Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first explain the bill; then I want to very quickly yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2578 extends the visa waiver pilot program. The visa waiver program allows business visitors and tourists to enter the United States without obtaining a visa. Currently, 26 nations have qualified as visa waiver countries. Normally, a consular officer conducts a face-to-face interview with a visa applicant to check for fraudulent documents and to weed out individuals who do not plan to leave the United States before their visas expire. Since the visa waiver program removes the ordinary visa requirement, there is very legitimate concern that those intending to violate our immigration laws, and perhaps more serious crimes inside the United States, could very well abuse it. The security of the program currently rests on two standards. First, to become eligible, a nation must have a visa refusal rate of less than 2 percent. Second, to remain in the program, a nation must have a visa overstay rate of less than 2 percent. The INS has been unable to calculate specific visa overstay rates for close to 5 years, so there is no reliable way to determine if a country should, in fact, remain in the program. The only reasonable course of action is to extend the visa waiver program for 2 years, as the administration recommends, so that the administration can implement reforms that will allow it to determine those visa overstay rates. To encourage these efforts, this legislation includes a provision requiring the INS to collect data regarding visa overstays and to report such data to Congress. Pending this review, the Attorney General, as well as the State Department, has strongly endorsed an extension of this program, with no amendments to change the standards for entry. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and oppose any amendments that would lower the standards and thus increase illegal immigration in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of my friend, the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to make the point that today we have a very rare alignment where we have the Justice Department, the State Department, the administration as a whole, as well as the full committee chairman of the committee of jurisdiction and the subcommittee chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction all in favor of this bill, but all opposed to any weakening amendments that would expand this program to include any other country; and the reason for this bipartisan alignment that would oppose any weakening amendments is simply because of our very, very serious concern that expanding the program would lead to a dramatic increase in illegal immigration to America. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is to read into the Record the statement of administration policy that we just received yesterday. These are direct quotes. ``The administration would oppose any changes to the current program criteria used to determine country participation in the Visa Waiver Program. The current program criteria are objective, non-country-specific, and help to maintain the security and law enforcement interests of the United States.'' From Attorney General Janet Reno we have a letter that says, ``I ask you to join me in supporting pending legislation that will extend the Visa Waiver Program for 2 years in its current form; that is, without amendments.'' We have another letter from the Department of Justice saying that ``The Department also endorses the recommendation that the qualification criteria for designating countries to participate in the Visa Waiver Program not be changed at this time.'' And a letter from the State Department says, ``As laid out in existing law, the criteria for participating in the program, which are objective and not country specific, have worked out extremely well. The established requirements have ensured that only low-fraud, low-risk countries have been designated as participants.'' Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that at some times in the past the administration has, in fact, politicized the immigration policy. But today we see an administration willing to take a principled stand, willing to stand for and protect the integrity of the immigration process by supporting this extension without any weakening amendments to include any other countries. Mr. Chairman, I think that we should compliment the administration for their stand and support their recommendation, as well as the recommendation of many of us who are concerned about increased illegal immigration in America, were we to bring any other countries into this Visa Waiver Program, until we have additional data. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues a story. On the upper east side of New York City, there is a textile shop. Its windows are nailed shut, and they are opaque with grime. Pedro, who is 10, and his sister, Amora, who is 8, labor in a single, dingy room 6 days a week. This is part of a child-smuggling ring that entices children from Portugal to come to America. The children are promised an education, the parents are promised money, and neither promise is kept. Six months before, a smuggler had flown to Lisbon to pick up Pedro and Amora. They were two of two dozen children that he had brought to the United States. This was possible because Portugal had become a visa waiver country and only a passport was now required to enter the United States. While many countries require passports to have the photos of children, Portugal does not. Because of this and the ease with which Portuguese passports can be counterfeited, Pedro and Amora and the others were easily smuggled into the U.S. That is one reason why the State Department and the Department of Justice and the White House and many of us do not want this amendment to pass. We do not want smugglers to condemn Pedro and Amora to those sweatshops. Mr. Chairman, I want to correct some misimpressions that may have been given in the short time that I have left. First of all, this debate is not about immigration. There are many aspects of immigration that are good for America. It