Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge an important event in the life of one of my dearest friends. On Saturday, November 15, 1997, Woodrow Woody will celebrate his 90th birthday. I am pleased and honored to send my heartfelt best wishes to him on this important day. Woodrow Woody is someone that I truly admire. Not only is Woodrow a successful businessman in Detroit, MI, he is a man who is deeply committed to his wife, Anne and his community. Through his tireless dedication to his community and the many organizations to which he gives much of his time, he has and continues to touch the lives of many in the State of Michigan. On this momentous day, I say thank you to Woodrow. He has inspired me and served as a second father to me throughout the years. His wisdom and integrity continue to motivate me and countless others. Again, I am honored to recognize Woodrow on the occasion of his 90th birthday in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the National Academy of Sciences study on immigration that has received so much attention in the past year. This is a study the Senate Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on this September featuring two of the principal authors of the report. In releasing the study, the Academy stated quite clearly that ``Immigration benefits the U.S. economy overall and has little negative effect on the income and job opportunities of most native-born Americans.'' Moreover, the recent hearing showed that the study's findings were actually more positive than the initial press reports indicated. Ronald Lee, a professor of demography and economics at the University of California at Berkeley who performed the key fiscal analysis for the Academy study, testified at the hearing that ``[The NAS] Panel asked how the arrival of an additional immigrant today would affect U.S. taxpayers. According to the report, over the long run an additional immigrant and all descendants would actually save the taxpayers $80,000.'' Lee notes that immigrant taxes ``help pay for government activities such as defense for which they impose no additional costs.'' Immigrants also ``contribute to servicing the national debt'' and are big net contributors to Social Security. Critics of immigration cite only the study's figures on the annual costs immigrant households are said to impose on natives. However, Lee testified that ``These numbers do not best represent the Panel's findings, and should not be used for assessing the consequences of immigration policies.'' This is a pretty clear statement that citing the household cost figures to urge cuts in legal immigration is an improper use of the study's data. The problem, Lee found, was that calculating annual numbers requires using an older model that counts the native-born children of immigrants as ``costs'' created by immigrant households when those children are in school, but fails to include the taxes paid by those children of immigrants once they complete their schooling, enter the work force, and become big tax contributors. The key fiscal analysis in the report, performed in Chapter 7, corrects the flaws in the annual figures by using a dynamic model that factors in the descendants of immigrants. In response to a question from the subcommittee, Ronald Lee noted that, with the necessary assumptions, a dynamic analysis would likely show at least 49 of the 50 States come out ahead fiscally from legal immigration, with California a close call. Jim Smith, chairman of the NAS study, testified that ``Due to the immigrants who arrived since 1980, total Gross National Product is about $200 billion higher each year.'' In other words, recent immigrants will add approximately $2 trillion to the nation's GNP over the course of the 1990s. I ask to have printed in the Record a recent Wall Street Journal article that goes into greater detail on the Academy study. The article follows: [The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, Nov. 11, 1997] Immigrants Bring Prosperity (By Spencer Abraham) Critics of America's immigration policy are attempting to reignite the heated debate that almost produced laws severely restricting legal immigration. Ironically, they are using as their vehicle a National Academy of Sciences study, released earlier this year, that was highly favorable toward immigration. Anti-immigrant writers and advocacy groups have engaged in a concerted effort to put a negative spin on the report. ``The study highlights significant problems with regard to immigration,'' crows the Center for Immigration Studies. That just won't wash. A recent hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration found that the study's findings were even more positive than initial press reports indicated. The most important finding of the NAS report is that an additional immigrant to the U.S. and all his descendants would actually save taxpayers $80,000 over the long run. Ronald Lee of the University of California, who was the report's key fiscal analyst, notes that immigrant taxes ``help pay for government activities such as defense for which they impose no additional costs.'' Immigrants also ``contribute to servicing the national debt'' and are big net contributors to Social Security. Critics of immigration cite only the study's figures on the annual costs immigrant households are said to impose on natives. However, Mr. Lee testified that ``these numbers do not best represent the panel's findings, and should not be used for assessing the consequences of immigration policies.'' The problem, Mr. Lee found, was that calculating annual numbers requires using an older model that counts the native-born children of immigrants as ``costs'' created by immigrant households when those children are in school, but fails to include the taxes those children pay once they enter the work force. The $80,000 figure was arrived at using a dynamic model that factors in the descendants of immigrants. As for the fiscal impact on states of legal immigration. Mr. Lee said, with the necessary assumptions, a dynamic analysis would likely show 49 of them coming out ahead, with California a close call. The benefits of legal immigration don't end there. Mr. Lee said that the net present value to the nation of the immigrants who will enter the U.S. during the 1990s is over $500 billion. Jim Smith, chairman of the NAS study and a RAND economist, testified that ``due to the immigrants who arrived since 1980, total gross national product is about $200 billion higher each year.'' In other words, recent immigrants will add approximately $2 trillion to the nation's GNP over the course of the 1990s. Opponents of immigration also would like Americans to believe that nearly everyone's wages are significantly lower because of competition from immigrants. That is far from the truth. The NAS study estimates that only two groups have seen their wages affected by immigration: those who immigrated a few years earlier, and native-born Americans who did not finish high school. Wages for these groups are about 5% lower than they would have been without immigration--a figure that drops to 3% if only legal immigrants are counted, according to Mr. Smith. Cutting legal immigration would have a ``quite limited'' effect even on this group's wages, he said. ``Fortunately,'' he noted, ``90% of Americans are not high school dropouts, an the percent of high school dropouts has been declining rapidly.'' Indeed, Mr. Smith added that competition from immigrants sends wage signals that encourage native-born Americans to stay in school. ``The competition from immigration for even some native- born workers can be easily exaggerated,'' testified Mr. Smith. ``To the extent immigrants do work different than that of native-born workers, immigration benefits all native- Americans who gain in their other role as consumers of these now less-expensive goods and services.'' In short, the NAS study confirms what most Americans have known all along: Our tradition of welcoming immigrants pays off--for the immigrants and for the rest of us.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Orville and Ruth Merillat. Mr. and Mrs. Merillat are long time residents of their community, and on Tuesday, November 18, 1997, they will receive the Great Sauk Trail Council of Boy Scouts of America's Award as its Distinguished Citizens of the Year for 1997. Orville and Ruth Merillat are great stewards to their community. In 1946, they began transforming a small business into the largest one of its kind in the United States. Manufacturing kitchen and bath cabinetry, the Merillats have devoted their time, resources, and financial success to make the community of Lenawee County a better place to live. They have unselfishly committed all they have gained to their business, their employees, and their community. Therefore, it is with great respect and gratitude that I extend my most sincere congratulations to Orville and Ruth Merillat. Their dedication to their community, and all of Michigan is truly inspirational. It is with great honor that I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of the Merillats as Lenawee County's Distinguished Citizens of the Year.