Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter from Philip Smith, Director of Lao Veterans of America, Inc.: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place the following letter in the Record. Lao Veterans of America, Inc., Washington, DC, May 22, 2000. Hon. Henry Hyde, Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hyde: Thank you for attending our National Recognition Ceremonies, and serving as one of the keynote speakers, to mark the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War in Laos. We wish to express to you our deepest gratitude for your leadership role in the House of Representatives on behalf of the plight of the Hmong and Lao veterans who served bravely with U.S. clandestine and military forces in Laos during the Vietnam War. We would also like to respond to the inquiry by your office about our current position regarding the newly amended version of H.R. 371/S. 890, the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 1999, that passed the Senate on Thursday, May 18. First, the unanimous, bipartisan vote for passage, on May 2, in the House of Representatives, of H.R. 371, was made possible largely because of your extraordinary leadership in helping to forge a bipartisan coalition along with that of Congressman Bruce Vento, the bill's courageous and determined sponsor, and Congressman George Radanovich, the bill's key Republican activist. At the time of passage in the House, 109 bipartisan Members of Congress were officially signed on as cosponsors to H.R. 371. Many veterans organizations have also endorsed it, including the American Legion, U.S. Special Forces Assoc., National Vietnam Veterans Coalition, BRAVO, and Counterparts. We are grateful for your work with Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith as well as Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, who both deserve significant credit for the ultimate success of the legislation in the House, by weighing-in at the critical time and helping to move the bill forward. Second, with regard to the issue of the lack of records maintained by the U.S. government on the Hmong and Lao veterans, the Lao Veterans of America was very honored to be cited by name in the legislation as an example of an organization that could provide helpful input regarding the military records of those Hmong and Lao veterans who served in the U.S. Secret Army in Laos during the Vietnam War. As the nation's largest Hmong and Lao non-profit veterans organization, as well as the first such organization to be established and incorporated in the United States (some ten years ago), we maintain the nation's largest repository of such records. The original records were destroyed in Laos at the end of the Vietnam War. We are, therefore, pleased to have been mentioned in the original legislation as an example of an organization that might be helpful with such records for the implementation of the bill's mandate. It is indeed, honorable to have been cited in this way by so many in the House and Senate who helped draft and officially sign on as cosponsors to H.R. 371/S. 890. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and kind consideration in this regard. It is, indeed, fundamentally important for Hmong and Lao veterans organizations, including organizations such as the Lao Veterans of America, to have input with regard to the military service records of the Hmong and Lao veterans, since the U.S. CIA, Defense Department, and Department of Justice have, apparently, only a very limited number of records regarding those who actually served and fought in the U.S. Secret Army in Laos. Third, with regard to Congressman Vento's heroism, it is our hope that this legislation will help to serve as an enduring tribute to him when he leaves office at the end of the 106th Congress. Great men are those, who in time of crisis, rise above their personal circumstances to lead for the common good and help people overcome the common enemies of mankind, such as injustice, ignorance and despair. It is important, from our perspective, to stress that the Congressman Bruce Vento's personal challenge with cancer could easily, and understandably, have caused him to shrink from assisting us further with the passage of the Hmong veterans legislation. Instead, he redoubled his efforts, at that of his staff, even from his hospital bed. We are humbled and privileged to have had the honor to fight this battle on behalf of citizenship for the Hmong and Lao veterans together with Congressman Bruce Vento and you. For us, the struggle for this legislation began some 10 years ago, when we first began to work with Congressman Vento to develop this legislation. Indeed, it has been a noble endeavor, at its essence an issue of justice and honor for America and the Hmong veterans. We feel honored to have worked with so many great men, and giants, in Congress to press this long-overdue legislation forward to passage in the House and Senate. Providentially, it comes some 25 years, to the month, after the exodus of the Hmong and Lao veterans of the U.S. Secret Army from Laos in those bloody final weeks of 1975. Like Congressman Vento, we share in the conviction that this is one of our crowning achievements that will for generations bless communities across America. It will honor the name of those Hmong and Lao veterans of the U.S. Secret Army and their American allies, and friends, who fought so valiantly in this difficult struggle, both in the jungles of Southeast Asia as well as in the halls of Congress in Washington, D.C. Fourth, with regard to your office's concern about the amended version of S.890/H.R. 371 that passed the Senate last week, we consider this legislation's passage historic and a great victory for the Lao and Hmong veterans of the U.S. Secret Army and their refugee families across the United States. The Lao Veterans of America was pleased to work to assist in playing a leadership role in the passage of this important legislation. We laud its Senate sponsors, Senators Paul Wellstone, Feingold and Robb, for their unflagging leadership and support. Like its House counterpart (H.R. 371), S. 890 achieved overwhelming bipartisan support with over 17 Senators officially signing on the legislation. The only exception was the alternative legislation introduced by Senator Rod Grams. The Lao Veterans of America was able to work with a bipartisan coalition of U.S. Senators and Hmong and Lao veterans from across the United States to help develop a compromise amendment regarding Senator Grams' legislation. The final language of this amendment was forged just last week. The Lao Veterans of America was particularly grateful to have been consulted, and included, in