Spencer Abraham

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.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an important event in the State of Michigan. Today, the Flint Hispanic Community is holding its Annual Hispanic Awards Ceremony. The Hispanic Community of Genesse County, MI, gathers every year to recognize outstanding individuals in its community. This year's recipients have had a profound impact in the life of the Hispanic citizenry of Flint. Mr. Christopher Flores, Ms. Marcie Forsleff, Mr. Pedro Suarez, Ms. Sue Quintanilla, Mr. Refugio Rodriguez, and Ms. Marcie Garcia are each truly deserving of the awards they have received and should be proud of this accomplishment. I commend each individual who has worked to achieve cultural understanding and racial tolerance in the greater Flint area. The Hispanic Community should be proud of its leadership and continued efforts in promoting cultural awareness. Again, I send my warmest congratulations to the award recipients and their families. I am pleased to recognize the Flint Hispanic Community in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to Madonna University on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. As a school which emphasizes academic, social, and spiritual development, Madonna has established a tremendous presence in southeast Michigan, enhancing the quality of life for its students through an excellent array of campus activities and academic programs. Having converted to a 4-year liberal arts college in 1947, Madonna rapidly continued its expansion of academic services. It was recognized by the Michigan Board of Education in 1954, and just a short time later added nursing, gerontology, religious studies, criminal justice, and radiologic technology to its list of 4-year programs. Thereafter other programs have been added, though there are too many to mention by name. In 1975, Madonna College opened special services to students with hearing and other disabilities. In 1991, changed its name to Madonna University, and 1 year later the school reached an enrollment high of over 4,400 students. Of the university's many accomplishments, the one which Madonna achieves year after year is a rapport among students of being a school big enough to offer a vast selection of educational opportunities, but small enough to offer them in a personal manner. When most universities are looking to cut costs through larger class sizes, I'm pleased to say Madonna University is one place where the professors still know their students by name. Mr. President, on behalf of the U.S. Senate, I commemorate the outstanding tradition of excellence maintained by the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Madonna University.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I would like to bring to my colleagues, attention a recent article in Asian Week by Susan Au Allen, president of the United States Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce, who points out Senator Brownback's significant work on behalf of Asian Pacific American families. It was Senator Brownback who stood up in the House of Representatives last year and opposed those who wanted to slash family immigration. If the elimination of the brothers and sisters and adult children categories had passed, tens of thousands of Asian Pacific families would have been unable to reunite with their loved ones. Ms. Allen writes, ``When the chips were down last year, he came through to preserve freedom for our close family members to immigrate to the United States. And for that Asian Pacific American families across America are grateful to him.'' I ask that the text of the article by Susan Au Allen be printed in the Record. The article follows: Time to Reconsider `Racist' Rhetoric (By Susan Au Allen) No pain, no gain. No money, no talk. No raise money, no get bonus. Are these offensive words? Several Asian Pacific American organizations think so. The Organization of Chinese Americans, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Institute, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium have been complaining unfairly about a phrase that Sen. Brownback, R-Kan., uttered during a recent Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on the Democratic Party's campaign finance scandal. The argument is that the ``So no raise money, no pay bonus'' phrase is racist. I saw the videotape of the occasion and did not find it offensive. Sen. Brownback was speaking to an educated white male, Richard Sullivan, former finance director of the Democratic National Committee. The senator neither mimicked nor changed the tone of his voice. He was drawing a conclusion to a series of questions he asked Sullivan, who was playing escape, evasion, and dissemble. The senator wanted Sullivan to tell the truth about the unusual compensation package that former DNC fundraiser John Huang negotiated with the Democratic Party--the same truth Sullivan told investigators in an earlier deposition. The senator asked, ``If he didn't produce, no more money. You said, ``If things worked out,'' were your terms. Is that correct? But the recalcitrant Sullivan did his best to duck the question and replied incoherently, ``Yes. But, senator, if he--he never raised it, and it was more of a--if he had raised it, we--as I've stated, we had no reason to believe anything was improper or illegal. And if he had raised it in April or May I'm certain that it would have been met.'' The truth is that when John Huang took a pay cut to become the Democratic National Committee's top fundraiser, he was paid a base salary of $60,000, plus a bonus based on the amount of money he would raise. To close the circle, Sen. Brownback concluded with a straight face, ``So, no raise money, no get bonus.'' Even Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, said that Brownback ``didn't mean to slight anybody by this remark.'' Now, why would these Asian Pacific American organizations get so offended by that remark? Every time they make a public statement about the campaign finance scandal, the leaders of these groups mention the senator's utterance. Why? It's clear that a number of these groups are led by, for the lack of a better word, liberals. As friends of the Clinton-Gore administration, groups like the Organization of Chinese Americans, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Institute, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium are playing partisan politics and, quite implausibly, becoming more outraged at a single misinterpreted comment by a Republican senator than by Democratic Party individuals, including the president, whose fundraising improprieties have cast aspersions