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I would like to just comment on the legislation which we are passing here, the 6-month extension of the highway legislation. I compliment all of the Members on this side who have been involved in these negotiations for their success in bringing about a short-term extension. As one of the numerous Members here who has been in correspondence as well as in conversation with the leadership on this issue for the last several weeks urging a short-term extension, I am pleased that we have reached one. As I think all of the participants know, last week when the first effort along these lines was undertaken, I offered, or attempted to offer as a substitute, to actually call up the bill which had been passed, Representative Shuster's bill, H.R. 2516. That legislation from the standpoint of my State would have provided more funds, much needed funds for our State of Michigan over the next 6 months, and I had hoped that perhaps we could have that legislation fully considered as part of this process. An objection was raised, and I understand the reasons for it, and consequently we did not have the opportunity to actually vote on the House legislation. Had we had that chance, I would have voted to support it, which is the reason I sought to bring it to the floor. Nevertheless, moving forward with an extension of one sort or another--as long as it begins to move us in a direction, from Michigan's perspective, of fairness and equity with regard to transportation dollars--was important for us to accomplish for several reasons. First, because highway planning and construction need some sort of legislative framework in which to operate. In my State of Michigan, highway commissioners and contractors are now in a position to begin planning for next year's construction season. In addition, of course, it is vitally important that highway and trucking safety programs are provided the necessary funding to continue operating as well. In addition, this short-term extension does provide new funding for my State, funding which is at a level greater than that which we are used to under the current ISTEA formula that has been in effect in recent years. Finally, the legislative extension provides a deadline of July 1 for us to pass follow-on legislation to ISTEA. That, in my judgment, will level the playing field during the legislative process and take away the incentives for some States with high levels of unobligated balances to engage in delaying and other types of dilatory tactics in order to force donor States to continue to operate under the old deal, which was a bad deal. Let me also speak specifically about this legislation's impact on Michigan and our funding levels. Under the legislation passed here today, Michigan will receive $163 million in additional contract authority. This will provide Michigan with a total of $380 million in highway funds through May 1, or $650 million on an annual basis. This is $135 million more than Michigan averaged under ISTEA and $130 million more than we would have received under the original Senate formula that was proposed last week. So I thank and compliment our Senate participants here, the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as the Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Works for the movement that has taken place since last week. This definitely, from the standpoint of Michigan, is a good start. But I want to stress that I see it as a good start, not the end of the story, as the Senator from Montana just indicated. There is much more to be done. A full 6-year bill is now the next item for us to consider with respect to transportation funding. Apparently it will be at the beginning of next year's session that we take up that 6-year plan. So I intend to continue working, as I have worked during this process, to ensure that Michigan's return on gas tax dollars is more equitable than it has been in the past. Michigan is 1 of the 21 donor States. We have traditionally received back as little as 69 cents for every dollar of gas tax we have sent to Washington. Our high-water mark is usually, at the best, in the 90- cents-back-per-dollar-sent-to-Washington range. But that doesn't happen very often. As a result, the roads, the bridges and the other projects that fall under this legislation in our State have been dramatically underfunded. At the State level, action has been taken this year to provide more funding through an increase in the State gas tax to address in part these problems. But it is equally clear that, unless more funding is made available to Michigan from the Federal level, we will not be able to meet all of our transportation obligations as we move into the next century. The reason we are not receiving the level that we should is a result of the formulas that have been in place and the various other sorts of projects that have been in place during recent years. So I stand here today to indicate my continued vigilance on this issue, my continued willingness to work with all of the Members on the Senate side, and anyone on the House side as well who will be participating in this process, for the purpose of securing Michigan its fair share. For too long we have been sending more highway dollars, more gas tax dollars to Washington than we have been receiving back. That has hurt our State. It is time for that to change. So we will continue the effort. I look forward to working with Senators Chafee and Warner and Baucus and others. In the remarks of the Senator from Virginia, he mentioned certain hardship States. I don't think the term ``hardship'' could be more applicable than it is to the State of Michigan. We suffer from the fact that our Interstate System is 7 years older on average than the rest of the country's. We have, as a result of the climate and the cold weather that we confront in our winters, far more seasonal challenges than most States must face. For all of these reasons, combined with the fact that we have been a donor State, we do not have the infrastructure transportation system that the citizens of our State deserve. So this Senator will continue to work to ensure, when the final decisions are made and when the ISTEA package for 6 years into the future is ultimately resolved, that it reflects Michigan's needs, the hardships we have worked under, and the legitimate requirements that we have to address our economic and transportation challenges in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield? I would just like to thank the Senator from Rhode Island, as I said. While I know I have been a frequent visitor to his doorstep and to those of the other Members here, he consistently and very graciously listened to our case, and we look forward to working with him and thank him for his consideration and his willingness to work with us.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. I wish to speak in relationship to this legislation, and in favor in particular of title II of the District of Columbia portion of this legislation. Title II incorporates an agreement reached recently between House and Senate negotiators to correct provisions in last year's immigration law. These provisions, as they were being interpreted by the Board of Immigration Appeals and others, would have had the effect of changing the rules in the middle of the game for thousands of Central Americans and others who came to the United States because their lives and families had been torn apart by war and oppression and are seeking permanent residency here. That violates the sense of fairness that is so much a part of the American character. Mr. President, during the 1980s civil wars rocked Central America. These civil wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala were of great importance to the United States. They critically affected our national security policy, as well as our conception of America's role in the Western Hemisphere. In 1979, the Sandinistas seized power from Anastasio Somoza. Upon gaining control of the state they carried out a program of land seizure, suppression of civil liberties, and other forms of oppression. They also aligned themselves with the communist government of the Soviet Union. A number of groups formed, seeking to overthrow the Sandinista regime, including some who had played an active role in the overthrow of Somoza on account of his civil liberties violations. These groups ultimately were supported by the U.S. government and became known as the Contras. The Contras' cause ultimately met with success when, in a stunning upset, Violeta Chamorro defeated the Sandinistas in national elections. But the war, combined with a United States embargo on trade and a series of natural disasters, ruined the economy and added to the unrest that endangered many lives. Approximately 126,000 Nicaraguans fled their homeland, came to the United States, and applied for asylum between 1981 and 1991. That was a quarter of all our asylum applications during that time period. During that same time, El Salvador experienced a brutal civil war which left tens of thousands dead. Over a quarter of the population were driven from their homes. The economy was left in a shambles. Faced with these terrible circumstances, and with continual danger for themselves and their families, hundreds of thousands of Salvadoran made their way to the United States. They asked for asylum because they feared death at the hands of the leftist guerrillas partially backed by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, or at the hands of the military and the extremist death squads. Between 1981 and 1991 approximately 126,000 of these Salvadorans applied for asylum. During the same era, Mr. President, the people of Guatemala faced similar tragic and extremely dangerous circumstances. Approximately 42,000 of them made their way here and applied for asylum in the Untied States. A great many of the Central Americans who came here during this period received some form of encouragement or support from our government for that decision. This started in 1979, when President Carter's Attorney General used his discretionary authority to protect recent arrivals from Nicaragua by establishing an extended voluntary departure program for them. When that program expired, it was extended further through a variety of other congressional and administrative actions. During the early to mid-1980s, Nicaraguans' claims for asylum had a high success rate, and very few were deported. That success rate began to decline toward the end of the decade. Recognizing the dangers presented by the civil war, however, the Reagan administration in 1987 established a special Nicaraguan Review Program. Based in part on a recent Supreme Court decision bearing on the standard of proof for asylum, the NRP encouraged Nicaraguans to reapply for asylum under the new standard, thereby providing an extra level of review to Nicaraguans whose applications had been denied. When Violeta Chamorro won the election in 1990, conditions in Nicaragua began to change for the better and the Nicaraguan Review Program began to dissipate. In the meantime, however, many of the Nicaraguans had laid down strong roots here. The Nicaraguan Review Program was officially ended in 1995. However, the INS established a special phase out program under which Nicaraguans could remain in the country an additional year and receive work authorization. The work authorizations