is not about the countries of Greece and Portugal. They are wonderful countries, and someday, if they meet the criteria and meet the standards without lowering the standards, I hope they become visa countries. It is not about individuals who are illegal aliens who are in this country today. The gentleman from Massachusetts actually has a greater faith than I do in the bureaucracy, because he seemed to imply that if someone was in the country illegally, they would be deported by the INS. In point of fact, only one out of 100 illegal aliens in the United States is ever deported by the INS. The other problem mentioned was the difficulty of obtaining passports or visas in Portugal. Portugal is one of the few countries that has same-day service for walk-in applicants. It is one of the few countries that guarantees a return by mail within 3 days of those applications for visas. Another misstatement that was erroneously made was the fact that the Senate already has adopted this. In point of fact, the Senate bill says that no new country can become a member of the Visa Waiver Program until we have a determination of visa overstay rates. We know that that time is at least 2 years away, and that that is why it is in conformity with the 2-year extension that we have in the bill at hand.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me go into a little bit more detail as to why so many of us, including the administration, feel that if we expand the program to include any other country, it will increase illegal immigration in our country. While the United States, as we have seen in the past couple of years, has increased security along our land borders, we have found out that those who want to enter illegally are increasingly looking for other avenues, such as coming in through visa-waivered countries. State Department visa officers who issue the visas are in fact our first line of defense against illegal immigration. Through face-to-face interviews with the visa applicants, the consular officers can weed out individuals who do not plan to leave the United States when their visas expire. Just as Border Patrol agents defend our land borders every time a Border Patrol agent apprehends an illegal alien, so our consular officers defend our borders every time they deny a visa to an individual who would have stayed in the United States illegally and would have overstayed their visa. Mr. Chairman, the INS, through their Border Patrol agents, last year apprehended 1.6 million illegal aliens. Consulate officers denied visas to 1.5 million foreign applicants, almost the exact same number apprehended in the United States by the Border Patrol agents. Without our visa screening, therefore, we would have at least 1.5 million more illegal aliens in the United States, and perhaps many times that number. Mr. Chairman, a lot of people do not realize that 40 percent, or at least 40 percent of the number of illegal aliens in this country today did not cross the border illegally; they came in on a tourist visa or a business visa and then overstayed that visa. That is 40 percent of our illegal alien problem in America today. If we eliminate a visa screening process for additional countries, we are simply going to be asking for more illegal immigration. I have to say also that one of the particular problems we have with admitting a country like Portugal is that the problem will be worse with that country than with any other visa-waivered countries. Today, there are 26,000 people in the United States who are here illegally and who came from Portugal. If we did not have a visa program for individuals coming from Portugal and if the visa program was eliminated and if Portugal became a visa-waivered country, think how many times that 26,000 illegal alien number from Portugal we would have in the country today. So clearly it does not make any sense to give a country that already has so many people who have already come in illegally, to give any special consideration to not have to go through the visa process. Finally, I have to say to many of my colleagues, and I know there are several who support expanding the program, that I am surprised by their stand; and it is not clear to me why any individual who has supported reducing illegal immigration in the past by their votes in Congress would support an expansion of this program when so clearly that expansion would mean an increase in illegal immigration. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me reassure the gentleman that I am happy to work with the gentleman on this idea. Let me say, listening to the gentleman's explanation, which is an education for all of us, we have not had time to study the amendment. He makes many valuable points. Certainly the gentleman is doing an excellent job of representing his constituents. I certainly recognize the need to try to expedite that free exchange and flow of trade, free trade and tourism between the countries as planned, and we look forward to hearing more about that in our subcommittee deliberations.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii, my friend, for his generous comments about me personally. They are appreciated. The only thing I can do is to reciprocate, and say that in my time in Congress I have met few individuals who have been as articulate and as persuasive in advocating their constituents' interests as has the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). Mr. Chairman, we have talked about this issue a number of times over the past months, probably because of the gentleman's persuasive powers and the merits of the case. I am hoping we can move forward in a substantive way in the near future as well. I particularly appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Hawaii. I understand the concerns that he and others have brought to the attention of the subcommittee. I also want to acknowledge and thank the gentleman from Hawaii for his efforts in presenting the facts about Korea's eligibility for the visa waiver program. He has added greatly to our understanding of the program as it pertains to the Republic of Korea. He has moved us forward on the issue, and I believe that because of his work we are closer to a