Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I urge our colleagues to support this amendment as well. It strengthens an important provision in the legislation. The Senator has outlined what the visa waiver program is, available now to 28 different countries. Why the visa waiver? It was the judgment and the determination that if 2 percent, or less than 2 percent, of the visa applications were going to be rejected, then it probably made sense in terms of the efficiency to grant a visa waiver to that particular country. These are generally our oldest allies and friends as nations. A country has to stay at 2\1/2\ percent in order to stay in the program. Six countries a year is the general rule. So what the Senator's amendment does is it says, look, given the changed circumstances that exist in the world, at least every 2 years we want to see countries reviewed. This is certainly supportable. One of the principal reasons, obviously, in reviewing a country in terms of a visa waiver, may be because there are national security issues that are different. There may be law enforcement issues that are different. If there are security issues that are different, then we would want to know it and know about it in a timely way. We have seen in recent times, a month ago, Argentina was dropped from the visa waiver program because of the turmoil that exists there and the enormous numbers of people who were leaving with very little intention perhaps of returning. So the amendment of the Senator will ensure that the visa waiver program will carry forward its real intention, and it will be carefully reviewed every 2 years with the idea that the review, which will be by the State Department and the Attorney General, will look at the country and see if there are new issues of security that may pose a potential threat to the United States. If they do, they can take the action of removing the country, or make other recommendations. The second feature of this amendment, which is enormously important, is the requirement that we are going to have the report of stolen passports. That has been a very slipshod process in the past. The Byrd amendment puts teeth into that provision. If the countries themselves are not going to be reporting these stolen passports, they will no longer be participating in this favored position in terms of the visa waiver. Getting a handle on stolen passports is enormously important. It is going to be even more important as we move on into the future. This amendment makes sense. I hope our colleagues will support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will urge our colleagues to support this amendment for the excellent reasons that the sponsor gave in support and in justification of the amendment. There are now 26,000 universities and schools that can effectively approve a foreign student to come and study. But the foreign student has to qualify for the visa project at the current time. We have included some very important requirements in this legislation because this has been one of the great loopholes in our monitoring of who comes into this country and who does not. The State Department must first receive the electronic evidence of the acceptance from an approved U.S. institution prior to issuing a student visa. The State Department must inform the INS that a visa has been approved. The INS must inform the approved institution the student has been admitted into the country, and then the approved institution must notify INS when the student has registered and enrolled. If the student doesn't report for class, the school must notify the INS of this absence not later than 30 days after the deadline for the classes. So the colleges and universities have to develop that kind of system in order to be qualified for these programs, which is enormously important and a very significant, dramatic change from the current situation. Currently, there are sporadic inspections of the universities. So now the Byrd amendment comes along and says, well, what you have in here looks good on paper, but what we take note of is the fact that, even if it is good on paper, the INS, in its history, has been sporadic in inspecting and finding out whether the schools and colleges are doing what they said and what they are supposed to do. That has been true. This tightens that provision up in a very important way. If there is a material breach, then there will be a suspension of that institution from being able to receive the foreign students. So I believe it is going to make a very important difference in terms of compliance with one of the most important aspects of this legislation, which is understanding the students who are coming here, monitoring the students when they are here, knowing when the students are leaving, and if the students are not attending the schools, having access to that kind of information as well. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the amendment. What it does is put real teeth into this provision which we had worked out in the committee to achieve the kind of oversight the INS has not had up to this time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are enacting the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. I would like at the outset to thank my colleagues and fellow sponsors, Senators Brownback, Feinstein, and Kyl, as well as their dedicated staff, David Neal, LaVita Strickland, and Elizabeth Maier. We began working together on this legislation in November and have moved through every stage of this process as a united team. I would also like to thank Senator Hollings and Senator Gregg for their invaluable contributions to the bill. I thank Senator Byrd for steadfastly working with us to make important improvements to the legislation. Finally, I thank all of our colleagues in the Senate for withdrawing their unrelated amendments to assure the swift passage of this vital legislation, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which will strengthen the security of our borders. It will improve our ability to screen visitors, monitor foreign nationals, and enhance our capacity to deter potential terrorists. Our bill provides real solutions to real problems. It closes loopholes in our immigration system. Our solutions include expanding intelligence and law enforcement capabilities, upgrading 21st century technology, and establishing an electronic interoperable data system. Vital information will be shared in real time among our front line agencies. Our legislation sets realistic deadlines for the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to issue to all foreign nationals machine- readable, tamper-resistant travel documents with biometric identifiers. It also sets a realistic deadline for our ports of entry to be used with biometric data readers and scanners. It also recognizes the valuable role of our border security and INS personnel by ensuring that these offices receive adequate pay and training and have the technology they need to secure our borders without obstructing the efficient flow of persons and commerce. It also recognizes the demands on our consular offices, and provides them with the additional training and resources to screen for security threats. In this legislation, we preserve the visa waiver program but require a stringent reporting requirement on passport theft and more frequent evaluation of participating countries' compliance with the programs' conditions. Our bill honors our proud immigration tradition. It safeguards the entry of the more than 31 million persons who enter the United States legally each year as visitor students, temporary workers, and the 550 million who legally cross our borders each year to visit family and friends. We recognize that immigration is not the problem--terrorism is. We must identify and isolate potential terrorists--not isolate the United States. ``Fortress America'' is not a solution that we would consider. In defending America, we are defending the fundamental constitutional principles of diversity, cultural exchange, and civil rights that have made America strong in the past and which will make us even prouder in the future. This legislation strikes the appropriate balance. I hope we will receive overwhelming support for it. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back all of the time.