were again renewed in 1996. There were a number of reasons for this phase out program. But one of its purposes, as expressly stated in agency documents, was to allow the Nicaraguans who had laid down roots here to utilize the additional time to accrue the 7 years they would need to be eligible to adjust their status to legal residents under a procedure called ``suspension of deportation.'' In one form or another, this relief has been in existence for 40 years. In recent times, and until April 1 of this year, it was available to anybody who had been here for 7 years, was of good moral character, and whose deportation would cause extreme hardship to the person or his or her citizen or permanent resident immediate family members. The Salvadorans and Guatemalans likewise received special protection from U.S. government authorities. Their asylum claims received a less sympathetic hearing initially. As a result, the Salvadorans filed a class suit, knows as the ``ABC''' class action, subsequently joined by the Guatemalans, in which they challenged the way in which their asylum applications were being handled. President Bush's Administration settled this suit by agreeing to readjudicate their claims, and in order to facilitate this Congress gave the class members a special ``temporary protected status'' in the 1990 Immigration Act. That temporary status was administratively extended in one way or another while the class members awaited their readjudications. My point, Mr. President, is that during the 1980's people fearing persecution, fearing death squads, fearing disruptions of their communities, came to America and we took extraordinary measures to make it feasible for them to stay here, even if they had been denied asylum through the official asylum-seeking procedures. At every step of the way, acts of Congress or acts of the executive branch gave these refugees a very clear signal, that they would be able to remain if they played by the rules then in existence. An informal understanding developed that in the absence of some other mechanism being devised, suspension of deportation would be the means through which they would become permanent residents of this country. That understanding was undermined when last year's immigration bill changed the rules for suspension of deportation. There are good arguments, Mr. President, indeed, I believe, arguments that would ultimately prevail if tested in court, that those changes were not intended to operate retroactively. That, however, was not the view of some of the leading sponsors of these changes, nor was it the initial view of the INS or the Board of Immigration Appeals. As a result, these Central American refugees--as well as refugees from other countries in like circumstances--face the realistic prospect that a retroactive change in our laws might uproot them yet again. I am happy to say that, under the negotiated arrangement with the House, this will not happen. The U.S. government will keep its word to Central Americans. Under the version of the legislation incorporated into this bill, Nicaraguans who were in the United States prior to January 1, 1995 will be permitted to adjust to permanent residence--and get green cards--if they have maintained a continuous presence here. The same right will be extended to their Nicaraguan spouses and children. In addition, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who either applied for asylum before 1990 or were members of the ABC class action suit settled with the U.S. Government, as well as members of their families, will be entitled to receive a hearing on their claims for suspension or withholding and adjustment under rules similar to those in effect prior to the 1996 immigration law. Nothing in the amendment precludes the Government from adapting those rules further to the special circumstances of that class. Similar relief will be available to those who fled communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union by December 31, 1990, and filed an asylum claim by December 31, 1991. They too will be able to seek suspension of deportation or withholding of removal under the rules similar to those in effect before passage of last year's law. This relief also improves current law as applied to the members of these groups in two other respects. First, members of these groups will be eligible to have their cases adjudicated under the more generous rules whether or not they were in deportation proceedings as of the effective date of last year's immigration law. That makes good sense. There is no reason to apply the more generous rules to someone who filed an asylum application, lost on it, and was placed in deportation proceedings, while subjecting to the new rules someone who filed an asylum application at the same time and whose asylum claim has yet to be adjudicated. Second, none of these refugees will be subject to the 4,000 cap last year's law placed on the number of adjustments that may be granted in any given fiscal year. Thus they will not have to wait in line for a number to become available before their application may finally be acted on. With Central Americans and Eastern Europeans being placed outside the cap, it is expected that the 4,000 ceiling will accommodate the ordinary flow of successful applicants. Should there be more favorable adjudications than 4,000 in any fiscal year, the legislation assumes the INS will continue with its present approach of only issuing conditional grants until a number becomes available. Thus no one who would be the beneficiary of a favorable adjudication would be forced to depart because of the cap's having been reached. When the outlines of an agreement along these lines first emerged in the House, it included a proposal to eliminate an entire category of legal immigration, albeit a relatively small one, as the price for allowing these people to seek to stay under the rules they had been told would apply to them. Under the final version of the agreement embodied in this amendment, there will be no elimination of any legal immigration category. There will be a temporary reduction of no more than 5,000 visas per fiscal year in the ``other workers'' employment- based immigration category, but only after those now in the backlog receive their visas. There will also be a temporary reduction of not more than 5,000 visas per fiscal year in the Diversity visa program. These temporary reductions will last until the cumulative total of these reductions equals the number of Salvadorans and Guatemalans who ultimately adjust to permanent residence. The numbers will be taken evenly out of the two categories. The legislative process of necessity involves compromise. The version of this legislation before us today contains some provisions that were not in Senator Mack's original proposal. I am quick to say I preferred the original for that reason. First, while I think that temporary reductions in legal immigration categories are far superior to elimination of any, as the House originally proposed, I am not persuaded that we should be doing either. Moreover, since we have current categories with unused visas, if we must turn anywhere to ``borrow'' visas for these refugees, an approach that I feel is at odds with our humanitarian traditions, I would prefer to borrow any unused visas from the previous fiscal year before making any reductions. Second, while the legislation makes clear that no retroactive change is to be made in the standards for suspension of deportation as applied to Central American, Eastern European, and Soviet asylum applicants, it also makes clear that we are retroactively changing those standards for everybody else. I see no reason to do so. I have opposed the retroactive application of this provision to all individuals, regardless of their nationality. This is not because I take issue with the objective I believe the House is seeking: to make it harder for some people who have been abusing the rules by dragging out their deportation proceedings in order to accrue the 7 years they need for suspension of deportation. The problem is that the legislation does not and cannot distinguish between those who have been taking advantage of this loophole and others who have done nothing wrong and who have been stuck in administrative backlogs through no fault of their own. Retroactivity is particularly unjustified with respect to refugees from countries not covered by this compromise who have equities similar to those of the Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans. In recent years, many people came to the United States under a legal or quasi- legal status, fleeing tyrannical regimes that were either enemies of the U.S. or allies whose domestic abuses were countenanced because of the country's strategic significance in the struggle for world freedom going on at the time. The retroactivity may force some of these people to leave despite the roots they have laid down and the fact that the conditions they are returning to remain dangerous. Despite these reservations, I support this agreement. On the whole it will advance the cause of fairness and the promise that America will make good on its commitments better than if we were to do nothing. It will free a large number of people from the threat of immediate deportation. It will allow some of them to adjust to legal status and assure others of a fair hearing on their effort to do so. Accordingly, Mr. President, I urge adoption of this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the Commerce-State-Justice portion of this bill contains a few technical and clarifying changes to the Prison Litigation Reform Act enacted last year. The Majority Whip of the House of Representatives and I have been working together on this language, and I believe this statement reflects both of our views. The Prison Litigation Reform Act was specifically designed to protect the Tenth Amendment powers of the sovereign states, to enforce the Guarantee Clause, and to preserve and strengthen key structural elements of the United States Constitution such as separation of powers, judicial review, and federalism. In passing the Act Congress made clear that it intended that the courts enforcing the Act scrupulously ensure that these goals be accomplished. In order to avoid any possibility of