resolution that satisfies the requirements of all parties involved. For a variety of reasons, we have not been able to get this bill yet through our subcommittee and to accommodate all of his interests. He has brought, however, not only reasoned but intense commitment to his constituents in the legislative process. I understand well the need to increase tourism, not only from Korea and Asia, but also from the rest of the world, to Hawaii as well. I recognize the economy of Hawaii is very heavily dependent on tourism, particularly tourism and family visits from Asia, and that the State stands to benefit greatly if Korea was able to enter the visa waiver program. That is one of the reasons we have, on a bipartisan basis, mandated the compilation of overstay statistics, so we can base participation in the program on sounder public policy than we are able to under the rejection rate criteria now required. It is necessary to remain under the flawed system until we can rationally deliberate and debate an alternative, which we expect to do.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I want to also commend the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for his bringing this issue to our attention, and for his constructive proposals for reforming the program to allow South Korea entry into it. This bill continues the program until October 1 of next year, and we will be reviewing the program as well as implementation of the system for compiling overstay statistics, and I hope we will be able to move forward at that time to decide whether countries like South Korea comply sufficiently with the aims and goals of the program. Once again, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for his persistence in pursuing the interests of his constituents and the interests of Hawaii, and of course the interests of all of those who want to visit Hawaii as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to several of the Dear Colleagues that have been passed around among Members. I am talking particularly about several of these Dear Colleagues. There have been three now which have said the exact same thing. They have made the point that every country in the European Union is a visa waiver country except for two, Portugal and Greece. But I want to say to my colleagues that just because countries are a European country does not mean that they are going to automatically get certain special treatment. There should be nothing magic attached to the fact that a country is in the European Union or not. The fact that there are two countries that are not in the visa waiver program that are in the European Union simply points and underlines the fact that we do have objective criteria that determine whether or not a country is going to be a visa waiver country or not. What it shows is that we have the same standards that apply to every single country in the world. The countries that meet the standards are admitted and become part of our visa waiver system. The countries that do not meet the standards are not admitted, and it does not matter whether they are in Europe or some other continent. The fact of the matter is that saying that two countries deserve to be admitted to the visa waiver program just because they are European, and that is the implication of these three Dear Colleagues, is implying that European countries are more qualified to be admitted than countries in South America or Asia or Africa. I hope that is not the intent of the drafters of what those Dear Colleagues meant. Nevertheless, that is the clear conclusion that any of us can draw when they say that the reason these two other countries, Portugal and Greece, should be admitted is because they are part of the European Union. Again, there is nothing magic about being in the European Union. If any country in the world wants to become a visa waiver country, all they have to do is meet the very clearly delineated standards. We should not change the rules simply to guarantee an outcome that we might like to have. That would be a little like a teacher who wants to lower the passing grade from 50 to 40 just to be able to pass a particular student. Mr. Chairman, we should not lower the standards for countries that want to become visa waiver countries, just like we should not lower the standards in our classrooms. It is not good for education and it is not good for our immigration process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman did understand the point of my metaphor there, but if the countries have not met the standard that currently exists, we are not asking for special treatment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) that this faulty data that he refers to is an interesting way to describe a requirement that he has in his own amendment. I am looking on page 2 of the gentleman's amendment where he says such refusal rate for nationals of that country during the previous full fiscal year was less than 3 percent. The gentleman is using the exact data that he criticizes. But the point here is that at least we have the same requirements for every country. And the gentleman again talked about the two countries were the only countries not in the European Union. I am afraid the gentleman reinforces the point that I made a while ago, that we are giving special preference to countries because they are European countries, and it makes me concerned that we are discriminating against other countries that might not be European countries.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the reason that I will not budge from that argument is that the gentleman keeps using that phrase, that they deserve to get the visa waiver status because they are members of the European Union. If the gentleman will refrain from using that argument, I will refrain from pointing out that it might be discriminatory.