on millions of law-abiding Asian Pacific Americans. Their complaint against Sen. Brownback is out of place and, more importantly, shows a lack of serious interest in the truth. Otherwise, they would have found out that Sen. Brownback is a true friend of the Asian Pacific American community. In 1996, Congress was debating a contentious immigration bill which could cut legal immigration by one- third. The proposed bill would stop American citizens from petitioning for their parents, adult children, brothers, and sisters for immigration. However, the senator introduced the famous Brownback amendment which preserved all these immigrant categories in the law. Not only did he cosponsor the amendment, he worked very hard to persuade two dozen Republicans to fight the cut in legal immigration. He told those who would listen that ``It's wrong for us to turn the clock back to the 1920s when we shut the door to immigrants.'' Because of this, tens of thousands of Asian Pacific Americans are and will be able to petition for their parents, adult children, brothers, and sisters for immigration. Perhaps these Asian Pacific American organizations did not know about his work at the time because they only worked with the Democratic side of Congress. Now all of them should know who their friends are and who their enemies are. As to the enemy? Well, who got them into this campaign finance scandal in the first place? Try President Clinton, Al Gore, and the Democratic National Committee. And who is a true friend to Asian Americans? Try Sen. Brownback. When the chips were down last year he came through to preserve freedom for our close family members to immigrate to the United States. And for that, Asian Pacific American families across America are grateful to him.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address a problem that has been attracting significant concern not only in my State of Michigan, but also in many other northern border States as well as along the southern border. This bill, entitled ``The Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997,'' will also add desperately needed resources for border control and enforcement at the land borders. I am proud to have a broad range of bipartisan support on this bill and to have as original cosponsors Senators Kennedy, D'Amato, Leahy, Grams, Dorgan, Collins, Murray, Burns, and Snowe. This legislation is needed to clarify the applicability of a small provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act--section 110 of that act. That section requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop, by September 30, 1998, an automated entry and exit system to document the entry and departure of every alien arriving in and leaving the United States. While that may sound straightforward enough, the truth is that there could be disastrous consequences if this is not amended to conform with Congress' intent and to provide a sensible approach to automated entry- exit control. The problem is that the term ``every alien'' could be interpreted to include Canadians who cross our northern land border--and in fact to include all aliens crossing the land borders and many aliens entering elsewhere who are currently exempt from filling out immigration forms. We could literally end up with intolerable backlogs and delays at the land borders and could end up creating a conflict with current documentary requirements, such as our practice of not requiring Canadians to present a passport, visa or border-crossing identification card to enter the United States for short-term visits. The potential problems here are generating great concern. The United States Ambassador to Canada wrote to me on October 14, for example, that he is deeply concerned about this issue and noted that ``section 110 is inconsistent with the concerted efforts the United States and Canada have made in recent years to improve and simplify cross-border traffic flows.'' The Canadian Ambassador to the United States expressed similar concerns to me when I met with him last month. I recently chaired a field hearing of the Immigration Subcommittee on this issue in Detroit, MI, at which elected officials and industry representatives testified about the unprecedented traffic congestion, decreased trade, lost business and jobs, and harm to America's international relations that could result from the full implementation of section 110 in its current form. Mr. President, this provision was not intended by the law's authors to have the impact I just outlined. Our former colleague, Senator Alan Simpson, who preceded me as chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, and Representative Lamar Smith, who is chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, wrote in a letter last year to the Canadian Government that they ``did not intend to impose a new requirement for border crossing cards on Canadians who are not presently required to possess such documents.'' The INS appears to maintain, however, that the law as it stands does call for a record of each and every noncitizen entering or leaving the United States. When you look at the text of the statute, you can certainly see a basis for their view. That is why I think the most sensible course here is simply to correct the statute. I should note that the administration shares our concern and has already requested that Congress correct section 110 and clarify that it should not apply along the land borders. The full implementation of section 110 would create a nightmare at our land borders for several reasons. First, every alien could be required to fill out immigration forms and hand them to border inspectors. That would create added delays at entry points into the United States, which would be intolerable. Our land border crossings simply cannot support such added pressures. A recent study by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas points out that traffic congestion and delays at our land borders already create unneeded costs and inconvenience. What we need are increased resources at the land borders, not increased burdens and bureaucracy. Second, every alien would likewise have to hand in forms when they leave the United States. Our immigration officials currently inspect only those entering the United States, and there are thus no inspection facilities at locations where people leave the country. This means that new inspections facilities would need to be built and that we would see significant increases in traffic on U.S. roads leaving the country. This additional infrastructure could run into billions of dollars, but the precise cost estimates are not possible at this point since we do not know what technology could