misinterpretation, we are seeking through the language contained in these amendments to clarify that stated intent. Subsection (a)(3)(F) establishes that a state or local official, including individual state legislators, or a unit of government, is entitled to intervene as of right in a district or appellate court to challenge prisoner release orders or seek their termination. No separate time limits are included because the sponsors think it clear that a court should implement the intervention provisions in a manner that gives them their full effect by ruling in timely fashion on such motions. Subsection (b)(3) corrects the confusing use of the word ``or'' to describe the limited circumstances when a court may continue prospective relief in prison conditions litigation. The amendment makes clear that a constitutional violation must be ``current and ongoing''. Both requirements are necessary to ensure that court orders continue only when necessary to remedy a presently occurring constitutional violation. These dual requirements thus ensure that court orders do not remain in place on the basis of a claim that a current prison condition that does not violate prisoners' Federal rights nevertheless requires a court decree to address it because the condition is somehow traceable to a prior policy that did violate Federal rights. Likewise, the clarification insures that prisoners cannot keep intrusive court orders in place based upon the theory that the government officials are ``poised'' to resume allegedly unlawful conduct. Congress does not presume that government officials who have been advised that a particular practice is unlawful will automatically return to an unlawful practice unless a court order remains in effect. If an unlawful practice resumes or if a prisoner is in imminent danger of a constitutional violation, the prisoner has prompt and complete remedies through a new action filed in a state or federal court and preliminary injunctive relief. Finally, these amendments make some changes to the automatic stay provisions in the Act. Under the Act, courts are supposed to rule promptly on motions to terminate these longstanding decrees. In order to discourage delay on such motions, the Act provided that, if a court did not render a decision on the motion within 30 days, the decree was automatically stayed until the court had rendered a final decision. Unfortunately, many district courts are not ruling promptly, are keeping the decrees in effect, and are then seeking violations that justify doing so. Courts have also been avoiding the automatic stay by saying that it is impossible to comply with because it sets up an impossible timetable and that it is therefore unconstitutional. The Department of Justice meanwhile has contended that the stay is not really automatic at all, although no court has accepted that view. The argument that the court is being forced to rule on anything on an unrealistic timetable is incorrect because the automatic stay imposes no requirement that they rule. It only provides that if they do not rule there is no order in effect until they do so. Nevertheless, giving the court the authority to extend the time an additional 60 days should eliminate that basis for challenge. The amendments also clarify that the stay is in fact is automatic by expressly modeling it on the bankruptcy automatic stay, and they state explicitly that any order blocking the automatic stay is appealable, thereby ensuring review of the district court's action. Finally, they make clear that mandamus is available to compel a ruling if a court is simply failing to act on one of these motions.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me in fighting to ensure that our high technology industries, and the Internet in particular, remain as free as possible from Government regulation and taxation. America's high-technology, information age industries embody America's entrepreneurial spirit. In this sphere, initiative and inventiveness are joined as thousands of people work to create new ways of generating and transferring technology, information and commerce. The high technology sector is crucial to our economy, crucial to our workers and crucial to our way of life. It must remain as free as possible so that it may continue to grow, employing ever more Americans in good jobs, generating commerce and employment throughout our Nation and constantly reviving our spirit of independence and innovation. Mr. President, we first must keep in mind, in my view, that the hi- tech, information age industry is crucial to our economy. This industry is growing very quickly. A 1997 study by the Business Software Industry found that the American software industry has grown two and a half times faster than the overall economy from 1990 to 1996, and that software industry employment will grow 5.8 percent per year between now and 2005. In 1982, according to the Federal Trade Commission [FTC], computer products were found on the desks of only 5 percent of American workers; only 4 percent of American households contained personal computers. By 1992 the figures surged to 45 percent and 31 percent, respectively. Currently, 40 percent of American homes contain PCs. Between 1972 and 1992, research intensive industries grew an average of twice the rate of overall GDP growth, with computers, semiconductors and software leading the group. Hi-tech industries are serving as engines of economic expansion, creating many spin-off jobs. Economist Larry Kudlow reports that the hardware and software industries combined account for about one third of real economic growth. Overall, electronic commerce is expected to grow to $80 billion by the year 2000. The FTC reports that, from 1985 to 1995, the worldwide number of hardware vendors increased from 120 to 350, and the number of service providers--programmers, consultants, maintenance and systems operators--increased from 1,715 to 30,000. Not only hi-tech, but supporting hi-tech has become booming business. To judge the dynamism of this sector of our economy, and of the Internet in particular, we should consider the fact that the Internet grew from four linked sites in 1969 to become the first ubiquitous, interactive advanced communications network. 15 million households are now connected to the Internet, with 43 million expected by the year 2000. Mr. President, we all have benefited from this tremendous growth, and we will continue to benefit from the hi-tech industry, so long as we continue to allow it to expand and innovate. Affordable world-wide communications and information transfer have changed our world for the better. Consumers now have far more choices, and benefit from greater competition among sellers. Workers have seen their opportunities increase as well in our expanding economy. Perhaps most benefited has been American small business. During a time in which it is increasingly difficult to deal with Government bureaucracies, regulations and so forth, in one sector of our economy an individual can still work nights and weekends in his garage and end up running his own company. This sector offers minimal barriers to entry and a convenient, cost- effective distribution. That sector is, of course, that of high technology. Increased opportunity--to shop, to work, to start one's own business--has been supplemented by an overall increase in freedom thanks to the open availability of information on the Internet and the freeing up of new opportunities, for example through tele-commuting, to enrich our lives without sacrificing our careers. All of this is possible, Mr. President, because we have a vital, growing and free hi-tech industry in America. And our hi-tech industry has succeeded because in it Americans are able to respond quickly and efficiently to technical and marketing challenges, unencumbered by any preconceptions imposed by regulation relating to its development or from inappropriate Government charges on its business. We are a freer, more prosperous and more open country because of our free high technology industry. To the greatest extent possible, we should keep that industry free from Washington rules, regulations and taxes for the sake of our consumers, our small businesses and our workers. Mr. President, a number of issues have found their way before Congress that might severely affect our high technology sector. For example, Local Exchange Carriers [LECs] have contended that increasing Internet traffic could soon exceed the current phone system's capacity. To fund new infrastructure, the LECs have argued that a user fee should be paid by companies that provide Internet access. But this user fee could make consumers reluctant to use the Internet, particularly if it is not used to fund product improvements. What is more, access charges would only suppress Internet development, leaving us all with inadequate infrastructure. In response to this situation I joined with Senator Leahy to propose Senate Resolution 86, a nonbinding sense of the Senate resolution urging cooperation between Internet providers and the local phone companies. That resolution also calls for a rejection of access fees as a means of solving the dispute. Encryption also has been the subject of significant debate. More and more, Mr. President, businesses are encrypting electronic mail messages sent interoffice and intraoffice. These businesses seek to protect themselves against industrial espionage or recreational hackers. In addition, on-line commercial transactions, such as wiring money or purchasing and selling products, require encryption to ensure security. Currently, there are no limits on the strength of encryption products for domestic purposes. The same is true for importation. However, exportation of encryption is tightly controlled. Many in the law enforcement community are concerned about the proliferation of strong encryption products, particularly should they fall into the hands of criminals. But this technology already exists, Mr. President. We will not make ourselves safer by exposing businesses to industrial espionage, sabotage and the loss of commerce. That is why I supported Senator Burns' bill to maintain business' right to develop and use strong encryption. As important as restrictions on development, Mr. President, have been proposals to tax commerce on the