Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will withdraw the amendment now. I again apologize to the Senator. This was an inadvertant oversight on my part. I certainly do not seek to take any unfair advantage of any Senator. I never have. I will withdraw the amendment now and will offer it later after it has been discussed with the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. That is an important question. It is one of the questions I wanted to raise. Where is the money? Is the President asking for the money in his budget? Did he ask for it in his supplemental request? Where is the money? Is his administration going to support the appropriations for this legislation? This is one of the areas that I had difficulty with last December when I was importuned by the many Senators on both sides of the aisle to give unanimous consent that we take this bill up without any debate, without any amendments, and pass it. One of the questions I wanted to ask was, What about the funding?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I will shortly send to the desk, but let me say a few things in regard thereto first. There is an urgent and pressing need for the United States to improve the enforcement of our laws that prohibit the importation of goods that are made using forced labor. Countries throughout the world are using forced, prison, or indentured labor to cut costs to the bone, increase the export of cheap goods, and drive American manufacturers under. We have to take stronger action to see that U.S. laws that prohibit this repugnant practice are enforced. Since 1930, the United States has had a law on our books that prohibits the entry of prison-made goods and requires the U.S. Customs Service to seize goods destined for our markets that are made utilizing forced labor. There are common sense reasons for the Tariff Act of 1930. The importation of prison-made goods is not consistent with either the principles of free trade or human rights. American consumers should not unwittingly be supporting repression in other countries simply by shopping at the local mall. Admittedly it is difficult to enforce laws prohibiting goods made using forced labor. Overall, U.S. Customs officials inspect less than 3 percent of all imports, and often those inspections are superficial. There are the problems of sheer volume of imports, the commercial requirements of rapid movement of goods, and other realities of today's commerce but we must endeavor to do a better job. With respect to forced labor-made goods, there are issues of fraudulent mis-labeling, lack of cooperation of foreign governments, and the existence of a sophisticated network of middlemen engaged in transshipment of goods destined for America. For instance, goods made in the vast forced labor manufacturing network in China may arrive in the U.S. from Nigeria. Such is the nature of global commerce today. A number of countries make common use of forced labor--China is but one of them. One estimate places the number of forced labor facilities in China at an astounding 1,114, employing as many as 1.7 million people. Mr. President, that bears repeating. China, a country that exports nearly $100 billion in merchandise to the United States, has up to 1.7 million forced laborers in 1,114 facilities. Some of these people were sentenced to prison time at hard labor for crimes that they actually committed. Others are forced into prison labor camps without so much as a trial, because of political or religious beliefs, and are subject to torture and beatings. In China, if one visits a non-state-sanctioned church, for instance, such an ``offender'' could end up making lawn tractors, cordless drills, or soccer balls for U.S. markets. The forced labor facility network is an integral part of the Chinese economy. But, there are no firm numbers on the quantity of forced labor-made goods that eventually find their way from China's extensive forced labor network to our shores, shipped here directly or transshipped through other countries. It is anyone's guess as to how much of the $100 billion in Chinese goods sold in the U.S. each year are made, wholly or in part, by forced labor. But there can be no doubt that with a forced labor population of at least 1.7 million, China is selling a considerable amount of prison-made goods to the United States which is the main purchaser of China's exports. China is not the only country that produces and exports forced labor- made goods. The 2001 State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices names Burma, Brazil, and Russia as having serious problems in this area even though it is clearly against our laws for such goods to cross our borders. To tackle this problem, my amendment takes three actions. First, it requires all importers of goods into the U.S. to certify and the U.S. Customs Service to ensure, based upon verification of these certificates, that the goods being brought into our country have not been made with forced labor. Second, the amendment requires renegotiation of two of our agreements with China that deal with the inspection of forced labor facilities in China. Third, the amendment reauthorizes $2 million for the Customs Service to provide additional personnel to monitor imports and enforce our anti-forced labor import laws. Regarding the first section of my amendment, the requirement for certification of all goods coming into the U.S. to be ``forced labor- free'' is consistent with the practice and intent of other certifications that are required of importers. When agricultural goods are brought into the United States, importers must present certifications that the products have been appropriately inspected and have established origins and producers. The World Trade Organization has its own certification requirements for ``green'' products, to insure that imported items are made in an environmentally friendly manner. In fact, the WTO recognizes that certification requirements are a legitimate tool in combating deceptive trade practices, such as those engaged in by countries that try to pass off forced labor-made goods to unsuspecting consumers in other countries, by transshipment, mislabeling, or other methods. As to the second section of my amendment, there is a need to strengthen our existing agreements with China to improve the ability of our Customs investigators to visit suspected forced labor facilities. Right now the site inspection and investigation process is beset by