helping to negotiate and work out the final compromise regarding the amendment offered to the legislation prior to the bill's final passage in the Senate last week. Chairman Hatch as well as Senators Leahy, Wellstone, Feingold, McCain, Kohl, Grassley, Kyl, and Specter were particularly helpful in building bridges and reaching across the aisle during the vigorous negotiations that led to hammering out the final language that was acceptable to all parties, including Senator Grams' office. Fifth, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the serious issue of timing, all along the major concern of the Lao Veterans of America regarding this legislation, was the concern that we know that you share: the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act is long overdue. Time is not an unlimited commodity for anyone. When one confronts one's own mortality, and considers the personal plight of the two original sponsors of this legislation, both Congressman Vento in his battle with cancer, as well as Senator Paul Wellstone and his legislative director's, Michael Epstein's, battle with cancer, the limitations of time become crystal clear. One of our key points to members of the Senate was the grave concern shared by many across the political spectrum that the Congress was running out of the necessary legislative time in the 106th Congress to pass the bill, especially if significant changes were made to the original language of the Vento/Radanovich legislation (H.R. 371) that passed the House. We believe that you and the Hmong veterans successfully helped to communicate this point when nearly 5,000 of our members converged on Washington, DC, on May 10th for the Lao Veterans of American National Recognition Ceremonies marking the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War in Laos. Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the Hmong and Lao veterans of the U.S. Secret Army waited twenty-two years, for national recognition in 1997 at the Vietnam Memorial and Arlington Cemetery. This was far too long and painful. Likewise, they have worked nearly a decade for this legislation, working hard and waiting far too many years for H.R. 371/S. 890 to be passed by Congress. Indeed, since I first began working on this legislation nearly ten years ago, I have attended too many funerals for the Hmong and Lao veterans, who have passed away without the dignity of being citizens in the country that they gave the best years of their lives fighting to assist. Final, Mr. Chairman, but by no means least, the passage of S. 890/H.R. 371, as amended by the Senate, is first and foremost a matter of sacred honor that is long-overdue. The Hmong and Lao veterans of the U.S. Secret Army are not honored by continuing to live in limbo without a country, as mere aliens with green cards. Having been flown into battle for the United States by the CIA's and the Defense Department's, ``Air America,'' they wish to live and die as American citizens. We thank you for your leadership role and ask you to expeditiously seek to bring the amended version of the bill to the House floor under unanimous consent for immediate passage. Sincerely, Philip Smith, Washington, D.C., Director.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4489 represents a bipartisan collaborative bill. Many people deserve credit, including Senator Spencer Abraham and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Also, I want to thank the Travel Industry of America, Americans for Better Borders, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Trucking Association, the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance, the INS, the Canadian Embassy, the Mexican Embassy, the Border Trade Alliance, and the U.S. Caucus of Mayors for giving us their valuable input and support. Over a dozen meetings were held over several months' time with the interested parties. The efforts of John Lampmann, chief of staff for the 21st Congressional District, and Lora Ries, Counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary, were crucial to obtaining the desired results. H.R. 4489 focuses on an integrated entry and exit data system that will be funded, developed, and implemented by 2005. This bill will integrate all INS and State Department databases that support the entry and exit of aliens at airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry. The database systems that the INS currently use are often independent from each other. As a result, INS officers and inspectors and State Department consular officers are unable to learn an alien's prior U.S. travel activities from the INS and State Department consular offices. Without this information, aliens can slip through the cracks, as we saw in the case of Mr. Resendez, the recently convicted railroad killer. This bill emphasizes that the INS needs to integrate its entry and exit data system so that INS officers and inspectors and State Department consular officers can access any entry and exit information with respect to an alien before them. Once the INS implements the entry exit data system, the Attorney General is required to submit an annual fiscal year report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House and Senate. A task force will be funded to examine specific ways to further the development of the integrated entry and exit data system. The Attorney General is expected to update and improve the integrated entry and exit data system as technology improves and as recommendations of the task force are received. The task force will examine how technology can facilitate the flow of people through ports of entry, whether by air, sea, or land. By using the speed of technology and the Nation's immigration system, the bill both speeds the flow of the traffic through ports of entry and contributes to the development and usefulness of the integrated entry and exit data system over time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. H.R. 4489, the ``INS Data Management Improvement Act,'' is intended to amend section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), to require the implementation of an integrated entry and exit data system at airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry at new, specified deadlines, and to establish a task force to assist the Attorney General in implementing section 110. background In 1996, the Congress overwhelmingly passed IIRIRA. Section 110 of IIRIRA called for an automated entry-exit control system no later than two years after the date of enactment of IIRIRA, which was September 30, 1996. Without defining the control system, section 110 required that the system collect a record of departure for every alien departing the United States