Internet. Over the last 2 years, several States and localities have passed or interpreted laws to permit taxation of Internet sales and use. The result, Mr. President, would be double taxation of Internet commerce and a stifling of Internet use. S. 442, recently voted out of the Commerce Committee, will stop this trend by imposing a 6-year moratorium on subnational taxes on communications or transactions that occur through the Internet or online service, and access or use of the Internet or online services. This moratorium would apply to all Internet and interactive computer services, but not to property, income or business license taxes. In essence, it prohibits sales and use taxes unless the retailer has a physical presence in the taxing State. It would keep Government from piling on taxes that will strangle the infant Internet commerce industry in its cradle. It also will allow the States to come up with a rational system by which to tax Internet commerce. Another area in which governmental action has threatened our hi-tech, information age industry has been immigration. I am proud that we pushed back efforts during the last Congress to radically reduce the numbers of immigrants coming legally into this country. I firmly believe that immigration is the American way, and because I know that legal immigration is crucial to our hi-tech industry. For example, 40 percent of Cypress Semiconductor's top-level management is foreign-born. Chief Financial Officer Manny Hernandez is from the Philippines, vice president of research and development Tony Alvarez is from Cuba. And this immigrant-driven company employs 1,800 people in the United States. Immigrants give America an entrepreneurial edge. In 1995 12 percent of the ``Inc.'' 500--a compilation of the fastest growing corporations in America--were started by immigrants. They also give us an edge in innovation. Immigrants make up nearly a third of all Ph.D.'s involved with research and development in science and engineering--the basis for innovation and economic growth. Immigrants also fill needed roles, particularly in the engineering field. The CATO Institute reports that over 40 percent of our engineering Ph.D.'s are foreign-born, yet the unemployment rate in that field is only 1.7 percent. Clearly there is a gap in engineering in America that is being filled by immigrants. I am pleased, then, Mr. President, that we did not close the door on immigrants seeking to come to this country to make a contribution and seek a better life. And I hope we will continue to keep the door open, so that we may live up to our heritage as a nation of immigrants, and so that we may continue to prosper. Finally, Mr. President, abusive class action lawsuits have caused significant harm to high technology companies, as they have to much of the American economy. Some suits, alleging malfeasance on the part of company directors, have been brought within hours after a drop in a company's stock price. Not long ago, this body successfully overrode the President's veto of legislation to reform securities litigation in this country. That bill will provide that discovery be stayed whenever a motion to dismiss is pending in a securities action. Discovery costs have been estimated to account for 80 percent of the costs of defending a lawsuit in this kind of action, and that is too much, particularly when the suit may be dismissed as without merit. The bill also would create a modified system of proportionate liability, such that each codefendant in a securities action is generally responsible for only the share of damages that defendant caused. This should prevent companies from being joined to a lawsuit solely because of their deep pockets. In addition, under this legislation, plaintiffs now must state facts with particularly, and state facts that give rise to a strong inference of intent on the part of the defendant. This should end the too-common practice of filing cases on the basis of few or no hard, relevant facts. Finally, the bill contains a safe harbor provision protecting forward-looking predictive statements from liability. Mr. President, we must go further, particularly in the area of legal reform, to protect our hi-tech industry from unwarranted interference. S. 1260, which I have cosponsored, would limit the conduct of securities class actions under State law. But even this is not enough. Hi-tech and other companies are hit with all sorts of abusive lawsuits, not just securities litigation. That is why I am working for broader litigation reforms. I offered an amendment last Congress that would have expanded the joint and several liability provision of the product liability bill to cover all civil lawsuits. I also have introduced my own bill to protect small businesses from frivolous lawsuits. And I am working with Senator McConnell to provide needed reforms to our civil justice system. It is my belief that we can make substantial progress in this area in the near future. Finally, Mr. President, I would just like to note that, while antitrust laws must apply to new industries as they have to the old, we should not allow antitrust laws to become an excuse for excessive regulation. Hi-tech is a dynamic sphere of economic activity. Over- zealous Government regulation from Washington, by whatever means, will only hurt consumers, producers and workers. I think most hi-tech CEOs would agree that producers and consumers in the free market economy-- not bureaucrats and politicians in Washington--should determine winners and losers in the high tech industry. Frivolous lawsuits, unnecessary regulation and onerous taxation. Mr. President, all these actions threaten our high technology, information age industry. It is my hope that we can work together to lessen the chance that they will be imposed on an industry that is central to our economic well-being. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Effective Substance Abuse Treatment Act. This legislation will increase the variety and effectiveness of drug and alcohol treatment centers. It will do so by allowing faith-based organizations, consistently shown to be most effective at treating substance abuse, to accept Federal funds without sacrificing their religious character. In addition, it will allow individuals receiving drug and alcohol abuse treatment services to choose a faith-based treatment center for their care. This legislation builds on the charitable choice provision included in last year's welfare bill. That provision allowed faith-based charities to contract with government to supply social services without having to give up their religious character. Mr. President, each year we face staggering statistics about the use of illegal drugs and the abuse of alcohol. The percentage of teenagers who admitted using illicit drugs during the last month more than doubled between 1992 and 1995. This increase in drug use, especially among young people, demands that we find new ways to address the addiction that often follows. I believe we owe it to our citizens and particularly those addicted to drugs or alcohol, to make the most effective treatment available to them. That treatment is provided by faith based charities. Mr. President, government-run drug rehabilitation programs generally have long-run success rates in the single digits. This is a tragedy for addicts, their friends and their families, all of whom are given false hope by institutions that rarely produce the results they promise. However, there are many programs that do work. For example, Burton Fulsom of Michigan's Mackinac Center reports on the Mel Trotter Ministries in Grand Rapids. Named for its former alcoholic founder, the Mel Trotter Ministries has an astounding 70-percent long term success rate in its faith based rehabilitation program. According to director Thomas Laymon, government programs leave addicts without spiritual support. Worse, addicts are not held accountable for addictions, and they have no incentive to change their behavior. Meanwhile, Trotter Ministries provides guidance, a supporter community and integration into a life beyond drugs. Another successful faith based substance abuse treatment center is San Antonio's Victory Fellowship, run by Pastor Freddie Garcia. Victory Fellowship has saved thousands of addicts in some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. The program offers addicts a safe haven, a chance to recover, job training, and a chance to provide for themselves and their families. It has served more than 13,000 people and has a success rate of over 80 percent. It is very simple, Mr. President, where most treatment centers fail, those that are faith based work. This being the case, we have a duty to make faith based treatment more available. This does not require any special program, Mr. President. Rather, we can achieve this important goal by allowing faith based programs to stand on an equal footing with other centers in applying for Federal funds to heal individuals in need without changing the nature of the care they give. We owe it to our families and communities, torn apart by drugs and drug related violence, to fight the scourge of substance abuse. We owe it to the individuals in need to allow them to obtain the best treatment available. This legislation will achieve these goals without increasing the cost of government. I ask my colleagues for their support. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be entered into the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Effective Substance Abuse Treatment Act. This legislation will increase the variety and effectiveness of drug and alcohol treatment centers. It will do so by allowing faith-based organizations, consistently shown to be most effective at treating substance abuse, to accept Federal funds without sacrificing their religious character. In addition, it will allow individuals receiving drug and alcohol abuse treatment services to choose a faith-based treatment center for their care. This legislation builds on the charitable choice provision included in last year's welfare bill. That provision allowed faith-based charities to contract with government to supply social services without having to give up their religious character. Mr. President, each year we face staggering statistics about the use of illegal drugs and the abuse of alcohol. The percentage of teenagers who admitted using illicit drugs during the last month more than doubled between 1992 and 1995. This increase in drug use, especially among young people, demands that we find new ways to address the addiction that often follows. I believe we owe it to our citizens and particularly those addicted to drugs or alcohol, to make the most effective treatment available to them. That treatment is provided by faith based charities. Mr. President, government-run drug rehabilitation programs generally have long-run success rates in the single digits. This is a tragedy for addicts, their friends and their families, all of whom are given false hope by institutions that rarely produce the results they promise. However, there are many programs that do work. For example, Burton Fulsom of Michigan's Mackinac Center reports on the Mel Trotter Ministries in Grand Rapids. Named for its former alcoholic founder, the Mel Trotter Ministries has an astounding 70-percent long term success rate in its faith based rehabilitation program. According to director Thomas Laymon, government programs leave addicts without spiritual support. Worse, addicts are not held accountable for addictions, and they have no incentive to change their behavior. Meanwhile, Trotter Ministries provides guidance, a supporter community and integration into a life beyond drugs. Another successful faith based substance abuse treatment center is San Antonio's Victory Fellowship, run by Pastor Freddie Garcia. Victory Fellowship has saved thousands of addicts in some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. The program offers addicts a safe haven, a chance to recover, job training, and a chance to provide for themselves and their families. It has served more than 13,000 people and has a success rate of over 80 percent. It is very simple, Mr. President, where most treatment centers fail, those that are faith based work. This being the case, we have a duty to make faith based treatment more available. This does not require any special program, Mr. President. Rather, we can achieve this important goal by allowing faith based programs to stand on an equal footing with other centers in applying for Federal funds to heal individuals in need without changing the nature of the care they give. We owe it to our families and communities, torn apart by drugs and drug related violence, to fight the scourge of substance abuse. We owe it to the individuals in need to allow them to obtain the best treatment available. This legislation will achieve these goals without increasing the cost of government. I ask my colleagues for their support. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be entered into the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I rise to commemorate the people of the Capital Area Transportation Authority [CATA] on the opening of the new CATA Transportation Center in Lansing, MI. Such an undertaking is the result many individuals in the community having dedicated a great portion of their time and talent toward seeing this idea become a reality. I, along with the citizens of Lansing and the surrounding communities, join in thanks for the work of CATA in offering such a tremendous public transportation service and for the ensuing impact on the quality of life for citizens in the surrounding areas. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my Senate colleagues for their support of my request for earmarked funding for the CATA Transportation Center. In 1996, our request for $3 million in funding was granted and, in the following year, another earmark for $1.2 million also became a reality. Mr. President, on behalf of the U.S. Senate, allow me to give a heartfelt thanks to those at CATA for their hard work and dedication toward making the great State of Michigan even greater.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. The Federal Government has spent millions of dollars during the past decade to support research laboratories, universities and the private sector to develop technologies to reduce the Nation's reliance on imported oil through the use of renewable energy sources, and to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of cleaning up federally-owned sites which are contaminated with hazardous waste. This research is extremely valuable and is directed at addressing some of the most serious challenges facing our Nation. Unfortunately, these national research and development initiatives often do not provide maximum benefit to the Federal Government or to the private sector, since the technologies are not demonstrated to be effective on a commercial scale. It is my hope that as we continue to pursue these issues, the Federal Government can do more to help give the lessons learned from this research broader application. A new program which recently has come to my attention--Acceleration Demonstration of Federally Sponsored Research for Renewable Energy Production and Environmental Remediation--seeks to remedy this problem. It seems to me that through a cooperative effort with the Department of Energy, its laboratories and other federally-sponsored research institutions, non-profit research and business development organizations could help commercialize existing federal research so that Americans could benefit more widely from these Federal initiatives.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of seeking unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 189, H.R. 2516.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I regret that objection has been raised in this context. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, Does his objection to consideration of H.R. 2516 mean that the Senate will not take up this bill in this session?

Mr. ABRAHAM. I am disappointed over that decision, Mr. President, for passage of H.R. 2516 would have provided my State of Michigan with approximately $200 million more than we averaged under ISTEA. However, I stand by ready to assist the chairman in ensuring all States receive a fair and equitable return on their gas tax dollar.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate 4th grader Dallas Julianna Smolarek, 2d grader Candice Vaughn Smolarek, and kindergartener Brandon Tyler Smolarek for their outstanding academic success in the recent school year. All three students have received straight-A report cards and are on their way to success in school and all their personal endeavors. We all agree over the importance of a good education, and I am pleased to see such fine young students maintaining a strong desire to perform to the best of their abilities. No doubt a role model for their classmates, Dallas, Candice, and Brandon have assumed academic leadership paralleled by few others. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, congratulations to them and best wishes for their future success.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute and express my heartfelt thanks to those who have made the Troy Community Coalition for the Prevention of Drug and Alcohol Abuse such a successful program. The hard work and dedication of the coalition's staff and volunteers was recently recognized by the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America ``Best Coalition'' designation. This award recognizes drug abuse prevention organizations which have strong programs, substantive results, and community support. The Troy Community Coalition is a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of life for all who live or work in Troy. This goal has been successfully met through the countless ways in which they have encouraged individuals to lead lives free from the abuse of alcohol and drugs. Mr. President, on behalf of the U.S. Senate, I would like to thank the Troy Community Coalition for the hard work and effort they have put into making the great State of Michigan even greater.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in commemoration of the Lebanese Independence Day Celebration hosted by the Consul General of Lebanon and Mrs. Hassan Muslimani. The nation of Lebanon achieved its independence in 1943. A democratic nation, it is a leader in its region. Lebanon was a founding member of the League of Arab States which has done much to further the goals and interests of the region. Globally, Lebanon has also played a great part in the United Nations, a founding member, and also in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The nation of Lebanon has faced many challenges, but continues to preserve regardless of foreign and regional obstacles. Lebanese Americans play an important role in the United States as well. I am always proud of this community's efforts to foster relationships of goodwill. These efforts will go far in enhancing and promoting the Lebanese American community's image and understanding. Recently, the United States' travel ban to Lebanon was lifted, allowing the people of our nations to travel freely. I look forward to future strengthening in ties between the United States and Lebanon. Again, I would like to wish the greatest of success to the Consul General on his reception, and that it may bring closer our two cultures. Likewise, I am honored to recognize his strong efforts to raise awareness of the Lebanon Independence Day, November 22.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work done by the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the compromise it represents. However, I believe the proposal sent over by the House in H.R. 2516 represented a superior short-term reauthorization proposal. Hopefully, many of these funding elements may find their way into the final ISTEA reauthorization proposal. Mr. President, I would simply like to gain assurance from the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee that passage of his short-term proposal in no way obligates the Senate or its Members to support of any specific funding level or formula, and that it is simply a stop-gap measure until we can proceed to a final long-term authorization bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his assurances, and look forward to working with him in crafting the follow-on legislation to ISTEA that will sufficiently rectify the onerous position in which donor States, like Michigan, find themselves.