problems of interpretation differences and plain old stonewalling. For example, in one instance it took three and one half years for a U.S. requested inspection of a heavy duty machine factory to be carried out. There are two agreements with China going back to 1992 and 1994 which govern our U.S. Customs agents' access to suspected forced labor sites. Those agreements are not working. The United States needs to conduct these necessary inspections and investigations in a timely manner. To effectively do so, we need to close the loopholes in the present inspection agreements. Finally, the third section of my amendment authorizes $2 million for Customs Service personnel to enforce our forced labor import laws. Customs already has 1,100 staff positions that are funded through the payment of fees. By authorizing an additional $2 million for the enforcement of these laws, the Customs service will be able to hire and dedicate more personnel for the specific purpose of discouraging forced labor goods from penetrating U.S. markets. The American consumer deserves to know what is on the shelves when they go shopping. Nobody can tell just by looking at clothes on a rack which ones were made by legitimate tradesmen and which ones might have been made in some foreign ramshackle prison. But it is clear that some countries utilize prison labor to gain a leg up in global markets. It is a sick and reprehensible practice. It hurts American business and fair-trading foreign businesses. It is an insult to our values. And it is against our law! I urge my colleagues to vote to help put some teeth in U.S. laws that ban goods made with prison labor. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. If the Senator would allow me to finish my question.

Mr. BYRD. I apologize for the amendment not having been shown to the Senator. I was under the impression my staff had discussed this amendment with the Senator. I will be happy to either withdraw the amendment for the time being or ask that it be set aside so the Senator and his staff and others may have an opportunity to look at the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I cannot state the number of amendments I have. They are not a great number, I can say that. I am mainly interested in having a little debate on this bill, and mainly interested in getting some answers from the proponents as to the costs that are involved. I may support this bill. I have no reason to think I won't support it, if we can arrive at some conclusion as to how much the restrictions and requirements are going to cost. We may pass a bill here that is, on the surface at least, a good bill. Certainly, there is a compelling need to do the things that this bill seeks to do. But as an appropriator, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee--and not only that, I should think that all Senators would be interested in knowing how much this is going to cost and what assurances we have that we will have the money with which to pay it. Also, I want to know whether the deadlines--and there are several deadlines in the bill--can be met. If we pass legislation that cannot be enforced because it has deadlines that are not enforceable, then the American people are going to be disappointed--if we pass legislation raising their expectations and then those expectations are not met. I do not say this with criticism of any particular Senator, but as one who appropriates money here, and as one who sought to get appropriations last December for these very purposes, and as one who saw that those two amendments that I offered--one on one bill and the second one on the final appropriations bill--saw those amendments knocked out by virtue of 60-vote points of order. Certainly the Senator from Massachusetts supported me in those. I wonder, now, from where the money is going to come? I want to feel that the President is going to support this, support the requests for it, support the moneys for it, and that Senators who voted against my amendments last fall--that were for border security, that were for homeland security, that were to provide defenses against biological, chemical, and radiological weapons--are going to support it this time. I want to know from where the money is going to come, how much it is going to cost. That is all. I am ready to pass it tonight if somebody can show me those things. I do have two or three amendments that deal with the deadlines. I may have a somewhat more major amendment. I may not have.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what suggestion does the distinguished Senator have as to how we might deal with this problem that I referenced?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in response to the distinguished Senator, this Senator is willing to share any of these amendments with the Senator. I have already shared with the Senator the amendment which I asked to withdraw. I was under the mistaken impression that my staff had discussed this with his staff. I am not seeking to pull any tricks here. As was said in Julius Caesar, there are no tricks in pure and simple faith. I don't have any tricks. I am not seeking to pull any fast ones on the Senator. I would be glad to show any of my amendments to him. I have but a few amendments. It was an honest mistake, and I was quick to apologize for it when he mentioned it. I hope that settles that. There are no more like that. I would be happy to discuss with the Senator the amendments that I have. That pretty much settles it. I can't say that we can do these tonight. I don't think they can be done tonight.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I spoke in my speech about the problems that I have. The amendments I have deal with those deadlines. There was one other amendment that I am not sure I am going to offer, but I do need to discuss it with him. It has to do with the Office of Homeland Security. But I am not sure I will offer it on this bill. I may offer it on an appropriations bill, or I may not offer it at all, depending on how the leader feels about it and how Senator Lieberman feels about it. But it can be determined overnight as to whether or not I intend to offer that. The other amendments deal, as I recall, with visa waiver deadlines, student penalties, and so on. I discussed the amendment in my statement earlier. I would be happy to discuss these with the Senator, or through my staff. On tomorrow, we can probably deal with them, if we can't deal with them tonight.