and match the departure records with the record of the alien's arrival into this country. The system also required that the Attorney General be able to identify electronically lawfully admitted nonimmigrants who remain in the United States beyond their authorized period of stay. In addition to the entry-exit control system, section 110 required the Attorney General to submit to the congressional Judiciary Committees annual reports on the system. The reports should include the number of departure records collected; the number of departure records successfully matched to records of the alien's prior arrival in the United States; and the number of aliens who arrived as nonimmigrants or under the Visa Waiver Program for whom no matching departure record has been obtained as of the end of the alien's authorized period of stay. Finally, section 110 required information regarding aliens who have overstayed their visas to be integrated into data bases of the INS and State Department, including those used at ports of entry and at consular offices. Subsequently, section 110 was amended to change the deadlines of the automated entry and exit control system. The deadline for the system at airports was changed to October 15, 1998, and the deadline for land border ports of entry and seaports was changed to March 30, 2001. With the March 30, 2001, deadline less than a year away and the INS no closer to having a control system at land border ports of entry, various Members of Congress and interest groups grew concerned. They wanted to repeal section 110 out of fear that trade and tourism would be hurt by new data collection requirements at the land border ports of entry, causing delays at the border to grow. This bill focuses on the task the INS faces in implementing an entry/ exit system. The idea is that it should be an electronic data base system. With technology advancing so rapidly, technology will drive the INS' ability to collect information on who are entering and exiting the U.S. and who are overstaying their visas. As such, H.R. 4489 focuses on the INS' ability to use technology to improve its current collection database systems and to integrate its systems. The database systems that the INS currently uses are often independent from each other. As a result, INS officers and inspectors, and State Department consular officer are often unable to learn an alien's prior travel activities in another part of the United States or in another country. Without this information, aliens can slip through the cracks, as in the case of Mr. Resendez, the recently convicted ``railroad killer.'' Therefore, this bill emphasizes that the INS needs to integrate its entry and exit data system so that INS officers and inspectors and State Department consular officers can assess any entry and exit information with respect to an alien before them. In addition, the bill creates a task force to study and recommend methods to continuously improve and update the INS' database system as technology advances. This infrastructure in support of the INS integrated system development allows for private-public recommendations, a major contribution of the bill. the bill H.R. 4489 requires the Attorney General to implement an integrated entry and exit data system. The intent behind this system is that any arrival and departure data that the INS and the State Department are authorized or required to create or collect must now be entered electronically into a database. In addition, the database must be integrated and provide access to other ports of entry, internal enforcement, and consular offices. As technology improves, so should the data system improve. The bill is different from the current section 110 of IIRIRA because it now defines the entry/exit system. This system is to: (1) provide access to and integrate alien arrival and departure data; (2) use this data to produce a report of arriving and departing aliens by country of nationality, classification as an immigrant or nonimmigrant, and date of arrival in, and departure from the United States; (3) match an alien's arrival data with the alien's departure data; (4) assist the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to identify electronically lawfully admitted nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas; and (5) permits the Attorney General to make reports. Nothing in this bill should be interpreted as requiring the Attorney General or the Secretary of State to collect new types of documents or data from aliens, particularly aliens who have had document requirements waived under section 212(d)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State acting jointly on the basis of reciprocity with respect to foreign contiguous territories or adjacent islands. However, this bill does not affect the authority of the Attorney General or the Secretary of State to create new documentary or data collection requirements in other provisions of law. The integrated entry and exist data system is to be implemented at airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry. However, because each type of port of entry has different infrastructure and processing procedures, it does not make sense to have one uniform deadline for implementation. Since section 110 was enacted in 1996, the INS is already implementing such a system at airports and seaports. Thus, implementation of the data system at airports and seaports is due by December 31, 2003. Land border ports of entry will require additional time to implement the entry/exit data system. Also, traffic, infrastructure, and resources used at all of the land border ports of entry vary greatly. While some land ports receive heavy traffic and use a significant amount of resources, other ports receive minimal traffic and have few resources. Because the former group of land ports will require less time and resources to implement the entry/exist data system that the latter group, the former group has an earlier deadline. The 50 land border ports of entry determined to serve the highest numbers of arriving and departing aliens are to have the system implemented by December 31, 2004. The entry/exit data system is due at the remainder of the land border ports of entry by December 31, 2005. Implementing at the land ports of entry with the highest traffic first is also an efficient method of gathering arrival and departure information. Once the INS implements the entry/exit data system at a defined group of ports of entry, the Attorney General is required to submit an annual fiscal year report to the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate. These reports will include and analyze the following information: (1) The number of aliens for whom departure data was collected, including country of nationality; (2) the number of departing aliens whose departure data was successfully matched to the alien's arrival data, including country of nationality and an alien's classification as an immigrant or nonimmigrant; (3) the number of aliens who arrived with a nonimmigrant visa or under the visa waiver program for whom no matching departure date was obtained as of the end of the alien's authorized stay, including the country of nationality and date of arrival in the U.S.; and (4) the number of nonimmigrants identified as having overstayed their visas, including the country of nationality. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, will determine which officers and employees of the Justice and State Departments may enter data into and have access to the data contained in the entry/exit data system. Likewise, the Attorney General has the discretion to permit other federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to have access to the data for law enforcement purposes. The Attorney General is expected to continuously update and improve the integrated entry and exit data system as technology improves and using the recommendations of the task force. H.R. 4489 requires the Attorney General, in consultation with other involved Secretaries, to create a task force made up of government and private sector representatives of agencies and industries interested in port of entry issues. The primary duty of the task force is to evaluate how the Attorney General can efficiently and effectively carry out section 110. Advancing technology should drive such an evaluation. As the INS uses advanced technology at ports of entry, the flow of traffic at ports of entry will improve, thereby increasing trade and tourism, a universal goal. In this study, the task force is encouraged to examine how to simplify the entry/exit documents currently collected by the INS and State Department, without decreasing the quality of the information obtained. For example, in reviewing how to improve the flow of traffic at ports of entry, the task force should examine the current documentary requirements for business people and tourists entering the United States, including those entering from Mexico by air. After completing such review, the task force may develop recommendations concerning how these requirements can be streamlined to improve the flow of persons between the United States and Mexico in accordance with the substantial growth in goods and services trade that has occurred since enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that this bill will not cause direct spending. Section-by-Section Analysis sec. 2. amendment to section 110 of iirira Section 2 amends section 110 of IIRIRA through the sections that follow. Section 110(a) requires the Attorney General to implement an ``integrated entry and exit data system.'' Section 110(b) defines ``integrated entry and exit data system'' as an electronic system of alien arrival and departure data that is integrated and provides access to INS ports of entry, the INS interior inspection sites, interior offices, and State Department consular offices. The arrival and departure data used in the system is composed of that which is authorized or required to be created or collected by law. The electronic system uses the data to create a report of arriving and departing aliens by country of nationality; classification as an immigrant or nonimmigrant, and date of arrival in, and departure from the United States. The system is also required to match an alien's arrival data with the alien's available departure data. It should assist the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to identify, electronically, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants who may have remained in the United States beyond their authorized period. Finally, the system should enable the Attorney General to create the annual congressional reports required in section 110(e). Section 110(c) explains that nothing in section 110 should be interpreted as requiring the Attorney General or the Secretary of State to collect new types of documents or data from aliens, including those aliens who have had either or both of the requirements of section 212(a)(7)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act waived by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State acting jointly on the basis of reciprocity with respect to nationals of foreign contiguous territory or of adjacent islands and their residents have a common nationality with such nationals. In addition, section 110 does not permit the Attorney General or the Secretary of State to require documents or data from aliens that are inconsistent with the North American Free Trade Agreement. While section 110 restricts the Attorney General and the Secretary of State from imposing new documentary or data collection requirements upon aliens, section 110 does not reduce the authority of the Attorney General or the Secretary of State from creating new documentary or data collection requirements in any other provision of law. Section 110(d) imposes staggered deadlines upon the Attorney General to implement the integrated entry and exit data system at the different types of ports of entry. By December 31, 2003, the Attorney General is to be using available alien arrival and departure data described in subsection (b)(1) with respect to aliens arriving in, or departing from, the United States at an airport or seaport. This implementation includes ensuring that the data collected or created by an immigration officer at an airport or seaport are entered into the system and is accessible by immigration officers at other airports and seaports. Section 110(d)(2) requires the Attorney General to implement the integrated entry and exit data system using the data already implemented at airports and seaports, combined with available alien arrival and departure data described in subsection(b)(1) pertaining to aliens arriving in, or departing from, the United States at the 50 land border ports of entry serving the highest numbers of arriving and departing aliens. Such implementation is due no later than December 31, 2004, and should ensure that when the data is collected or created by an immigration officer at a port of entry, is entered into the system and can be accessed by immigration officers at airports, seaports, and other land border ports of entry. Section 110(d)(3) requires the Attorney General to fully implement by December 31, 2005, the integrated entry and exit data system, using all of the data described in subsection (b)(1). This implementation should include ensuring that all data are available