Mr. KENNEDY. The order of the votes will be the two amendments of the Senator from West Virginia in the order in which they were offered.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that there be no intervening business in between the votes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I further ask unanimous consent that after the first vote, the remaining two votes be 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. KENNEDY. And the time on the overall bill is?

Mr. KENNEDY. So that would include final passage; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that we have a time limit on both the bill and the particular amendments. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. And 40 minutes on each amendment equally divided. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, almost 39 million Americans wake up each morning, hoping that they or their families do not face illness or a serious accident--because they have no health insurance. Many more are underinsured and do not have access to a good health provider. They awake hoping that they and their loved ones will not get sick. For many, falling ill can mean financial ruin, or even death, because they cannot afford the critical health services they need. During this time when our country struggles through the worst economic downturn in a decade, we must find innovative ways to provide access to health care for our most vulnerable citizens. States are facing more than $40 billion in deficits, unemployment is up, and the number of uninsured are rising. Today, we offer Americans hope. I am proud that the U.S. Senate has joined together in passing the Health Care Safety Amendments of 2001. This bill reauthorizes two critical programs that serve our poorest populations--the health centers program and the National Health Service Corps. It also creates the Healthy Communities Access Program, HCAP. By bringing together public and private providers, HCAP will help improve the coordination of services for communities' most vulnerable populations. At a time when our health care system too often treats people as statistics, this Nation's community health centers and our health professionals working through the National Health Service Corps treat them as patients who deserve the best available health care. They know their communities, they understand their concerns, they know their names, and they speak their languages. For more than 30 years, these programs have provided health care to Americans who have no where else to go for services. In fact, it is difficult to imagine what health care in the United States would be like today without them. Without their extraordinary achievements, millions of the most vulnerable Americans would not receive the health care they need to live healthy and productive lives. Without the health centers and the National Health Service Corps, there would be higher rates of tuberculosis, infant mortality, AIDS, substance abuse, and many other debilitating conditions in our low-income neighborhoods. Without these two programs, the Nation's emergency rooms would be flooded with even more patients seeking primary care. Despite their extraordinary accomplishments, far too often these health centers and providers struggle each day just to keep their doors open. That is why this legislation is so important. Over the years, our community health centers have more than proven their worth. And as a result, last year, health centers received more support than ever before. We set a goal of doubling the Federal financial commitment to community health centers over the next 5 years. We need to continue expanding these programs and get more health professionals on the ground in health centers in America's small farming communities, urban centers, and sprawling suburbs. And we must continue our commitment to the Healthy Communities Access Program. HCAP plays a very important role in our health care safety net. From the physician in private practice to the community health centers to the hospitals, all will work hand-in-hand to coordinate their efforts to reach the vast number of Americans who fall between the cracks in today's health care system. We must ensure that we continue to fund this program to help safety net providers develop innovative ways to coordinate the care for the uninsured and underinsured. We should not put this important safety net program at risk of receiving lower levels of funding. I commend President Bush for making the health centers program and the National Health Service Corps a priority in his 2003 budget, and I hope the administration will support the bipartisan HCAP program. I also commend Senator Frist, Senator Jeffords, and the members of our committee for their hard work on this bill. For more than 30 years, I have been inspired by those who invest their lives in caring for Americans who have no place to turn for health care. I thank my colleagues today for passing the Safety Net bill which will aid our health centers and doctors in delivering critical health care services in our poorest communities. In doing so, we not only offer the tools for ensuring healthier lives, but we provide hope for millions of struggling families.