even make such an exit system feasible. Even as a simple fiscal matter, we should not be requiring the kind of investment that would be involved here without knowing what the payoff, if any, will be, particularly where an undeveloped and untested system is involved. Also, at many border crossings, particularly on bridges or in tunnels, there simply is not room to construct additional facilities. The magnitude of these problems cannot be overstated. As just one example, take the northern border, with which I am most familiar. In 1996 alone, over 116 million people entered the United States by land from Canada, over 52 million of whom were Canadians or United States lawful permanent residents. The new provision would require a stop on the U.S. side to record the exit of every one of those 52 million people. That is more than 140,000 every day; it is more than 6,000 every hour; and more than 100 every minute. And that is only in one direction. The inconvenience, the traffic, and delays will be staggering. If uncorrected, section 110 will also have a devastating economic impact. The free flow of goods and services that are exchanged every day through the United States and Canada has provided both countries with enormous economic benefits. Trade and tourism between the two nations are worth $1 billion a day for the United States. Canada is not only the United States' largest trading partner, but the United States- Canadian trading relationship is the most extensive and profitable in the world. My own State of Michigan has been an important beneficiary of that relationship. And 46 percent of the volume and 40.6 percent of the value of United States-Canada trade crosses the Michigan-Ontario border. Last year alone, exports to Canada generated over 72,000 jobs in key manufacturing industries in my State of Michigan and over $4.68 billion in value added for the State. The United States automobile industry alone conducts 300 million dollars' worth of trade with Canada every day. New just in time delivery methods have made United States-Canadian border-crossings integral parts of our automobile assembly lines. A delivery of parts delayed by as little as 20 minutes can cause expensive assembly line shutdowns. Tourism and travel industries would likewise suffer by the full implementation of section 110. People in Windsor, Canada who thought they would head to Detroit for a Tiger's baseball game or Red Wing's hockey game might think again and stay home--with their money. Canadians might decide not to bother to see the American side of Niagara Falls, or not to go hiking or fishing in Maine. This would happen all across the northern border. I am beginning to hear concerns from those along the southern border as well, and I believe that the impact of full implementation of section 110 there could be equally disastrous. Congress did not intend to wreak such havoc on the borders. The fact is that these issues were simply not considered last Congress. Section 110 was principally designed to make entry-exit control automated, so that the system would function better; it was not intended to expand documentary requirements and immigration bureaucracy into new and uncharted territory. A simple clarification of section 110 will take care of these problems. At the same time, we can take steps to improve inspections at our borders and to begin to take a sensible and longer term approach to automated entry-exit control. Mr. President, my legislation is quite straightforward and contains three pieces. First, it provides that section 110's requirement that the INS develop an automated entry-exit control system would not apply at the land borders, to U.S. lawful permanent residents, or to any aliens of foreign contiguous territory for whom the U.S. Attorney General and the Secretary of State have already waived visa requirements under existing statutory authority. This would maintain the status quo for lawful permanent residents and for a handful of our neighboring territories, including Canada, whose nationals do not pose a particular immigration threat and are already granted special status by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State. As its second main provision, my legislation calls for a report on full automated entry-exit control. In my view, Congress should not expand entry-exit control into new territory until it has received a report on what that would mean. The bottom line here is that we simply do not know whether such a fully implemented system is feasible, how much it will cost, whether the INS has the capacity and resources to use the data from such a system, and whether it might make more sense to devote our resources to going after the problem of visa overstayers in other ways. Finally, my bill provides for increased personnel for border inspections by INS and Customs to address the backlogs and delays we already have on the border. For 3 years, it would increase INS inspectors at the land borders by 300 per year and Customs inspectors at the land borders by 150 per year. Mr. President, our borders are already crowded. In 1993, nearly 9 million people traveled over the Ambassador Bridge, 6.4 million traveled through the Detroit-Windsor tunnel, and approximately 6.1 million crossed the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron. Even without new controls, we have unacceptable delays at many points of our borders. We should alleviate the problems we already have, not make them worse by adding more controls and burdens. Even in the best case scenario, the new entry-exit controls might take an extra 2 minutes per border crosser to fulfill. That is almost 17 hours of delay for every hour's worth of traffic. It's just not practical. We must act to prevent it from happening and take action to address the delays already existing at our borders. I would also like to note that placing new entry-exit control requirements on our border neighbors will do virtually nothing to catch people entering our country illegally. For that, we need to improve border inspections and increase resources there. I do agree that automated entry-exit control certainly is needed to improve upon the INS's current system, which has a poor track record of providing data on visa overstayers. Having correct and usable data would be extremely helpful for a number of purposes; for example, to determine whether countries should remain in the visa waiver program and which countries pose particular visa overstay problems. However, in my view, being able to use automated entry-exit control as a means of going after individual visa overstayers is a long way off. That is why we should be cautious in our approach. We need to study this problem and consider some hard questions like what we will do down the road with all this data. Do we really think that the INS is currently capable of compiling and matching the data correctly or that INS has the resources to track down individuals based on this data? Do we want to be directing the INS to use its limited resources in this manner? I recommend that for the time being we attack the visa overstayer problem by focussing on our current enforcement tools and by continuing the enforcement approach taken in last year's illegal immigration reform bill. I supported efforts there to increase the sanctions for visa overstayers and to increase the number of INS investigators looking into visa overstayers. But before we burden the vast majority who do not present an enforcement problem and before we add inconveniences and costs to our own citizens, we should continue to study the options for broader automated entry-exit control. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation quickly. Tomorrow, we will be having a hearing to consider this bill and these issues in the Immigration Subcommittee. Given the overwhelming support for this along the land borders and from the administration, there is no need to wait on such an important issue or to leave so many with uncertainty. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address a problem that has been attracting significant concern not only in my State of Michigan, but also in many other northern border States as well as along the southern border. This bill, entitled ``The Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997,'' will also add desperately needed resources for border control and enforcement at the land borders. I am proud to have a broad range of bipartisan support on this bill and to have as original cosponsors Senators Kennedy, D'Amato, Leahy, Grams, Dorgan, Collins, Murray, Burns, and Snowe. This legislation is needed to clarify the applicability of a small provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act--section 110 of that act. That section requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop, by September 30, 1998, an automated entry and exit system to document the entry and departure of every alien arriving in and leaving the United States. While that may sound straightforward enough, the truth is that there could be disastrous consequences if this is not amended to conform with Congress' intent and to provide a sensible approach to automated entry- exit control. The problem is that the term ``every alien'' could be interpreted to include Canadians who cross our northern land border--and in fact to include all aliens crossing the land borders and many aliens entering elsewhere who are currently exempt from filling out immigration forms. We could literally end up with intolerable backlogs and delays at the land borders and could end up creating a conflict with current documentary requirements, such as our practice of not requiring Canadians to present a passport, visa or border-crossing identification card to enter the United States for short-term visits. The potential problems here are generating great concern. The United States Ambassador to Canada wrote to me on October 14, for example, that he is deeply concerned about this issue and noted that ``section 110 is inconsistent with the concerted efforts the United States and Canada have made in recent years to improve and simplify cross-border traffic flows.'' The Canadian Ambassador to the United States expressed similar concerns to me when I met with him last month. I recently chaired a field hearing of the Immigration Subcommittee on this issue in Detroit, MI, at which elected officials and industry representatives testified about the unprecedented traffic congestion, decreased trade, lost business and jobs, and harm to America's international relations that could result from the full implementation of section 110 in its current form. Mr. President, this provision was not intended by the law's authors to have the impact I just outlined. Our former colleague, Senator Alan Simpson, who preceded me as chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, and Representative Lamar Smith, who is chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, wrote in a letter last year to the Canadian Government that they ``did not intend to impose a new requirement for border crossing cards on Canadians who are not presently required to possess such documents.'' The INS appears to maintain, however, that the law as it stands does call for a record of each and every noncitizen entering or leaving the United States. When you look at the text of the statute, you can certainly see a basis for their view. That is why I think the most sensible course here is simply to correct the statute. I should note that the administration shares our concern and has already requested that Congress correct section 110 and clarify that it should not apply along the land borders. The full implementation of section 110 would create a nightmare at our land borders for several reasons. First, every alien could be required to fill out immigration forms and hand them to border inspectors. That would create added delays at entry points into the United States, which would be intolerable. Our land border crossings simply cannot support such added pressures. A recent study by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas points out that traffic congestion and delays at our land borders already create unneeded costs and inconvenience. What we need are increased resources at the land borders, not increased burdens and bureaucracy. Second, every alien would likewise have to hand in forms when they leave the United States. Our immigration officials currently inspect only those entering the United States, and there are thus no inspection facilities at locations where people leave the country. This means that new inspections facilities would need to be built and that we would see significant increases in traffic on U.S. roads leaving the country. This additional infrastructure could run into billions of dollars, but the precise cost estimates are not possible at this point since we do not know what technology could even make such an exit system feasible. Even as a simple fiscal matter, we should not be requiring the kind of investment that would be involved here without knowing what the payoff, if any, will be, particularly where an undeveloped and untested system is involved. Also, at many border crossings, particularly on bridges or in tunnels, there simply is not room to construct additional facilities. The magnitude of these problems cannot be overstated. As just