to immigration officers at all ports of entry into the United States. Once the Attorney General begins implementing the integrated entry and exist data system, section 110(e) requires the Attorney General to submit an annual fiscal year report to the Judiciary Committees on the House and Senate by December 31. These reports will include and analyze the following information: (1) the number of aliens for whom departure data was collected during the reporting period, including the departing alien's country of nationality; (2) the number of departing aliens whose departure data was successfully matched to the alien's arrival data, including country of nationality and an alien's classification as an immigrant; or non immigrant; (3) the number of aliens who arrived with a nonimmigrant visa or under the visa waiver program for whom no matching departure date was obtained as of the end of the alien's authorized stay, including the country of nationality and date of arrival in the U.S.; and (4) the number of nonimmigrants identified as having overstayed their visas, including the country of nationality. Section 110(f) permits the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to determine which Justice and State Department officers and employees may enter data into, and have access to the data contained in, the integrated entry and exit data system. The Attorney General, in his or her discretion, may also permit other Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials to have access to the data contained in the data system for law enforcement purposes. Sectiono 110(g) requires the Attorney General to continuously update and improve the integrated entry and exit data system as technology improves and using the recommendations of the task force created in section 3 of this bill. Section 110(h) authorizes appropriations to carry out section 110 such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 2008. sec. 3. task force Section 3(a) Establishment. Section 3(a) requires the Attorney General to consult with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, and Secretary of Treasury to establish a task force no later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act. Section 3(b) Membership. Section 3(b) establishes that the Attorney General will be the chairperson of the task force and will appoint the other 16 members. In appointing the task force members, the Attorney General shall include representatives of federal, state, and local agencies with an interest in the duties of the task force, including agencies with an interest in immigration and naturalization; travel and tourism; transportation; trade; law enforcement; national security; or the environment. In addition, the Attorney General must include private sector representatives of affected industries and groups as members of the task force. Each member of the task force will be appointed for the life of the task force. Any vacancy should be filed by the Attorney General. Members of the task force will not be compensated for their service on the task force. Section 3(c) Duties. Section 3(c) requires the task force to evaluate the following: (1) how the Attorney General can efficiently and effectively carry out section 110 of HRIRA, as amended by this bill; (2) how the U.S. can improve the flow of traffic at airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry by better use of technology, resources, and personnel; increasing cooperation between the public and private sectors; increased cooperation among federal and state agencies; and modifying information technology; and (3) the cost of implementing each of its recommendations. Section 3(d) Staff and Support Services. Section 3(d)(1) permits the Attorney General to appoint and terminate an executive director and any other additional personnel necessary to enable the task force to perform its duties. The employment and termination of an executive director is subject to confirmation by a majority of the task force members. Section 3(d)(2) establishes a compensation rate ceiling for the executive director at level V of the Executive Schedule. The Attorney General may fix the compensation of other personnel, except the pay rate may not exceed level V of the Executive Schedule. Section 3(d)(3) permits any federal government employee, with approval by the head of the appropriate federal agency, to be detailed to the task force without reimbursement and without interference or loss of civil service status, benefits, or privilege. Section 3(d)(4) allows the Attorney General to obtain temporary and intermittent services for the task force at compensation rates not to exceed level V of the Executive Schedule. Section 3(d)(5) requires the Administrator of General Services to provide, at the Attorney General's request, administrative support services necessary for the task force to carry out its responsibilities. Section 3(e) Hearings and Session. Section 3(e) permits the task force to hold hearings, sit and act at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as the task force deems appropriate. Section 3(f) Obtaining Official Data. Section 3(f) allows the task force to directly secure from any United States department or agency information necessary to perform its duties. It also requires the head of the department or agency to furnish the information to the task force upon the request of the Attorney General. Section 3(g) Reports. No later than December 31, 2002, and no later than December 31 of each year thereafter in which the task force is in existence, the Attorney General must submit a report to the Judiciary Committees of both the House of Representatives and the Senate containing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the task force. Each report will also measure and evaluate how much progress the task force has made, how much work remains, how long the remaining work will take to complete, and the cost of completing the remaining work. In addition, the Attorney General may delegate to the INS Commissioner the responsibility of preparing and transmitting these reports. Section 3(h) Legislative Recommendations. Section 3(h) requires the Attorney General to make such legislative recommendations as the Attorney General deems appropriate to implement the task force's recommendations and to obtain authorization for the appropriation of funds, the expenditure of receipts, or the reprogramming of existing funds to implement such recommendations. The Attorney General is permitted to delegate to the INS Commissioner the responsibility of preparing and transmitting any such legislative recommendations. Section 3(i) Termination. Section 3(i) terminates the task force on a date designated by