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise regarding recent events in Venezuela and my concern that the response of the administration was inconsistent with our foreign policy goal of promoting democracy abroad. On April 12, following anti-government protests by civil opposition sectors, supported by parts of the military, President Hugo Chavez was briefly forced to resign power. The civil-military movement named businessman Pedro Carmona as interim president, and he then took steps which further undermined constitutional order, dissolving the legislature and the Supreme Court. Instead of protesting these clear violations of democratic order, the U.S. found itself virtually alone in the region in seemingly welcoming the undemocratic change in government in Venezuela. Latin American presidents, meeting in Costa Rica, quickly condemned the coup as contrary to democratic obligations of members of the Organization of American States. Their action had nothing to do with support for President Chavez, whose radical declarations and friendly links to Cuba and Iraq had caused discomfort in the region and in Washington. However, the American government did not acknowledge that a coup had occurred and referred to the action as ``a change in the government.'' After 2 days, the lack of full support inside the Venezuelan military, the extreme nature of the actions of the interim president in voiding Venezuela's democratic institutions, and the clear opposition of hemispheric leaders resulted in Chavez being reinstated to the presidency. The Inter-American Democratic Charter, which the United States and the other members of the Organization of American States agreed to last year, commits all member governments to condemn and investigate the overthrow of any democratically elected OAS member government. These events tested the resolve of Western Hemisphere leaders in their support of democracy, and Latin American leaders responded decisively. Unfortunately, the American government failed the test. Our government must support changes of government through a constitutional process, not military means. America's failure to condemn the illegal overthrow of a democratically elected leader in Venezuela has seriously undermined our credibility in the Western Hemisphere. The United States must be a leader in promoting the strengthening of democracy in our hemisphere. We can do this by abiding by the OAS charter and by working within the OAS to maintain close scrutiny of democracies at risk. The Secretary-General of the OAS, Dr. Cesar Gaviria, arrived in Venezuela this week to evaluate the latest developments and explore how the OAS can support Venezuela in its efforts to strengthen democracy. As a member of the OAS, our government should strongly and unequivocally support Secretary-General Gaviria's mission. We must also support the right of the voters of Venezuela to decide their political future. At the same time, President Chavez should fully respect individual freedoms, including freedom of the press, due process, and the rule of law. The OAS should continue to monitor the situation in Venezuela closely, and the U.S. Government should renew its commitment to democracy and democratic standards in the region.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her comments and commend her for her steadfast commitment to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. She is an outstanding advocate for needy families in Louisiana and across the country. She is correct that the program demands and deserves significantly more funding than it currently receives. I'm sure she's as pleased as I am that LIHEAP's authorization levels are increased in the underlying bill. I look forward to working with her and with her colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to increase funding for this vital program. Senator Landrieu has raised some very important concerns about the program which must be addressed during the re-authorization process. I plan to hold hearings on this issue and invite Senator Landrieu to testify. Her proposals will play a very serious role during consideration of LIHEAP re-authorization. Senator Landrieu raises a critical point regarding the vulnerability of our poorest citizens to extreme weather conditions. My State is the home of ground-breaking research on the negative health impacts of extreme temperatures, particularly on poor children with chronic illnesses suffering through cold winters. Research at the Failure to Thrive Clinic at Boston Medical Center has indicated that needy children often start to lose weight and suffer additional problems associated with malnutrition, because their families are spending less of their meager incomes on food and medicine, and more on fuel bills. No family should have to choose between energy, rent, prescription drugs, or food. LIHEAP helps families meet their home energy needs, so they can meet other immediate priorities, too. From 1979 to 1998, the Centers for Disease Control reports that there were 7,421 deaths in the United States due to heat stroke. Over the same time period, CDC says 13,970 people died of hypothermia, or exposure to cold. In Massachusetts, people who cannot afford to heat their homes efficiently often employ more dangerous methods of heat-- such as using space heaters or simply leaving oven doors open. In winter 2000, an unseasonably cold winter for my state, deaths from home fires due to space heaters surged in Massachusetts. Nearly one out of every five fire deaths in Massachusetts in 2000 was caused by a space heater. Had LIHEAP been fully funded, and had the program reacted more effectively to crises, we would have been able to save lives. The real tragedy of this debate is that the flexibility already in LIHEAP isn't being utilized. Emergency LIHEAP funding, desperately needed in Louisiana, Massachusetts, and across the country, is still sitting at the White House. The Bush administration is sitting on $600 million in LIHEAP funds that can be placed wherever it is needed most. Half of this emergency funding was approved by Congress in the previous fiscal year. LIHEAP applications keep increasing, the economy still struggles, and States are forced to cut LIHEAP benefits for our people--but the administration keeps claiming an ``emergency'' doesn't exist while thousands of families are still facing the terrible choice of heat, cooling, or food. The Bush administration can reach the families it mentioned in its budget message right now by releasing the emergency funds. Until it does so, the administration can't discuss improving LIHEAP with any credibility.