Mr. BYRD. I didn't understand the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for yielding. So it is one thing to advocate the passage of an authorization bill, and I very much want to support this legislation. I am not against this legislation, and I will vote for it, depending upon what it looks like when we get ready to pass it. But as an appropriator, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, I think I need to ask about the funding. What assurances do we have that this money is going to be forthcoming? Is it budgeted? Is the administration supporting the bill? Is the administration going to support the monies for it? Are all the Senators who are advocating this legislation going to support the request for appropriations? Now if the Senator would answer.

Mr. BYRD. All right.

Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator is certainly trying. She is making the effort, but there are many other Senators who have ideas with respect to that $10 billion. People on the Armed Services Committee certainly have ideas as to the $10 billion, and the appropriators, including Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, who are the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, have ideas. So there are all kinds of ideas around as to funding. The Senator has mentioned some figures. I would like to be shown that the Senator is correct in her figures. I have some serious questions about funding of this bill, and they need to be answered. This is one reason I thought we ought to have a little debate about it. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, again I compliment the distinguished Senator from California. Her heart is in the right place. She is trying to do the right thing, and I admire her for all of those things. Money is a problem, even for the best of things. Recognizing the need for improved border security, I included nearly $1.1 billion for border security in my $15 billion homeland defense amendment last November. Within that total, I included over $725 million that the President did not request for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. That amendment to the Defense bill was defeated in the Senate when we could not get the 60 votes required to meet a 60- vote point of order. I tried again on the Defense supplemental appropriations bill that the Senate considered in December. I included $335 million above the President's request for the INS for improvements in border security, particularly along the northern border. Once again, the funding was rejected when a 60-vote point of order was raised and we could not get the 60 votes. Finally, in the conference on the Defense supplemental appropriations bill, we provided $150 million more than the President's request. Now, as the border security bill pending before us proves, there continues to be a need for significant infusion of resources to staff, to train and to equip the Immigration and Naturalization Service to do its job on our Nation's borders. Sadly, in the $28.6 billion supplemental that the President requested just a few days ago, on March 21, he includes only $35 million for the INS. I ask the question--perhaps it is a rhetorical question--how much is required of the INS in this bill? How much money does the INS need to meet the requirements of this bill? The President requested a $28.6 billion supplemental just a few day ago, on March 21, and he included only $35 million for the INS. Where is the money coming from to meet the requirements that will be placed on the INS by this bill? I am not being critical of the bill. I want to know the answer. I want the bill to work. That is why I said I wasn't going to agree to the unanimous consent request last December to take up the bill and pass it in the bat of an eye, without any debate, without any questions asked. I am here today. I want to improve this bill. I want to vote for it, but what are the answers to these questions? How much money is being appropriated to the INS if it is to meet the requirements of the pending bill? How much is it going to cost the INS? The President requested, again, $28.6 billion in a supplemental, not yet a month ago, March 21; it will be 1 month ago this coming Sunday. He asked for $28.6 billion, but he included only $35 million for the INS. The request is particularly weak for providing the resources to construct border facilities and to equip border personnel and to provide the technology and the computer system necessary for the INS to effectively work with other Federal agencies. I ask that question. If one of the authors to the pending bill can answer that question, I would like to know.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is no difference, when it comes to stating the compelling need for what the bill seeks to do--there is no difference between the Senator from Massachusetts and myself. We stood toe to toe last year. So did the distinguished Senator from California, who is now presiding, Mrs. Feinstein. We stood toe to toe with each other. When I tried to add $15 billion--half was for New York--in the stimulus bill for homeland defense, we were together. I am with you today. We were together then. But a point of order was raised on the other side of the aisle against that money. It was the 60-vote point of order. We could not find the 60 votes. Then, when the Defense appropriations bill was called up at the end of the year--again, there was $7.5 billion for homeland defense in that bill, $7.5 billion--a point of order again was raised on the other side of the aisle. It was a 60-vote point of order. We did not have the 60 votes on this side of the aisle. So there is no question about the compelling need for these additional items to protect the borders of this country. But what I am saying today is the President of the United States--we saw it in the papers, I believe it was today or yesterday--threatened to veto any appropriations bill that went beyond what he was requesting. That may not be the exact phrasing, but we are already threatened with a veto. So where is this money coming from? I am only saying