the Attorney General once the task force work is completed. Section 3(j) Authorization of Appropriations. Section 3(j) authorizes appropriations such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years through 2003. sec. 4. sense of congress regarding international border management cooperation Section 4 states that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of the Treasury, should consult with affected foreign governments to improve border management cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks, and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on April 12, 2000, in accordance with Rule 1(b) of its rules, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct amended its rules as follows: (1) to conform the language of Rule 20(f) to the superseding language of Rule 22(a), the last sentence of Rule 20(f) was deleted, which sentence read ``The Committee shall transmit such report to the House of Representatives''; (2) to conform the language of Rule 27(o) to the intention of that rule, the word ``of'' in the first sentence of Rule 27(o) was deleted and replaced by the word ``or.'' The committee hereby publishes its amended rules in their entirety. Lamar Smith, Chairman. Howard L. Berman, Ranking Minority Member. Rules: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Adopted January 20, 1999, Amended March 10, 1999, Amended April 14, 1999, Amended April 12, 2000

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3767) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make improvements to, and permanently authorize, the visa waiver pilot program under section 217 of such Act, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Visa Waiver Pilot Program allows aliens traveling from certain designated countries to come to the United States as temporary visitors for business or pleasure without having to obtain the nonimmigrant visa normally required. The program authorizes the Attorney General to waive the ``B'' visa requirement for traveling aliens coming from those certain countries that have qualified. There are currently 29 countries participating in this program. Since its initial enactment as a temporary program in 1986, the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, often referred to as the VWPP, has been regularly extended by Congress. The current legislation expires on April 30. Fourteen years is a long time for a pilot program. It is time to make the VWPP permanent. H.R. 3767, the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, will make the visa waiver program permanent, more secure, and end the need to permanently reauthorize the program. H.R. 3767 is a bipartisan bill. It was passed unanimously by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims and the Committee on the Judiciary. The tourism and travel industry strongly supports this legislation. Visa-free travel under the program has increased tourism in the United States from participating countries. More than 17 million visitors enter the United States under the visa waiver program each year. A permanent program will be a long-term benefit to the tourism industry and remove the uncertainty caused by the periodic expiration of the program. While a permanent visa waiver program would be good for the American travel industry, a permanent program should not be authorized if the program posed a threat to the safety and well-being of the United States or exposed our country to situations in which large numbers of aliens could use the program to circumvent our immigration laws. The current requirement that participating countries have a machine readable passport has been strengthened by establishing a date certain for all countries in the program to implement such a machine readable passport. Some countries that have been in the program for nearly 10 years still have not introduced the machine readable passport they committed to develop as a condition of their entry into the program. Setting a deadline that is firm is reasonable and fair. H.R. 3767 also addresses what has been a major concern about the visa waiver program, the inability of the INS to monitor overstays by visa waiver travelers. Because the INS has failed to establish a credible system for calculating or estimating overstay rates, the only mechanism in the current statute for monitoring the compliance of countries in the program does not work. Thus, there has been a concern that once a country entered the program, it would be in forever, even if conditions in the country deteriorated and nationals of the country began to abuse the program. H.R. 3767 requires the INS to develop a fully automated system for tracking the entry and departure of visa waiver travelers entering by air and sea, which is approximately 98 percent of all visa waiver pilot program travelers. Such a system could easily build on existing technology used to develop the advanced passenger information system, which INS has developed in cooperation with the airlines. Once the automated tracking system is in place, the information it produces can be used to calculate overstay rates and visas. H.R. 3767 also establishes procedures for periodic reviews of countries already in the program and for dealing with emergency situations should they arise. Such procedures are an absolute necessity to ensure a permanent visa waiver program does not pose a threat to the law enforcement and security interests of the United States. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this permanent program of the visa waiver and, to make sure that we have a good program, we need to include the provisions that I have mentioned. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks, and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3767, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to acknowledge the legitimate point made by our colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a minute ago. We do, in fact, need a better program to determine the visa overstay rates.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Resolution. Building on last year's historic $1.7 billion increase in funding for veteran's health care, this year's budget continues to increase our commitment to veterans by providing an additional $1.3 billion. Last year, I hosted the largest town meeting in the history of the Texas Hill Country. Over 1,400 veterans and concerned citizens came together to discuss the Administration's shortchanging of veteran's medical care. The message was clear: veterans will stand up for what is right. And what is right, Mr. Speaker, is full funding for veterans' medical care. This budget moves us in that direction. The Kerrville VA Hospital in my district provides health care to more than 16,000 veterans in Texas. This is just one hospital among hundreds across the nation that veterans depend on for their health care needs. With the $3 billion increases in the last two years, veterans can be assured that the high quality health care they deserve will continue. Responsibility tells us that this finding is necessary. Commitment and dedication is what the men and women of the armed services have given to our country, and commitment and dedication to our veterans is what this budget rightly gives. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following article to accompany the speech I gave on March 16, 2000. [From the Washington Times, Mar. 16, 2000] Property Owners Due A Hearing (By Nancie G. Marzulla) In 1992, Bernadine Suitum faced the ultimate nightmare for a homeowner. When she was ready to build a retirement house on a lot she and her late husband bought years earlier, she was informed that the property, in the middle of the bustling Incline Village subdivision, suddenly was deemed part of a ``stream environment zone.'' This meant she could not build because a government regulation, imposed after she and her husband had bought the property, required the lot to remain open space. Mrs. Suitum sued the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) for compensation for her property, as the Fifth Amendment explicitly requires in such instances. TRPA argued that her case was not ``ripe'' for court review because there had not been a final agency action. After six years of bitter litigation, the elderly Mrs. Suitum was carried in her wheelchair into the U.S. Supreme Court--not to be compensated for her property, but merely to win the right to have her case declared ripe for court review. During oral argument, Justice O'Connor turned to the government attorney and asked incredulously, ``Why can't you just let this poor woman have her day in court?'' The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the same question today. H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999, was referred out of the House Judiciary last week. If passed, the bill would cut through the bureaucratic red tape that hobbles property owners such as Mrs. Suitum when they attempt to take their constitutional claims to federal court. H.R. 2372 takes head-on the issue of when a case is ripe for court review by defining when an agency action is sufficiently final so court review is appropriate. By providing an objective standard of when enough is enough, the bill eliminates the need for the endless, expensive and excruciating cycle of appeals. Government attorneys often win cases by taking full advantage of the confusion over when a case is ripe for court review. They win by nitpicking procedural battles, exhausting the resources and the will of property owners. This has had a chilling effect on landowners who know they simply cannot compete with bottomless government resources in a judicial system tilted toward the side with the biggest war chest. Professor Mandelker from Washington University in St. Louis reported to Congress last session that 81 percent of the federal constitutional takings cases taken to federal court for claims against a local or state government are dismissed on procedural grounds. In his testimony he cites another study that reports a whopping 94 percent dismissal rate. Of the small percentage of cases not dismissed, those same studies show it takes property owners almost a full decade to have their cases heard on the merits in federal court. According to Professor Mandelker, the current ripeness rules ``are an open invitation for some local governments to do mischief.'' He confirmed that ``land use agencies across the country have applied the ripeness requirement to frustrate as-applied takings claims in federal court.'' While H.R. 2372 goes a long way toward preventing abuses of the current ripeness requirements, it does not guarantee property owners a win once they are in court. H.R. 2372 still requires property owners to meet the strict burden of proof needed to win their cases on the merits. Nor does H.R. 2372 amend any land use laws or any environmental protection statutes, or require compensation at some designated level. In short, the bill does not change substantive ``takings'' law or the ease the burden of winning a case for a property owner. It simply makes the litigation process fairer and less expensive. The constitutional right to just compensation for the taking of property rights is so important to Americans that many people refer to it as the linchpin of liberty. By clearing out the underbrush in the procedures for litigating takings claims in federal court, Congress can take a crucial first step in achieving protection for this critical constitutional right.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act. This legislation secures a basic right of all Americans: protection against government confiscation of homes, farms, and businesses. One of our most basic rights is contained in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. It is the right of all citizens to acquire, possess, and dispose of private property. That constitutional right is now threatened by regulations imposed by government officials. The Government is able to confiscate the property of workers, farmers, and families without providing fair compensation. H.R. 2372 will change that. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, at the suggestion of the distinguished former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Honorable Charles Percy, I am pleased to request that the following two part series on Nelson Mandela, recently published in The Christian Science Monitor, be submitted into the Record. [From The Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 10, 2000]

