Problem of the Week Solver'' three consecutive years. In grade school I went to the library once every week and solved challenging problems for gifted children. I've been in Odyssey of the Mind for three years now. Odyssey of the Mind is a team problem-solving competition with both ``long-term'' and ``spontaneous'' problems. The long-term solution you work on for months before you go to the competition. The spontaneous problem's name kind of explains itself. You get the problem and usually you get 1 minute to think and 2 minutes to answer. The team I was on in fourth grade made it all the way to World Finals in Knoxville, Tennessee. Raising the money to get there was a problem in itself. We had a lot of fun there and we took 25th place out of 44 teams in our division even though we were a very young team. This year in 5th grade my biggest challenge has been learning how to speak French. I have also served as a peer mentor in a group for students having problems making and maintaining friendships. I like helping others solve their problems. Problem solving opens up a lot of opportunities for me. The cure for cancer is a problem. Putting the pieces together at a crime scene and helping find a serial killer are important problems that will help people feel safer in their beds. I could help people solve their problems if I were to become a psychologist. I could be a teacher and help kids learn how to solve problems. Or maybe I could be a top presidential adviser and solve international problems. Problems solving is a way to exercise your brain. It is a fun way to expand your knowledge horizon. I hope to stay at it for a long, long time.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I rise to speak in favor of the amendment put forward by my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, on the vehicle scrap provision that is in the underlying energy bill. The Senator from Colorado has hit it right. This program is not a good idea. It is not a good idea to put forward Federal funds to purchase used cars as a way of trying to improve fuel efficiency. This is unproven, not wise, and expensive in the process. Plus, by the number of calls and letters we have been getting in my office, a lot of people do not think it is a very bright idea to go with this program. They do not see the benefits. A number of car enthusiasts think this is a program aimed at getting at them. This provision creates a federally funded program giving grants to States to establish scrappage programs for vehicles 15 years or older or pursue repairs to improve fuel economy. Owners who turn in such vehicles receive a minimum payment and future credit toward purchasing a new vehicle, meeting certain DOE guidelines. The stated intent is to retire fuel-inefficient vehicles, the first program of its kind. All prior State scrappage programs sought to address poor emissions. The provision requires a vehicle to be scrapped, not stripped for parts. To make a couple of points, this provision has no guaranteed environmental benefit. Vehicle scrapping requires States neither to determine the fuel efficiency of vehicles being scrapped nor to certify that scrapped vehicles are replaced by more fuel-efficient vehicles. A carowner could scrap an older but more fuel-efficient compact car and replace it with a newer but less fuel-efficient vehicle. While revisions have been made to address this problem, the fundamental issue remains: There is no guarantee that the scrapped car is actually replaced by a more efficient one. That is point one. Under this provision, cars rarely or never driven, vehicles that have minimal or no impact on overall fuel economy, may be turned into scrap. DOE would be required to pay and give credit to carowners for these cars, although they are just sitting there. This provision could possibly hurt low- and fixed-income families and individuals. Even if, as proponents claim, section 822 did improve emissions somewhat, the program will definitely create a burden on the used car market and the low- to middle-income families who buy them. If the vehicles are scrapped, then their parts are destroyed. A reduced supply of older auto parts translates into an increased demand for these parts, raising the cost for anyone who desires to responsibly maintain his or her older vehicle. Low- and fixed-income car occupiers who cannot afford to purchase a new DOE-approved vehicle are affected. I don't think the authors of this provision desire that sort of feature. That is the likely impact. If the Department of Energy gets into a State grant program and buys up a bunch of older used cars, it will drive up the market price for the cars. That is not an impact we want on lower or moderate-income families, or families seeking to buy a first-time car for a younger member of the family. They should not be competing against the Government for that car, nor should they compete against the Government for replacement parts for that car because the older vehicles are being scrapped. Vehicle scrappage hurts small business by encouraging the destruction of older, and in some cases vintage, cars and the parts necessary for maintenance. This provision would have a detrimental effect on the automotive industry on aftersales. After the new car is sold, there is a huge industry that supports the auto industry in the automotive sales after the original sale; 98 percent of that business is comprised of small businesses. The potential cost of the program to taxpayers is unclear. Certainly the benefits are unclear, but the costs are unclear. This provision states neither how much DOE will pay for each scrapped vehicle nor the value of the credit toward a new vehicle purchase. The State programs do not offer a clear precedent. The State of California Bureau of Automotive Repair pays $1,000 for each donated car. However, this program addresses the State's poor air quality, not fuel efficiency. Moreover, no State provides interested car donators with credits toward the purchase of new cars. This vehicle scrap program does not meet its own intended goals. It hurts low- and middle-income families who are the predominant buyers of used cars or families buying for first-time car users. It is the wrong way to dedicate our Federal resources. We all want a better environment, but this is not the way to achieve it. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Campbell amendment to take out this provision. This impacts a lot more people than what might appear on the surface. It has broad impact for the public. It is not being well-received by the public. We are getting a number of calls and letters in our office saying this is a bad idea for a program. It seems highly controversial and questionable in its ability to impact in a positive way fuel efficiency. With the lack of support from the public, this provision should be scrapped--not the vehicles. For that reason, I call on my colleagues to vote for the Campbell amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I rise to speak in favor of the amendment of my colleague from Colorado. Is there a time agreement or allocations on the amendment?

Mr. BROWNBACK. What is the pending business? Amendment No. 3007