we make a mistake when we pass legislation here that leaves the American people under the impression we have done something to surmount the problem, that we pass legislation to deal with border security that will adequately deal with the problem, will provide the technology, will provide the additional personnel, will provide the money so people can sleep on their pillows after this bill passes and it is signed into law, if it is signed into law, comfortable in the thought that the Congress has taken care of the matter quite adequately; we have passed legislation to do it. But where is the money? It is one thing to talk about belling the cat, but who is going to bell the cat? That is an old fable. Saying these things, I do not level criticism at the authors of this bill. As I said, I intend to vote for it, depending on what it looks like when it comes up for passage. But I raise these legitimate questions. I do not believe anybody in this Chamber can answer them. How much is this bill going to cost? How much is it going to cost? How much more is going to be put on the shoulders of the INS? We make a serious mistake, when we pass legislation to deal with an obvious and compelling problem, when we pass legislation that purports to deal with that problem but does not deal with it or is not enforceable. I question whether or not some of the deadlines in this bill can be met. Let me read for the Senate what Alexander Hamilton says in the Federalist No. 25, just a single paragraph. Here is what Hamilton says in the Federalist No. 25, and I think we should keep this in mind every day when we pass legislation. I think it is very apropos to the legislation we are going to pass here. We are going to pass it, I have no doubt about that. Here is what Hamilton said: Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know-- They know-- that every breach of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breasts of rulers towards the constitution of a country, and forms a precedent for other breaches where the same plea of necessity does not exist at all, or is less urgent and palpable. That is Alexander Hamilton. That is not Robert Byrd. Let me read it again: Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know-- In other words, the wise politicians know-- because they know that every breach of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breasts of rulers towards the constitution of a country, and forms a precedent for other breaches where the same plea of necessity does not exist at all, or is less urgent and palpable. So Hamilton is saying that wise politicians ought to be very cautious about fettering the Government with restrictions that cannot be observed. And that is why I am saying about this bill: Can these deadlines be met? Is the technology available now in order to meet them? Is the technology available so that those deadlines can be met? Is the money going to be there? Is the money going to be there for the personnel, for the technology, to meet those deadlines? Hamilton says that if we pass these requirements and they are not met, then this is a breach of the law, although it may be dictated by necessity--as we readily admit that the necessity is there, to do what this bill does. He speaks to that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breasts of rulers towards the constitution of a country. And he says one breach will lead to other breaches. One breach will be a precedent for other breaches, where the same plea, of necessity, may not even exist. So I consider it to be a pretty serious matter that when we pass a bill of this kind, we are going to pass a law that can be observed and will be observed, the requirements will be met, the equipment is there, the technology is there, the money is there, and so we can rest assured that whatever the bill purports to require will be done. That is the basis of my concern. The President's supplemental request for the INS is related to hiring more agents for airports and seaports. Senator Hollings believes we gave them enough money in December for this because they cannot hire people fast enough with the money they have. As I understand it, Senator Hollings believes that where we are short is in INS construction of building facilities to house the staff they are hiring. Therefore, we are seeking more INS construction in the supplemental. I will be glad to have anyone answer the questions I have asked, if they wish to do so. In the meantime, I will proceed with my statement. Over the last ten years, a vigorous campaign has been waged in behalf of immigration. The economic benefits of immigration have been touted by businesses, the news media, and politicians. Those who have questioned the benefits of immigration were immediately labeled as being ``uninformed'' or ``outside of the mainstream.'' The Congress quietly passed legislation, without adequate debate or amendments, to roll back deadlines and weaken mandates for our border defense agencies. As a result, immigrants--illegal and legal--have flowed into this country at a rate of over 1 million immigrants per year. The attacks that occurred on September 11 brought that campaign to a screeching halt as the American people were made acutely aware of just how porous our border defenses had become. Each of the 19 hijackers was granted visas by a U.S. consulate abroad. Three of the September 11 hijackers had overstayed their visas and were living in the U.S. illegally at the time of the attacks. Seven of the 19 hijackers obtained fraudulent ID cards with the help of illegal aliens. The American people must have wondered how the terrorists that perpetrated the September 11 attacks could so easily have slipped across our borders and seamlessly blended into society. With all the governmental requirements placed on law-abiding families simply to own a dog or to build a tool shed in the backyard, it seems outrageous that foreign terrorists could be leasing apartments, opening bank accounts, attending school, and invisibly maneuvering through the system while plotting their dastardly schemes. The American people are clear in