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, raising the minimum wage is touted as a way to help many blue-collar workers. And there are millions of others who earn more than the proposed minimum wage increase but who still struggle to make ends meet. Reform of our immigration policies would help all these workers. Each year, almost a million legal immigrants enter the United States. Of these, about 300,000 lack a high school education. This policy destroys the opportunities of American workers with a similar education level. Our immigration policy should create opportunities for those in the workforce. But it does the opposite. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in a study that competition from immigration was responsible for ``about 44 percent of the total decline in relative wage[s] of high school drop outs.'' The Center for Immigration Studies calculated that ``immigration may reduce the wages of the average native in a low-skilled occupation by . . . $1,915 a year.'' It concluded that: ``Reducing the flow of less- skilled immigrants who enter each year would . . . have the desirable effect of reducing job competition between more established immigrants and new arrivals for low-wage jobs.'' The RAND Corporation reported that in California, ``the widening gap between the number of jobs available for non-college-educated workers and the increasing number of new non-college-educated immigrants signals growing competition for jobs and, hence, a further decline in relative earnings at the low end of the labor market.'' The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, found that ``immigration of unskilled immigrants comes at a cost to unskilled U.S. workers . . .'' The Brookings Institution published a paper concluding that ``immigration has had a marked adverse impact on the economic status of the least skilled U.S. workers . . .'' Think of a single mother barely surviving in a minimum wage job who sees her annual wages depressed by $,2000 because she must compete with more and more unskilled immigrants. She might even be a recent immigrant seeking a better life for herself and her children. Or think of the recent welfare recipient struggling to keep his first job. Think what they could do for themselves and their children with that lost money--buy a used car, put a down payment on a modest home, fix the furnace before winter comes. Or think what will happen if they actually lose their jobs because of the never-ending competition from new arrivals. The $1,915 reduction in wages that competition with immigrants costs low-skilled workers equals a $1 increase in the minimum wage. To be certain, it is not the immigrants themselves who are to blame and who understandably want to come to America. But who knows how many people have been hurt by the unintended consequences of our outdated immigration policy? No one should complain about the plight of the working poor or the persistence of minority unemployment or the levels of income inequality without acknowledging the unintended consequences of our present immigration policy and the need to reform it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 5, the ``Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.'' For years my constituents have raised concerns about unfair Social Security earnings limit. Finally, the House is going to eliminate this unfair penalty. Whenever a working retiree earns more than $17,000 per year, they lose $1 of Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn above the limit. We penalize senior citizens who want to continue to participate in the work force. There are 800,000 senior citizens who lose part or all of the Social Security benefits they've worked hard for because they earn ``too much'' money in retirement. The Social Security earnings limit was created during the Great Depression and it punishes senior citizens for their work ethic and desire to be self-reliant in their ``golden years.'' Today unemployment is at an all-time low. The experience and skills developed by older workers during a lifetime in the workplace are being recognized and are in demand. Social Security recipients are entitled to their benefits because they earned them during a lifetime of hard work. The government should not take those benefits away because individuals want to work. That's why I strongly support the passage of H.R. 5 today.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this month the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) was celebrated in our nation's Capitol. At the event I had the honor of hearing the remarks of Norman R. Augustine, who describes below what scouting means to America and the impact it has had on his life. I believe it is appropriate that at the beginning of the new millennium we pause to reflect on the accomplishments of this organization. It is a tribute to the vision of the founders of the BSA that the basic ideals upon which Scouting was founded have endured and are as important at the dawn of the 21st century as they were in the early years of the 20th century. I hope you will enjoy Norman R. Augustine's testimonial as much as I did.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the founding members of today's U.S. Border Patrol were Texas Rangers, sheriffs, and cowboys who patrolled the Texas frontier looking for smugglers, rustlers, and illegal aliens. From their rough beginnings they have grown into a present-day force of over 8,000 full time Border Patrol agents and supporting staff. The 1996 immigration reform law, which I introduced, authorized the hiring of 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents over 5 years. So far more than 2,000 agents have been added to the force in just the past 3 years. This has had a significant positive effect in deterring and reducing illegal immigration and drug trafficking. However, the Clinton administration has continued to oppose increasing the size of the Border Patrol, despite widespread support and proven results. The Border Patrol, which must guard 8,000 miles of border against drug smugglers, alien smugglers, criminals, and terrorists, still has fewer personnel than the Chicago city police department. The administration's own drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, estimated that at least 20,000 Border Patrol agents are needed to control the flow of drugs into our country. And a recent academic study estimated that 16,000 agents are needed for the Southwestern border alone. I hope this great 75th anniversary of the Border Patrol will give the administration one more opportunity to reconsider its opposition to increasing the ranks of the Border Patrol. But the administration's foot-dragging should not obscure the central purpose of this resolution, which is to recognize the courage, dedication, and professionalism of the thousands of American men and women who have worn the Border patrol uniform with pride and served their country with distinction. At great risk and sometimes even at the cost of the lives, Border Patrol agents have guarded our frontiers for 75 years. By day and by night, in the blazing hot Southwestern desert and in Rocky Mountain snowstorms, they have fought and triumphed. Through this resolution sponsored by my good friend and fellow Texan Silvestre Reyes, himself a career Border Patrol agent who was responsible for Operation Hold the Line in El Paso, we honor the Border Patrol today.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), who is the sponsor of the resolution, for purposes of closing.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)