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Senator Byrd asked an important question about the payment for these measures. As I understand, following what my friend and colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, has made available, I am happy to reference to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but he obviously has this information. It has designated $5 billion; that is what the INS budget is, $5 billion. In that is the entry exit, which is basically what we are talking about, $380 million; computer infrastructure is the downpayment, $83 million; the land border inspectors, $34 million; air/ sea inspectors, $51 million; border construction, $145 million; Retention, $743 million. This is not all of what we would like to have in this authorization. Quite frankly, I think this is a higher priority than other measures, both of which will be in our Defense authorization bill, as well as in the supplemental. We will have, hopefully, the opportunity to make that case. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Senator from California, Senator Brownback, and Senator Kyl to make that presentation to this body and to the appropriators in order to fund this measure. I agree, we do not want to misrepresent to the American people that we are doing something on student visas, that we are doing something in terms of requiring our intelligence agencies to give information to the INS to try to stop terrorists, or that we have backup systems so we know whether the students are going to their colleges or staying in the colleges. All that is included in here. I think we have a strong case. As in many different areas of public policy, we are not able to get all the things we would like, but this is a very compelling justification for all of the provisions we have included in this bill, why we have such a broad support from so many of the different groups and individuals who understand the importance and significance of this proposal. It has been very worthwhile, as the Senator from West Virginia has pointed out, that with the authorization of this legislation it does not mean all resources are going to be there. Within the President's budget, there is a downpayment for the startup of these proposals and we will have the opportunity as these appropriations try to give this the high priority it deserves. Quite frankly, I think if we are looking over what the nature of the threat is, we know it obviously is military, and that is costing more than $1.5 billion a month. More importantly, it has cost a number of American lives. We know that. We know it is intelligence. We know the very substantial amount runs into the billions and billions of dollars in terms of intelligence, particularly in human intelligence. We know we need additional resources to pursue and track down money laundering. That is costly. Perhaps we are not spending enough in that area. The good Senator has raised the importance of making sure we will have adequate capability in areas of bioterrorism. I think that is as high a threat as any of the others. Still, as he has pointed out on other occasions, he brought the administration to a more robust investment in bioterrorism, which I still don't think is adequate to construct and begin the early detection and containment as well as the stockpiling of various medicines but we have made an important downpayment. For me, and I think for others, this area in terms of doing something about the easy access into this country falls right into similar priorities. For this Nation, if we haven't got it today, we ought to have it tomorrow. The American people will certainly support, out of a $2 trillion budget, $1 billion additional for our national security. That is what we are committed to. Of course, we would obviously welcome the Senator from West Virginia, but I don't think the American people can understand with the case that has been made in a bipartisan way, a compelling way, in terms of where the threat is to our borders, this is a matter of key national security. It could be as important as shortening the length of time of an aircraft carrier battle division off the Indian Ocean for a couple of months. This is national security and important. We ought to be able to make the case. I hope we will be able to fund it. We don't have all the answers or all the resources clearly today. We are strongly committed to making sure this is going to be funded and going to be put into effect. I believe we will be very careful in overseeing and making sure it is effective. But as the good Senator has pointed out, we haven't got the resources on this today. This is an authorization. We have remaining time before we get into the appropriation. This has a high national priority in terms of our national security. As we move down the process, we welcome the chairman's help in making sure the protections that will be guaranteed by this legislation for our people will be achieved.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just to review very quickly, since we have been asked about this once again, for the costs. That $1.2 billion 1-year, $3.2 billion total cost of the implementation--the $743 million is included in the President's 2003 budget. This includes $380 million for entry-exit data systems; $83 million for computer infrastructure; $34 million for land inspectors; $51 million for air and sea port inspectors; $145 million for border construction; $50 million for detention construction. There is $444 million additional appropriations needed but the legislation raises the additional fees. The bill raises machine-readable fees to $65, generating approximately $100 million in additional income. We believe we can examine the fiscal year 2003 budget, which is, for INS, $6 billion--$6 billion: $2 billion in terms of the fees and $4 billion in terms of appropriations. That is the best we can do. But I think we have a pretty good downpayment on what we would do. We are prepared, as my colleagues have all said, to make that commitment, to try to ensure, in the remaining debate, that we would be able to get the resources. On the question of the border security amendments, we welcome the chance