what they now ask from the Congress and the Administration--tougher border security and immigration laws, more resources dedicated to our border defenses, and a more vigilant Immigration and Naturalization Service. What they have received so far is enough to make anyone wonder if Washington ever hears the concerns of the people back home. I devoted a large amount of my time last fall to providing additional border security funds. As some have already indicated, I crafted a $15 billion homeland defense package as part of the economic stimulus bill the Senate considered last November. That homeland defense package provided $1.1 billion for border security initiatives. Under a presidential veto threat, those funds were removed from the economic stimulus package by a partisan vote on a budgetary point of order. Many of the Senators who will support this authorization bill voted against those actual additional border security funds last fall. After the $15 billion homeland defense package was removed from the stimulus bill, I offered a $7.5 billion homeland defense package. Of that amount, $591 million was devoted to border security initiatives. Once again, under the threat of a presidential veto, those funds were removed, this time from the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill, by a partisan vote on a budgetary point of order requiring 60 votes to overcome. And once again, many of the Senators who will support this authorization bill voted against border security funds last fall. Had those funds been approved, that money would be in the pipeline right now for hiring and training hundred of additional Border Patrol agents. The Administration, instead, chose to wait, and then asked the Congress for those same border security funds that it threatened to veto just two months earlier. As a result, even if, by the October 1 deadline, those funds are appropriated by the Congress, those funds will not be released until early next year--at the earliest. The Administration effectively delayed hundreds of millions of dollars in border security funds for at least one full year. As for a more vigilant Immigration and Naturalization Service, the American people must have been shocked--I know that the President said he was shocked--to learn that, six months to the day after the September 11 attacks, the INS was still processing paperwork for two of the terrorists who piloted the planes into the World Trade Center towers. They were dead, and internationally recognized as the September 11 terrorists. Yet, the INS was still processing the paperwork for them to attend a flight school in Florida. In March, the American people learned that the INS mistakenly granted special waivers to four Pakistani sailors who were aboard a Russian ship in Norfolk, VA. When the ship sailed for Savannah, GA, 2 days later, the four Pakistani crewmen were missing. An INS inspector entered an improper birth date for one of the four missing Pakistanis. If the birth date had been entered correctly, INS would have found that the man had committed an immigration violation in Chicago several years ago, and, therefore, was not eligible for a visa. To make matters worse, in the midst of a debate on border security, there are efforts underway to add to this legislation, at the request of the President, an amnesty provision for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, including many who have not undergone any background or security check. The American people have good reason to raise an eyebrow when they hear the Congress and the administration tell them that they are working to tighten our border security. If we are to restore the trust of the American people in our efforts to secure our nation's borders, we need to have a serious debate about our border defenses and what we can actually do to repair them. That is part of the reason I objected to passing this bill by unanimous consent without any debate or amendments. I understand there are some amendments that have been agreed upon already which will be in the managers' amendment at the end of the debate when we vote on the bill. There are some amendments that have already been agreed upon apparently by the managers. So the American people, by virtue of at least some debate, can have at least some idea of what is in the bill and whether or not it would be successful in tightening our borders. We do not know how much money this is going to cost. We do not know how the money will be made available. In a supplemental? By virtue of Presidential request in a budget? The President did not request anything in his supplemental request. We have tight restrictions on moneys that are appropriated here. They have to come within 302(a) allocations. They have to come within 302(b) allocations. Anything over and above has to be labeled an emergency, and the President has threatened to veto appropriations that are labeled as emergencies unless he or his administration requests that that be done. So we are in a straitjacket when it comes to appropriations. I know there are Senators who are going to be looking at me, wanting moneys to be appropriated for this bill. So really proponents of this measure have no way of judging whether they will have the necessary support for the appropriations that will be needed later this year to implement many of the provisions of the bill. How can taxpayers, who ultimately will be responsible for footing the cost of the bill, be expected to support the long-term financial commitment this bill requires if we do not know now, when we are debating the bill, where the money is coming from? I do not know how enthusiastic or whether the administration will be enthusiastic at all about this bill. I do not know how enthusiastic they will be, if at all. And yet the administration tells us we need to have an amnesty provision. Not in this bill. Fortunately, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and others, are not advocating that in this bill. But that 245(i) amnesty bill, that is something that is clearly opposed, I believe, by a majority of the American people. Yet the administration