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the first Thanksgiving worship in Christ Community Church of Allegan, MI's new meetinghouse. The Christ Community Church's congregation has traveled a long way to get where they are today. Without a church home in December of 1993, a core group of Christian friends gathered to discuss the planting of a new church in the Allegan area. By December of 1996, this dedicated group grew nearly threefold, and was worshipping in a brand new facility built with their own hands and prayers. In just 3 years, a land contract had been drawn up and paid for in full, and a church home was built that could serve up to 350 worshipers. This faithful assembly of friends derives its members from over a 25- mile outlaying area encompassing much of southwestern Michigan. They are a contemporary group concentrating in non-traditional and culturally relevant Christian fellowship. The congregation focuses its energy and resources on local and international missions and ministry. Also, personal familiarity with the Bible and Christian ideals is promoted and nurtured. Indeed, his Thanksgiving is a special one for the devoted men and women of Christ Community Church. The community is certainly well ministered to by this congregation. As they look forward to building further services and facilities, Christ Community Church will continue to champion the needs of its members and community. Again, it is an honor for me to recognize Christ Community Church and their first Thanksgiving celebration.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Lebanese-American Club of Michigan. On this day, November 22, 1997, the club will celebrate its first annual formal dinner. The Lebanese-American Club of Detroit is to be commended. Through the tireless dedication of its members this organization has strengthened the cultural understanding of Lebanon in the State of Michigan. I am proud of the Lebanese-American community's continual efforts to foster relationships of goodwill. These efforts will go far in enhancing and promoting the community's image and understanding throughout the United States and beyond. I am honored and delighted to see our community gathering to support Lebanon's independence. Throughout its history, the country of Lebanon and its people have faced difficult and trying circumstances. Yet despite these hardships, the people and leaders of Lebanon continue to hold strong to the belief that independence and security are essential for the country to prosper. This evening there is great cause for celebration. The United States travel ban to Lebanon has been lifted, allowing the people of these two nations to travel freely. Many of you in attendance were steadfast in your belief that this would someday occur and should be applauded for your commitment to this goal. I am pleased to recognize this event in the U.S. Senate and again, send my best wishes to each of you.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge an important event which is taking place in the State of Michigan. On this day, December 5, 1997, many have gathered to celebrate the Arab- American and Chaldean Council [ACC] Annual Civic and Humanitarian Awards Banquet. Each of the individuals in attendance deserve special recognition for their commitment and steadfast support of the Arab- American and Chaldean communities. I am pleased to recognize the recipients of this evening's awards: Mr. Brian Connolly and Ms. Beverly B. Smith, civic and humanitarian; Mr. John Almstadt, 1997 leadership award; Senator Dick Posthumus, 1997 State leadership award; and Ms. Elham Jabiru-Shayota and Mr. Andrew Ansara, Entrepreneurs of the Year. Each of these recipients should take great pride in receiving these distinguished awards. While it is important to pay special tribute to the awardees, it is also essential to honor the citizens of the Arab-American and Chaldean communities. Each of you that has worked to strengthen cultural understanding have contributed greatly to the State of Michigan. For the past 18 years, the ACC has provided tireless support and steadfast dedication to Arabic and Chaldean-speaking immigrants and refugees. Through job placement programs and mental health services, ACC has significantly enhanced the lives of many in our community. As you gather this evening to honor these awardees, I challenge each of you to be active participants in your respective communities. To the Arab-American and Chaldean American communities and to the awardees, I send my sincere best wishes. May the spirit of this evening continue to inspire each of you.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the chorus calling for the renaming of our national airport in honor of one of our Nation's greatest Presidents, Ronald Reagan. It is, of course, a long-standing tradition for us to name important buildings and facilities after those who have rendered extraordinary service to our country. Indeed, the monuments on the Mall outside this Chamber were constructed to show our gratitude toward and honor the memory of great men like Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson, who helped build America, and save her in time of peril. When Ronald Reagan became President, our Nation was in grave peril. Caught in the grip of economic stagnation and moral malaise at home, we remained locked in struggle with the most deadly and powerful of armed ideologies, communism. Unlike his predecessors, President Reagan called the home of that ideology, the Soviet Union, by its proper name: the evil empire. He called on us as a nation, not to foolishly court mutual annihilation, but to stand up for our principles and our way of life, confident that our cause was just, and would be looked on with favor by God. Ronald Reagan told us to have confidence in the American way, as he had confidence in it himself. He cut taxes, fought to bring government under control, and launched us on a peacetime recovery unprecedented for its strength and longevity. Mr. President, Ronald Reagan brought this Nation back. He brought it back to prosperity, he brought it back to self-confidence, he brought it back to an understanding of its fundamental principles, its attachment to well-ordered liberty and the freedom of the human spirit. The results are all around us. A prosperous nation at peace, an evil empire that has become extinct, replaced by struggling democracies throughout Europe, a new dawn of liberty around the globe. Ronald Reagan wanted to lead his Nation into a brighter future. Like the jet airplanes that carry us to our destinations, he carried the United States through turbulent times into a new and brighter era. I can think of no more fitting tribute to his strength of character and his monumental service to this country, than to name our national airport the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Naturalization Reform Act of 1997. This bill addresses some of the serious failings in the Immigration and Naturalization Service's conduct of the naturalization process that have come to light during the past 2 years. This legislation does not attempt a comprehensive reform of the naturalization process, a topic that likely should be a subject of serious consideration but regarding which much additional work is needed. Rather, it includes a few targeted measures designed to address critical issues that have emerged, particularly concerning the granting of citizenship to criminal aliens and the INS' conduct of criminal background checks. Given that these issues have been the subject of extensive oversight in both Houses of Congress, it is important that we work together on this. In that vein, I have developed this legislation with my counterpart on the House side, Representative Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee. Today, he is introducing identical legislation in the House. Let me state at the outset that citizenship is the most precious gift and honor that our Nation can bestow. I have spoken many times before-- both in the Immigration Subcommittee and elsewhere--about my own grandparents' experience of immigrating to America. Their citizenship papers give me a particular pride, and I know what citizenship papers mean to my own family and for millions of others across America. The vast majority of citizenship applicants are law-abiding legal immigrants who have every right and desire to become full-fledged American citizens. Nonetheless, serious concerns about the naturalization process have been raised this session, particularly concerning the Immigration and Naturalization Service's provision of citizenship papers to some undeserving criminal aliens. Some initial reports did overestimate the number of aliens who were improperly naturalized in 1995 and 1996 despite being statutorily ineligible for naturalization based on criminal convictions. Regardless of the number, however, it is still a concern to me that any obviously ineligible criminal aliens were naturalized. Moreover, it remains of grave concern that the INS was naturalizing large numbers of applicants without having completed their criminal background checks, which have been central to the way the INS conducts its inquiry into an applicant's good moral character. Even if an applicant did not have a conviction making that applicant statutorily ineligible, one would think that the good moral character determination might very well have turned out differently if the INS had had information concerning an applicant's arrests or other criminal background information. The mere fact that the INS was moving forward in this manner in itself raises concerns about how the INS is carrying out its statutory responsibilities. Many of these problems are not new, and it is disappointing that they have gone unresolved for so long. Reports from the Justice Department and from the General Accounting Office over the past 10 years have repeatedly found significant faults with the fingerprint check process, which the INS uses to conduct its criminal background checks. For instance, a 1988 Department of Justice audit found that, in 47 percent of naturalization files reviewed at random, there was no record that a fingerprint check had been requested or no record of when fingerprints were mailed to the FBI. In a 1989 report, the Department