one example, take the northern border, with which I am most familiar. In 1996 alone, over 116 million people entered the United States by land from Canada, over 52 million of whom were Canadians or United States lawful permanent residents. The new provision would require a stop on the U.S. side to record the exit of every one of those 52 million people. That is more than 140,000 every day; it is more than 6,000 every hour; and more than 100 every minute. And that is only in one direction. The inconvenience, the traffic, and delays will be staggering. If uncorrected, section 110 will also have a devastating economic impact. The free flow of goods and services that are exchanged every day through the United States and Canada has provided both countries with enormous economic benefits. Trade and tourism between the two nations are worth $1 billion a day for the United States. Canada is not only the United States' largest trading partner, but the United States- Canadian trading relationship is the most extensive and profitable in the world. My own State of Michigan has been an important beneficiary of that relationship. And 46 percent of the volume and 40.6 percent of the value of United States-Canada trade crosses the Michigan-Ontario border. Last year alone, exports to Canada generated over 72,000 jobs in key manufacturing industries in my State of Michigan and over $4.68 billion in value added for the State. The United States automobile industry alone conducts 300 million dollars' worth of trade with Canada every day. New just in time delivery methods have made United States-Canadian border-crossings integral parts of our automobile assembly lines. A delivery of parts delayed by as little as 20 minutes can cause expensive assembly line shutdowns. Tourism and travel industries would likewise suffer by the full implementation of section 110. People in Windsor, Canada who thought they would head to Detroit for a Tiger's baseball game or Red Wing's hockey game might think again and stay home--with their money. Canadians might decide not to bother to see the American side of Niagara Falls, or not to go hiking or fishing in Maine. This would happen all across the northern border. I am beginning to hear concerns from those along the southern border as well, and I believe that the impact of full implementation of section 110 there could be equally disastrous. Congress did not intend to wreak such havoc on the borders. The fact is that these issues were simply not considered last Congress. Section 110 was principally designed to make entry-exit control automated, so that the system would function better; it was not intended to expand documentary requirements and immigration bureaucracy into new and uncharted territory. A simple clarification of section 110 will take care of these problems. At the same time, we can take steps to improve inspections at our borders and to begin to take a sensible and longer term approach to automated entry-exit control. Mr. President, my legislation is quite straightforward and contains three pieces. First, it provides that section 110's requirement that the INS develop an automated entry-exit control system would not apply at the land borders, to U.S. lawful permanent residents, or to any aliens of foreign contiguous territory for whom the U.S. Attorney General and the Secretary of State have already waived visa requirements under existing statutory authority. This would maintain the status quo for lawful permanent residents and for a handful of our neighboring territories, including Canada, whose nationals do not pose a particular immigration threat and are already granted special status by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State. As its second main provision, my legislation calls for a report on full automated entry-exit control. In my view, Congress should not expand entry-exit control into new territory until it has received a report on what that would mean. The bottom line here is that we simply do not know whether such a fully implemented system is feasible, how much it will cost, whether the INS has the capacity and resources to use the data from such a system, and whether it might make more sense to devote our resources to going after the problem of visa overstayers in other ways. Finally, my bill provides for increased personnel for border inspections by INS and Customs to address the backlogs and delays we already have on the border. For 3 years, it would increase INS inspectors at the land borders by 300 per year and Customs inspectors at the land borders by 150 per year. Mr. President, our borders are already crowded. In 1993, nearly 9 million people traveled over the Ambassador Bridge, 6.4 million traveled through the Detroit-Windsor tunnel, and approximately 6.1 million crossed the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron. Even without new controls, we have unacceptable delays at many points of our borders. We should alleviate the problems we already have, not make them worse by adding more controls and burdens. Even in the best case scenario, the new entry-exit controls might take an extra 2 minutes per border crosser to fulfill. That is almost 17 hours of delay for every hour's worth of traffic. It's just not practical. We must act to prevent it from happening and take action to address the delays already existing at our borders. I would also like to note that placing new entry-exit control requirements on our border neighbors will do virtually nothing to catch people entering our country illegally. For that, we need to improve border inspections and increase resources there. I do agree that automated entry-exit control certainly is needed to improve upon the INS's current system, which has a poor track record of providing data on visa overstayers. Having correct and usable data would be extremely helpful for a number of purposes; for example, to determine whether countries should remain in the visa waiver program and which countries pose particular visa overstay problems. However, in my view, being able to use automated entry-exit control as a means of going after individual visa overstayers is a long way off. That is why we should be cautious in our approach. We need to study this problem and consider some hard questions like what we will do down the road with all this data. Do we really think that the INS is currently capable of compiling and matching the data correctly or that INS has the resources to track down individuals based on this data? Do we want to be directing the INS to use its limited resources in this manner? I recommend that for the time being we attack the visa overstayer problem by focussing on our current enforcement tools and by continuing the enforcement approach taken in last year's illegal immigration reform bill. I supported efforts there to increase the sanctions for visa overstayers and to increase the number of INS investigators looking into visa overstayers. But before we burden the vast majority who do not present an enforcement problem and before we add inconveniences and costs to our own citizens, we should continue to study the options for broader automated entry-exit control. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation quickly. Tomorrow, we will be having a hearing to consider this bill and these issues in the Immigration Subcommittee. Given the overwhelming support for this along the land borders and from the administration, there is no need to wait on such an important issue or to leave so many with uncertainty. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Coverdell A+ education accounts, offered in legislation by my colleague the Senator from Georgia. This legislation would allow parents to contribute up to $2,500 per child to an education savings account, in which it would accrue tax-exempt interest that could be used for K-12 education expenses. Each year, Mr. President, we are bombarded with statistics showing that our children are losing ground academically. Each year, colleges and universities spend millions on remedial education for children entering their halls without the basic skills necessary to succeed in their courses. Fully 60 percent of our 17-year-olds are not reading at grade level. They are unprepared to take their place in a college classroom, or in the many skilled occupations that literally make our country work. It is painfully clear, in my view, that something must be done to improve the quality of our K-12 education. We spend more money per child than nearly any other industrialized nation. But, tragically, half of American children cannot meet minimum standards in reading and math. The problem with our schools is not how much money we are spending on them. It is how that money is being spent--and even more importantly who is deciding how that money will be spent. Too many decisions regarding our children's education are being made by bureaucrats in Washington and too few by parents. Thus too much money is being spent on bureaucrats and Washington-knows-best regulations, and too little on meeting the real educational needs of our children. Mr. President, Michigan does not need Federal programs and Beltway bureaucrats to improve our education system; we need more power in the hands of our parents. Teachers, principals, and school boards also are crucial to educating our children. But we must not forget that every child's most important, extensive, and fundamental education takes place in the home and must be guided by the principles and habits established there. Every day parents educate children--helping with homework, looking over tests, and providing the love and support that foster successful intellectual, moral, and spiritual growth. No Washington program can provide this nurturing. And this makes it our duty to increase parents' power and resources as they seek to steer their children to successful and responsible adulthood. During the balanced budget debate, Congress focused a great deal of attention on loans and other assistance for higher education. But while the availability and quality of higher education should be an issue of tremendous concern for our Nation, it becomes a moot point if children do not receive the education they need in elementary and secondary school. During consideration of the Taxpayer Relief Act last summer, Congress debated legislation allowing parents to set up an education savings account to help pay tuition and other expenses at public or private colleges. Senator Coverdell offered an amendment to that provision, allowing the funds to also be used for K-12 education expenses. This amendment passed the Senate but, regrettably, was taken out during conference due to a threatened veto by the President. Thankfully, the Senator from Georgia has reintroduced his amendment as a free-standing bill. In doing so, he has forced Congress to address the critical question of what we can do to support parents as they struggle to provide the best education possible for their children. Senator Coverdell's legislation is an important step in the right direction because it provides parents greater opportunity to save and invest in not only their child's higher education, but in their child's elementary and secondary education as well. Specifically, the Coverdell A+ accounts bill expands the use of education savings accounts to include expenses related to elementary and secondary education at public, private, or religious schools and homeschools. Parents may withdraw from the account to pay for tuition, fees, tutoring, special needs services, books, supplies, computer equipment and software, transportation, and supplementary expenses. This legislation provides parents with a wide variety of opportunities to supplement their child's education. Some parents may choose a private or specialized education setting for their child. For children attending public school, parents can use the money for tutoring or transportation costs. For parents of a child with special needs, the money could be used for tutoring or other personalized services. Put simply, the Coverdell A+ accounts bill provides parents with more options to meet the educational needs of their children at an early age. And this improved education will produce better opportunities for their children throughout their lives. Mr. President, the education savings account proposal for higher education passed Congress overwhelmingly, and was supported by the President. It is simply irrational to oppose the same concept for elementary and secondary education. For all the reasons Congress supported investing in higher education, Congress must support investing in elementary and secondary education. Both proposals are based on a sound principle, that parents should plan for the long-term educational needs of their children. The Coverdell proposal allows parents to do that from the moment their child enters elementary school until that child graduates from college. In my view, Mr. President, there is no reason to oppose A+ accounts on the grounds that they would provide Federal support to religious schools. Right now, today, Federal funds in the form of student loan guarantees and other assistance are helping thousands of college students attend religious colleges. I have heard no serious objections to this practice, and I am glad for that. There is no reason to discriminate against students choosing to attend Catholic University, Notre Dame, Calvin College, or any of the many other fine religious colleges in America. By the same token, however, there is no sound reason for objecting to students and their parents who choose to attend primary and secondary schools with religious affiliations. Likewise, Mr. President, I see no basis for the charge that A+ accounts will starve our public schools of needed funds. No provision in this legislation will cost public schools so much as one thin dime. Rather, A+ accounts will bring significant benefits to our public schools. We should keep in mind, for example, that fully 70 percent of the children whose parents will receive benefits under this legislation attend public school. The extra help in the form of tutors, computers and other aids that the children will receive thanks to A+ accounts will make them better students and enhance the learning experience for all children in those schools.