says, on the one hand, how careful we have to be, how cautious we must be, how much on our guard we must be. The administration has issued how many alerts? Four already? Three or four already. He says, on the one hand, be alert. On the other hand, he says, let's let the illegals in. Let's let them stay. Those who have violated U.S. law, let them stay. What about those people who have stood in line, who have followed the procedures by which they can be entitled, eventually, to become residents and citizens? How do they feel when as to a group of thousands or hundreds of thousands of others who violate the laws, who make the shortcuts, they see the administration advocating that those who made the shortcuts, those who violated the laws, be given amnesty? Why abide by the laws if you can violate them and achieve your goal even much quicker by violating them? What is the inducement for following the laws? Now let's take the visa waiver program, for instance. Under this program, roughly 23 million foreign nationals from 28 countries enter the United States as temporary visitors without obtaining a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad. By eliminating the visa requirement, aliens are permitted to bypass the State Department background check--the first step by which foreign visitors are screened for admissibility when seeking to enter the United States. Proponents of the program are quick to point out that only low-risk countries, mostly Western European, may participate in this program. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has reported that hundreds of thousands of passports from these countries have been stolen-- stolen--in recent years. So when you couple these thefts with the fact that, according to the Justice Department's Inspector General, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has roughly a minute to complete an inspection, it is likely that a terrorist with a fraudulent passport will try to slip into the country. That is exactly what happened in 1992, when one of the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing tried to get into the country through the visa waiver program with a fake Swedish passport. He was caught, and a search of his luggage revealed bomb-making instructions. The pending bill addresses this problem, in part, by requiring stolen passport numbers to be entered into a new interoperable database system. But, as I understand it, such a system is years away from being completed. In the meantime, the State Department and the INS are not able to share information on foreign nationals who enter the country under this program. Well, if it is important enough for the INS and the State Department to share information on visa waiver participants, I suggest the visa waiver program will remain a serious hole in our border defenses until that interoperable database system is fully implemented. And that is just one problem that Senators will find if they take the time to read through this bill, as I have. Consider section 402, which deals with passenger manifests. Section 402 of this bill requires commercial air and sea vessels arriving and departing from the United States to provide an appropriate immigration officer with a manifest of who the passengers are who are on board. In subsection (g), Senators will note that the penalty for not providing these manifests is a $300 fine--I suppose some people carry that much money around as lunch money--a $300 fine for each person not mentioned, or incorrectly identified, in the manifest. This penalty, I suggest, is wholly inadequate. What is more, there is nothing in this bill to prevent a passenger from providing false information to the air or sea carriers. This provision, therefore, just eats around the edges of a significant shortfall in our border defenses. A $300 fine is not much when compared with the safety and security of the Nation. But, of much greater concern is the question of the ability of anyone who must take information from passengers and fill out the manifest to determine the reliability of the information they have been given by the passenger. It is a joke to assume that someone with bad intentions would give accurate information to an employee of the airlines, for example. That is not a criticism of airline or sea carrier employees. It is, however, a fine example of how many provisions in the bill which on paper sound good but in reality provide only a false sense of increased security. The same can be said about the October 26, 2003, deadline. That deadline appears five times in different locations throughout the bill. For example, section 303: Not later than October 26, 2003, the Attorney General shall install at all ports of entry in the United States equipment and software to allow biometric comparison of all U.S. visa and travel documents. That sounds wonderful. I don't know why they picked October 26--why it shouldn't have been October 1 or November 1. Why October 26? Five times that date is used: October 26, 2003. I don't think that is a realistic deadline. Perhaps someone can convince me otherwise. Let me say it again. Not later than October 26, 2003, the Attorney General shall--not may, shall--install at all--not just a few, not just certain ones, all--ports of entry in the United States equipment and software to allow biometric comparison of all U.S. visa and travel documents. I wonder if that deadline, October 26, 2003, is realistic. We have 62 ports of entry which are closed 8 hours a day with only an orange cone in front. We are years away from being able to provide the sophisticated equipment for checking biometric identifiers at all ports of entry. Under the regular appropriations process, Congress cannot even get that funding out to the agencies before October 1, 2002, at best. Assuming all 13 bills are completed on time by the end of the fiscal year, it could still take months before funds are released to the agencies for this purpose. I think it is unwise to set deadlines such as that one--so strict--when it is highly questionable as to whether or not those deadlines can be met. As far as