to talk with the Senator--or with any other Senator--and review the deadlines and the other damage provisions in the bill to tighten up the restrictions. They include the changes in the passenger manifest provision and student monitoring provisions. I think we ought to be able to reach the agreements. But we have set some times and some dates. We are talking about, for example, in the biometric implementation, trying to make passports and other documents so they are not subject to fraud. We now have the biometric information, but decisions have to be made as to which one offers the best possibility. We have the technology, then, to develop the machines to put them at the border. That takes some time. If we are talking about a year from this October--if is not the right time, the correct time, we want it to be done as quick as possible. But what we have included in here represents, at least the best judgment of the Homeland Security Office; the Biometric Institute; and the NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Trade, which is the technology arm of the Commerce Department that makes the judgments, for example, in the small business innovative research, about all the new kinds of technologies. If there is other information that would support a different timeframe, we are prepared to do this, but I think we have reached that date for the reasons I have explained. I will mention, on the question of the students, how we monitor the students when they come in here, because I think it is very important to understand exactly what we are doing on this. First of all, when the students come in, the State Department receives the first electronic evidence of acceptance from an approved U.S. institution, prior to issuing a student visa. The State Department then must inform the INS that the visa has been approved. The INS must inform the approved institution that the student has been admitted into the country. Then the approved institution notifies the INS when the student has registered and enrolled; and if the student doesn't report for classes, the school must notify the INS not later than 30 days after the deadline for the registration for classes. You can say that is complicated and difficult. It is. Unless you go to the new technology, it is impossible. But we have been assured, with the new technology, that kind of process is possible. We have been informed by the universities that they believe it is workable. Maybe there is a different way of doing this. There are different timeframes for notification. But those are the ones we have worked out with the various groups and institutions that are most involved in this. As I say, we are glad to go down the list of the timeframes. I know my colleagues and I are glad to go down the list to at least give the justification. We have not arrived at these particular dates in a uniform way. There was some difference in terms of the time--whether it can be done in 180 days, or whether it can be done in a shorter period of time. There was some difference on that. I think there was no difference on the desire for all of us to get it done in the quickest possible time and to do it in the quickest possible responsible time. That is uniform. If there can be a change or an alteration in the establishment of the number of days, we are glad to talk about it. There is no magic on the times we set, although they do represent the agreement with our colleagues, and also with the administration I believe that had some difference as well. Those are just some of the responses. If I could have the attention of my colleague from West Virginia, if we could know what the other amendments are as we are coming into the evening on Monday, we would be able to sort of have a chance to fully evaluate them in order to be able to accept the ones that work consistent with our legislation; we could try to work those out. Then we would be glad to have a good discussion and debate on the floor. But, as the Senator indicated to us, he has several other amendments. He just withdrew one, which we didn't have. We have no idea what the other ones are, either. We are doing the best we can. We were here on Friday afternoon. We had a good hearing on Friday morning with the Senator. But we are here and we are prepared to try to deal with those. We will have a chance to examine this one on forced labor in China, which we did not know was going to be an amendment. If the Senator has others that he is willing to share with us, perhaps we can move this process along to try to accommodate our other colleagues. I was here over the weekend. I plan to be here. I know my colleagues were as well. We are just trying to indicate to our colleagues what our situation is. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine. We had the chance to look over this first one. If we could have the other ones, if the Senator wants to share those, we would welcome the opportunity to see them. But we have not received any others from the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have had an opportunity to talk to two of my colleagues. I conferred with them a moment or two ago. They were not familiar with this amendment, either. Amendment No. 3128 Withdrawn

Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is now 4:25 on Monday. We were just handed this amendment that is 3\1/2\ pages long dealing with the certification regarding forced labor, directed, as I understand, primarily, purposely, towards China and the prison force indentured labor. No one knows better than the Senator from West Virginia the vast opportunities for amending pieces of legislation. We try to respond to our colleagues by indicating what is currently being considered on the floor so they can make some judgment and informed decision on these amendments. We are not in the position of being able to do so since we were not afforded an opportunity to see the amendment until just a couple of minutes ago.

Mr. KENNEDY

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