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentleman that Portugal and Greece are close allies. We have many friends there. They are both great countries. Portugal is one of my favorite countries. It so happens I have two original oil paintings in my home of Portuguese sailing boats. I have a great affinity for both of those two countries. But that is not the issue here today. The issue is whether we are going to lower our standards and expand the program, knowing that such an expansion is going to increase illegal immigration in America. Mr. Chairman, a couple of people here today have tried to make the point that this is a so-called arbitrary process whereby we decide what countries are in the visa waiver program or not. First of all, I will refer my colleagues to the statements by the Attorney General herself, as well as by the State Department, as well as by the administration, all saying that we do have objective criteria. I am a little surprised about that arbitrary charge, because that is, quite frankly, an insult to the consular officials who are career professionals, who have a lot of technical training and many years of experience. They are the individuals who, as I said, are on the front lines of trying to determine, when someone applies for a visa, whether they are likely to overstay their visa in the United States and, therefore, contribute to the growing illegal immigration population in America. Mr. Chairman, the point is that these consulate officers are not flipping a coin to determine who gets in, who does not get in. They have this list of criteria that includes such things as whether they have family members in their home country that would help them be assured that they are going to return home; what the economy is like; whether individuals might be fleeing the home country economy that has gone sour because there is a better economy in the United States, and so on. These are objective standards that are consistently and fairly applied to every country in the world. And I think it is regrettable that many of our allies today are not visa waiver countries. There are a lot of other countries that are just a notch away from Portugal and Greece, countries and allies like Israel. And I wonder why we have not included them if we are going to expand the program just a tiny bit. But apparently we are interested just again in those two countries, and perhaps because they are members of that sacrosanct European Union. Mr. Chairman, I will end on the point that I think we should extend the program. We can all agree on that. But we should not expand the program because if we do so, then we are going to eliminate that screening process when individuals apply for visas from Portugal or Greece and, therefore, we are going to be in a position where all one needs is a passport to come to the United States, and we are going to end up with a lot more people coming in illegally and overstaying their period of time. I think it is an interesting argument that the individuals make who want to expand the program, accusing the program of now being arbitrary and yet they also favor an extension of the program to the 2-year length of program. If the program is so arbitrary, it seems to me they would not support an extension of the program for 2 years, but in fact they do. Lastly, I just want to make the point, and again we cannot say enough about how great those two countries are, but unfortunately what we need to do is to encourage those countries to take steps so that they have a lower visa refusal rate, rather than lowering the standards and making a special dispensation for certain countries. The answer to those countries becoming visa waiver countries is to frankly have a better record, and they have control over what they do to determine that. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, in the case of Portugal, I mentioned a minute ago that they have at least 26,000 individuals from that country who are in this country illegally. Those are 26,000 people that have overstayed their visas. If Portugal did not even have a visa screening program, how many times in that 26,000 would we have illegal individuals who were from Portugal who would then come to America? There is no answering that. But we do have a comparison to make. That is, if we look at all the visa countries that we have today, almost all of those countries just had 1 or 2 or 3 or 4,000 individuals illegally in the country today. Portugal, with this 26,000 with the visa screening process, if we lift that screening process and just allow individuals to come with a passport only, it is very clear that Portugal, if it became a visa waiver country, would have an exponentially larger number of illegal aliens in the country than any other visa waiver country. That is why the administration opposes any weakening amendments, and that is why I think my colleagues should as well. Now, in the case of Greece, we ought to be able to decide very quickly who has got the better data, and I would be happy to share mine with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). Our data is that Greece is going in the exact wrong direction. Their record is getting worse. The number of individuals who were denied visas this year in 1997 is greater than the individuals who were denied visas in 1996. I have data from the INS and from the State Department which I will be happy to share with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), but we have one country, that is Portugal, that is going to be susceptible to a huge increase of illegal aliens in this country, and another country, Greece, where the record is going in the wrong direction. The risk is increasing, not decreasing. The figures are getting worse, not better. And if the trend would continue, they would not even qualify in a year from now for the visa waiver program. The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) says he has other data. Perhaps in the next minute or two we could exchange data, but mine come from the State Department and the INS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I offer a motion.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1178) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend the visa waiver pilot program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 on H.R. 2578, the legislation just considered and passed.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. If you want to, the State Department has received a number of these cables that go into the problem in great detail.