I can tell, that deadline is based solely on the fact that the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law on that same day, October 26, in 2001. If that is the case, that is certainly no reason to use a deadline. Senators should be aware that these deadlines appear wholly unrealistic, especially the one I have just mentioned. I appreciate the notion that without deadlines, it is difficult to press the agencies to act expeditiously. But when such deadlines come and go and the promised action has not been taken by the Federal Government, then Hamilton's admonition is called into focus: The public becomes rightfully disillusioned with the ability of the Government to do what it promises to do. We should put greater stock in the trust and confidence of the American people. Without their continued support of this measure, we lose the political will to act in the Congress, and we will lose consensus elsewhere throughout the Government; that consensus rapidly dissipates. The same could be said about the penalties included in this bill for the more than 15,000 universities, colleges, and vocational schools across the country that accept foreign students. There are more than 500,000 foreign students in the United States who are benefiting from the goodwill of this country and from our investment in education. Many of these are nuclear engineering scholars. Many of them are biochemistry students. Many of them are pilot trainees who have access to dangerous technology, training, and information. This bill takes some good steps toward setting up a national monitoring system to verify the enrollment status of these students. However, universities are going to have to play a role in helping the Government to verify that these foreign nationals are actually showing up for class. It has been noted that one of the September 11 hijackers entered the United States on a student visa, dropped out of classes, and remained here illegally thereafter. But unless this Congress places some tough penalties on universities to comply with the tougher reporting requirements contained in this bill, these universities are unlikely to take seriously the necessity to comply with these new responsibilities. The legislation gives the INS and the Secretary of State too much discretion in determining whether or not these educational institutions should be penalized. Let me read from the bill: Effect of Failure To Comply.--Failure of an institution or other entity to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to receive non-immigrant students or exchange visitor program participants under section 101(a)(15) (F), (M), or (J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) (F), (M), or (J)), or section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372), may, at the election of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization or the Secretary of State, result in the termination, suspension, or limitation of the institution's approval to receive such students or the termination of the other entity's designation to sponsor exchange visitor program participants, as the case may be. Now, why do we say ``may''? We are talking about the failure of an institution or other entity to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to receive nonimmigrant students or exchange visitor program participants--that failure, as a result of that failure. So if there is a failure to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements, it may--``may'' it says--at the election of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization or the Secretary of State, may result in the termination, suspension, or limitation of the institution's approval to receive such students. Why shouldn't we say ``shall'' if an institution is going to be that lax and fail to report? We are talking about people's lives here. It should be ``shall'' the election of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, or the Secretary of State ``shall'' result in the termination--that is the end, cut it off--suspension, or limitation of the institution's approval to receive such students or the termination of the other entity's designation to sponsor exchange visitor program participants, as the case may be. Senators should understand and should insist that tougher penalties are necessary to ensure that this student monitoring system will work; and it won't work if we leave it full of holes like that. Similarly, this Congress is quick to pass legislation that will place new requirements and deadlines on the INS without giving adequate consideration to whether that agency is equipped to meet those mandates--that agency of all agencies, sad to say. The inevitable result is that the Congress will later have to weaken the mandate or roll back the deadline when the Immigration and Naturalization Service fails to comply with the law. Considering the INS's most recent debacles and its apparent inability to handle its current workload, I suggest that before we task that agency with additional responsibilities and meeting additional deadlines, we should first try to reach some sort of a consensus about its organizational structure. So far, the administration has proposed two seemingly contradictory INS restructuring plans. The first plan would split the INS into an enforcement agency and a separate service agency, and the second would consolidate the INS and the Customs Service within the Justice Department. The House Judiciary Committee marked up an INS restructuring plan about a week ago. As I understand it, Chairman Kennedy and Senator Brownback are crafting an INS restructuring plan as well. That is to say nothing of the fact that at least two bills have been introduced in the Congress that consolidate the Border Patrol functions of the INS within the Homeland Defense Department or Agency. With all of these organizational plans circulating through the Halls of Congress, it makes little sense that we are considering a border security bill that places new mandates on the INS without addressing how that agency should be structured. The organizational structure of our