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2464, legislation to exempt internationally adopted children under age 10 from the immunization requirement that was contained in last year's immigration bill. Mr. President, in my view it is important that the Federal Government not unnecessarily burden American parents who adopt foreign born children. The process of adopting a child abroad is already quite arduous and involves great emotional risk. The Federal Government should not make that process yet more difficult. It is particularly important that we not endanger the health of these children. Last year's immigration bill unnecessarily and unintentionally made the process of adopting foreign born children more difficult. I am, however, concerned that this bill did not go far enough. There are adopted children 10 years of age and older who do not need to be treated differently than those under 10 years old. Moreover, the problems with infected needles in many countries should give us serious pause as to whether immigrant children who are not adopted are undergoing undue risk. I also want to call attention to a provision that I would have preferred not be in this bill--the provision requiring that parents of the exempted adopted children must sign an affidavit promising to vaccinate their children within 30 days or when it is medically appropriate. I think we do not want to imply in this or other legislation that the Federal Government cares more about children than parents do and, unfortunately, I think that is what this provision says. Despite these reservations, I think that this is a good bill and it is an important bill for the many Americans who will be adopting children internationally both this year and in the years to come. I want to commend the sponsors of the bill and commend the leadership on this issue of the two Senators from Arizona, Senator Kyl and Senator McCain, who have helped see to it that this important correction in law will become a reality and thus help ensure the safe adoption of foreign-born children by American citizens.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Honorable Deborah Ross Adams on her appointment as a new judge of the 36th District Court. On Friday, November 14 she will be invested and begin her official duties. Judge Adams is very deserving of this appointment. Throughout her career, she has maintained the strongest of commitments to the highest judicial standards. From her private practice to her role as a magistrate, Judge Adams has been recognized by her peers for her impartiality and broad knowledge of the law. Judge Adams has accumulated this wealth of legal knowledge over several years and numerous experiences. After attending one of the most outstanding institutions of legal education in the Nation, she was a law clerk, started her own private practice, and served the city of Detroit, among other roles. These many experiences have afforded Judge Adams tremendous opportunities to gain a better, more comprehensive understanding of the law. In the process, she has become a most qualified individual. Additionally, Judge Adams is very involved with her community. Belonging to numerous civic and professional organizations, Judge Adams continues to help the children and families of Michigan. Through these many memberships, Judge Adams has come to know her community intimately; an education that especially prepares her for the role she now undertakes. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to welcome Judge Adams to the bench. Her reputation as being fair-minded precedes her, and I am confident the 36th District and the State of Michigan will benefit from her tenure.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I don't believe I will necessarily need the full 5 minutes, even, but let me speak today about an issue of great concern to the citizens of my State.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I seek unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes, the time to be deducted from the leader's time.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of Lansing, MI's most outstanding citizens who recently passed away, Richard Letts. Because of his tremendous commitment and involvement in many organizations throughout the community, Mr. Letts became affectionately known as Mr. Lansing. Mr. Letts' life, even while fighting a battle against cancer, was a tribute to the human spirit. Whether as a champion athlete, a 27-year career as Lansing's human relations director or a community leader in volunteer organizations such as Boy Scouts, United Way, Old Newsboys, United Negro College Fund, Boys and Girls Club, Urban League, and Lions Club just to name a few, Richard Letts was a dominating figure in Lansing's landscape. Yet even as he struggled with his health, the people of Lansing gave tributes, proclamations, speeches, and parades to a man who so often became the comforter, as people came to comfort him. Olivia Letts, Richard's wife of 46 years, has said, ``People don't change who they are when they become ill.'' Indeed, Mr. Letts refused to quit. His message in his life, and our future: Race should not matter, color should not matter, all people matter. Richard Letts mattered to Lansing and all of Michigan. The loss of his presence will be mourned, but the mark his life left on Lansing is permanent.