of Justice audit staff discovered an almost complete absence of evidence that background checks and fingerprint checks were conducted in naturalization cases. A 1994 report of the inspector general's office found that the INS did not verify that fingerprints submitted with an application actually belonged to the applicant; that report also documented that the Service failed to ensure that fingerprint checks were completed by the FBI. A 1994 GAO report disclosed similar findings. Despite such observations and disclosures, the INS continued to permit applicants to submit their own fingerprints without verifying whether the prints belonged to the applicant, and fingerprint cards submitted to the FBI often contained incomplete or inaccurate information. The INS also continued to permit naturalizations to go forward after 60 days following the submission of fingerprints to the FBI, regardless of whether a definitive response had been received from the FBI on the fingerprint check. In 1996, weaknesses in the criminal history validation process received renewed attention in the midst of the President's Citizenship USA program, a roughly 1-year effort to speed the pace of naturalizations significantly. Those weaknesses were exacerbated as pressure grew to increase naturalizations. As a result of various severe problems that came to light, a number of investigations, audits, and reviews into the naturalization process are now taking place. The Department of Justice's Justice Management Division, in conjunction with KPMG Peat Marwick and with some participation from the General Accounting Office, has been conducting an ongoing review of the roughly 1.4 million cases of aliens naturalized under Citizenship USA. Preliminary results indicate that INS failed to complete criminal background checks on some 180,000 immigrants who were naturalized between August 1995 and September 1996, and that more than 71,500 applicants who did undergo background checks had criminal records and were naturalized anyway. It is true that a much smaller number had convictions for offenses for which there is a statutory bar to naturalization. As I have noted, however, it remains of great concern that such a large number were processed improperly, regardless of what the particular results were. In response to weaknesses identified by those reviews, on November 29 of last year, the INS finally announced major changes to its criminal background verification procedures in an effort to respond to some of the serious and ongoing problems in that area. The Service did so through a policy memo announcing new ``Naturalization Quality Procedures.'' That memo went out--or was supposed to go out--from the Commissioner to all INS regional, district, and local offices. That specific and detailed memo, which was to be effective immediately, provided that no naturalizations were to go forward without a response on the fingerprint check from the FBI and unless the new policies and procedures were in place. Unfortunately, we learned this year that the administration's policy failed to go into effect as mandated by the Commissioner. On April 17, KPMG Peat Marwick issued a report based on its review of the INS' management and implementation of the new criminal record verification guidelines. Building on the work of others in Congress, including my predecessor as subcommittee chairman, I chaired a hearing earlier this year that examined the criminal record verification process for citizenship applicants and that particularly focussed on the findings of Peat Marwick's review of the implementation of that policy. Peat Marwick rated only 1 INS office of the 23 it reviewed as ``compliant'' with the new procedures. Of the 22 others, 15 were found ``noncompliant,'' and 7 ``marginally compliant.'' One District Office and two Citizenship USA sites could not produce the particular policy memo they were supposed to be implementing. Numerous offices were sending fingerprint cards to the wrong FBI address, fingerprint cards were completed incorrectly, and worksheets that were required to be dated and initialed showed no evidence of key tasks being completed. These results are simply astonishing in the wake of the attention that the flaws in the previous system received both in the Congress and in the press. Such troubling deficiencies in even the most basic implementation of the new policy have emerged that immediate action must be taken to ensure that no citizenship application is processed without the required fingerprint checks and that the INS properly considers and evaluates any criminal record that is revealed. Those deficiencies also suggest we need to take a long-term look at the entire naturalization process and indeed at the structure of the INS. The legislation I am introducing today is limited to targeted measures aimed at addressing in the short term some critical problems in the naturalization process, particularly with regard to criminal background checks. The bill would revise the INS' processing of criminal background checks in a number of ways. It provides that, in conducting criminal background checks on any applicant for naturalization or for a number of other significant immigration benefits, the INS may not accept for processing or transmit to the FBI any fingerprint card or any other means used to transmit fingerprints unless the applicant's fingerprints have been taken by an office of the INS or by a law enforcement agency. Such offices or agencies would be permitted to collect a fee from the applicant for the service of taking and transmitting the fingerprints. The bill further provides that if an applicant is physically unable to provide legible fingerprints, for example, because the applicant may be elderly or disabled, the requirement that the INS submit fingerprints to the FBI shall not apply and the FBI shall instead conduct a record check based on the applicant's name and other identifying information. Under the legislation, no naturalization application, or application for the other important immigration benefits specified in the legislation, like the adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence, could be approved until the INS receives from the FBI a definitive response concerning whether the applicant has a criminal record and receives the content of any criminal history that the applicant may have. Interviews would also now be statutorily required before applicants may be naturalized or may adjust their status to lawful permanent residence. In the case of any applicant for naturalization, the interview must cover any criminal background of the applicant, other than minor traffic violations, and must review any misrepresentations made on the naturalization application. In order to provide for an orderly transition, and to insure that the naturalization backlog does not increase, the bill provides for an effective date of October 1, 1998. The bill also addresses the good moral character requirement for naturalization. Under current law, an applicant for naturalization must demonstrate good moral character for the 5 years preceding the application for naturalization. The INS has given good moral character the most narrow definition possible under the statute, and has restricted its good moral character inquiry to whether an applicant has been convicted of a criminal offense that statutorily bars a finding of good moral character. In my view, the 5 year period is too short. Our legislation extends that period to 10 years. I also hope that the INS will, through regulation, examine many more factors than it currently does in assessing good moral character. This legislation also begins to approach the question of citizenship testing. Hearings beginning to look into this issue have been held in the House and were held last Congress by my predecessor. While we need to know more before we can definitively decide how to approach citizenship testing, we can take some measures to address fraud problems. With respect to non-governmental outside testing entities that are authorized by INS to do citizenship testing, the bill safeguards the integrity of the testing process in a number of ways. It requires the INS to conduct regular inspections of testing sites, prevents outside testing entities from delegating their testing authority to any other companies, and allows the Attorney General to require retests when the testing process is impaired by cheating, fraud, or negligence. The bill requires GAO to do a comprehensive study and report to Congress on the overall integrity of the outside testing process so that we can decide if other reforms are necessary. The bill also includes a provision specifying that any alien approved for naturalization would not be able to receive his or her naturalization certificate until the alien turns in the alien's green card or submits an affidavit describing how the green card was lost, stolen, or destroyed. To further discourage the misuse, sale, or fraudulent transfer of green cards, the legislation requires any alien whose green card is lost, stolen or destroyed to report it to the INS promptly or pay a $50 fine for failing to do so. To address the INS' continued management difficulties in the naturalization area, the legislation puts into place quality assurance procedures and will improve oversight for the naturalization process. In particular, the legislation requires the Attorney General to establish a process, which is to include internal or other audit procedures, to review the ongoing compliance by each office of the Service that is involved in the naturalization process with all naturalization processes and procedures. Then, within 30 days after the end of each of the next 4 fiscal years, the Attorney General is to submit a report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees concerning the INS' compliance with naturalization processes and procedures during the preceding years. Again, this legislation is designed to address some immediate problems requiring our attention. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, and with our colleagues in the House and others, on this legislation and on addressing the longer-term problems the INS is facing in the naturalization area. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be placed in the Record.