border defenses should be part of any border security debate. The single most important priority that should be driving these policies is the safety of the American people and the safety of the American institutions within their own borders. Senators may argue that this issue of coordinating our border defenses was addressed when, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the President created the Office of Homeland Security and appointed Governor Tom Ridge as its Director. The Federal Government needs a focal point to coordinate its homeland security efforts. Yet the Office of Homeland Security and its Director, in lacking any statutory authority, will find it difficult, I am sure, to fulfill this mandate. Governor Ridge can request, but he cannot order, the agencies charged with protecting our homeland to implement his recommendations. He has to rely on the President to resolve agency disputes, which include opposition to the Director's initiatives. We have already seen the warning signs of the potential troubles that lie ahead. In early February, Governor Ridge said that our borders remain ``disturbingly vulnerable.'' He cited as a reason that there is no ``direct line of accountability.'' Last year, he proposed that the various border security agencies be consolidated under a single Federal entity, but the agencies charged with border security have resisted this consolidation. While the White House announced that this week the President would endorse such a consolidation, that effort has been delayed for months because of bureaucratic resistance. The authority of the Office of Homeland Security is only as strong as the President's involvement in that office. Furthermore, under Executive Order 13228, which established the Office of Homeland Security, the President can unilaterally change the mandate of the OHS and, in large or small part, channel discretionary funds to the OHS through the White House office budget. Well, the Nation's Homeland Security Director has declined to testify before the Congress to justify the Office of Homeland Security's expenditures or to justify his actions in safeguarding the Nation against terrorism. Not only does this make it difficult for the Congress to conduct oversight of appropriated funds and the oversight of our homeland and border security effort, but it limits the Congress from helping the Office of Homeland Security to fulfill its mandate. Fixing the holes in our border defenses will require more than an interoperable database system and biometric identifiers. While they may prove worthwhile, these border security initiatives are no panacea for border defense. We need to adopt a different mindset when it comes to the security of our borders. We need to consider the organizational structure of our border defenses. We need to acknowledge that we will have to be committing resources for a long time if we are to close the holes that were exposed by the September 11 attacks. I thank Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Feinstein, and Kyl for authoring this legislation. But I am sure the bill's proponents understand that the legislation is not the final answer to what ails our border defenses. Meeting the deadlines and requirements set out in this bill will require their continued support for large amounts of funding. I don't know how we can assure that this funding is going to be there under the requirements and restraints under which the Appropriations Committee acts. Without those funds and without their continued support, the bill is just an empty promise. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. This was inadvertent on my part.

Mr. BYRD. I am sure the Senator would. If I may, Mr. President, just take a further minute. For fiscal year 2003, the President has proposed increasing nondefense programs by only 1 percent. He has threatened to veto appropriations bills that have ``excessive spending.'' For the INS, he has proposed an increase of only $150 million or about a 2-percent increase. That is not even enough to cover inflation. So if we must do more for the INS, what are we supposed to cut? What are we going to cut if we do more than that for the INS? Veterans programs? Are we going to cut veterans programs? Are we going to cut education programs, highways, programs to promote our energy independence, programs dealing with the environment? What do we cut? If we don't do that, we run afoul of the President's threat to veto appropriations bills. I thank all Senators for listening. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I do not have any assurance that money is going to be included. We do not have any assurance it will be. The President only requested $37 million, I believe it was, in his supplemental, out of $27 billion; $35 million for border security--I mean, for the INS. So there we are.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct, but if we do more for homeland defense, then we are restricted by the President's figures, what he has asked. Then we have to take the money out of something else. So what does it come out of? Veterans programs, education, the environment, energy? That is our dilemma. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I certainly can understand what the distinguished Senator is saying and the reasoning behind the decisions that were made. I am only saying, as I said at the very beginning, if we pass legislation that creates unreasonable expectations on the part of the American people, we lose credibility, our Government loses credibility, and the people lose faith in their Government. That is what Hamilton was worrying about in the Federalist Paper No. 25, which I read earlier this afternoon. But now about this money that I talked about, it has been said here there is $743 million in the President's request. But we are talking about 3 years--3 years; that if it were $743 million a year, that would be something like $2.1 or some such billion. Yet the estimated cost for the third year here, as I am told, as I am hearing here, is $3.1 or $3.2 billion. So it seems to me that is $1 billion short there.