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, this information, if true, is very inconsistent with what was asserted by Federal officials at a June 5 hearing of the full Agriculture Committee. There, USDA officials testified at the hearing that they knew nothing more than nonspecific and vague complaints of potential violations at Andrew & Williamson, the San Diego company which sold the fruit to the Government for school lunches. If the newspaper article and witness allegations are true, it would certainly raise serious questions as to whether the full committee and this Senator were misled. I believe we are owed an explanation and suggest the Government officials involved be called to testify under oath regarding their actions. Senator Coverdell has written USDA to ask for a response to these serious charges, but so far nothing has been heard. It is my intention to keep pressing the USDA for answers as well as seek the appropriate oversight of this matter. I want to be sure that the Government agencies responsible for protecting us are doing their job. This dangerous incident, the poisoning of Michigan children by their own School Lunch Program, should concern us all, Mr. President. The company involved seems to have demonstrated a reckless disregard for public safety. To that end, I have introduced legislation which makes such conduct a felony with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $250,000 per count. This change in law will ensure that individuals who intentionally misrepresent their goods will now suffer the appropriate consequences of their actions. The recent outbreaks of hepatitis A, cyclospora and E. coli demonstrate that a new commitment to food safety is sorely needed in this country. I will continue working to see that Congress takes the appropriate measures to assist the USDA, FDA, and Centers for Disease Control in their efforts to keep America's food supply the safest in the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in March of this year, over 200 schoolchildren in my State contracted the hepatitis A virus from food served by the school lunch program. As news of the outbreak began to pour in, the Michigan Department of Community Health and the Centers for Disease Control went into action to determine the cause. They soon found the culprit: frozen strawberries sold to the school lunch program by a San Diego company named Andrew & Williamson. Investigators also discovered that some of the strawberries sold to the school lunch program had been illegally certified as domestically grown when, in fact, they had been grown in Mexico. Mr. President, these strawberries should never have been served in the school lunch program in the first place. By law, products sold to the school lunch program must be certified as being domestically grown. Companies have typically been trusted to do the right thing, but Andrew & Williamson chose to do something else. They chose to misrepresent their product's country of origin and over 200 people were poisoned as a result. But now, Mr. President, disturbing new information has come to light from the criminal case against Andrew & Williamson which indicates USDA officials may have had advance warning of the illegal strawberries. An article in Saturday's edition of the San Diego Union Tribune disclosed that USDA was alerted 1 week after the school lunch purchase from Andrew & Williamson that the fruit was from Mexico. In addition, the newspaper also reports that the Federal official at USDA who was alerted thought it serious enough to file an administrative report and wanted to investigate the charge, but was rebuffed by her supervisor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the San Diego Union Tribune article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I have been informed that the FTC will soon make an announcement regarding the ``Made in USA'' label, probably next week. I am hopeful that the FTC will maintain the current standard, and urge my colleagues to contact the FTC to add their voices to the chorus calling for that decision. I believe it is crucial for American workers and the American economy that we maintain the integrity of the ``Made in USA'' label. For over 50 years, consumer goods have worn this label when, and only when, they were made ``all or virtually all'' in the United States. But recently the (FTC) announced plans to soften that rule, allowing companies to use the label any product on which they spent 75% of their total manufacturing costs, provided the product was last ``substantially transformed'' here in the United States. A product also could be labeled ``Made in USA'' if that product, and all its significant parts and other inputs, were last substantially transformed in the United States. In practice, this means that products containing no materials or parts of U.S. origin could nonetheless be labeled ``Made in USA.'' I believe that would be wrong, These new rules would be a slap in the face to American workers. They also would in effect condone false advertising. Many Americans look specifically for the ``Made in USA'' label because they want to support American workers. These loyal Americans do not believe that they are purchasing products ``mostly'' made in the USA, let alone products for which ``most manufacturing costs'' were incurred in the USA, or which were ``substantially transformed'' in the USA. Quite rightly, consumers who look for the ``Made in USA'' label believe that when they purchase a product with that label they are getting something made all or virtually all in the United States. Perhaps worst of all, Mr. President, these new rules will hurt American workers. Many companies have invested a great deal in plant and equipment, as well as hiring and training, in the United States. These companies have a right to expect that the ``Made in USA'' label, which they have worked so hard to earn and maintain, will continue to apply only to products made all, or virtually all, in the United States. If they lose that advantage, these companies may well decide to move some or all of their production--and American jobs--overseas. To dilute the requirement for use of the ``Made in USA'' label would be to lower the value of that label. It would allow companies operating substantially overseas to deceive American consumers who are attempting to support truly American made products and workers. It would discourage companies from investing in this country by telling them, in effect, that they will no longer receive any benefit for keeping jobs at home. The result would be a loss of American jobs and morale, as well as a critical blow to consumer confidence in the veracity of product labels. The American people have a right to expect that the ``Made in USA'' label will mean what it says. For over 50 years they have depended on that label to assure them that they are purchasing products made ``all or virtually all'' in the United States. I again call on the FTC to maintain the traditional standard for labelling products ``Made in USA,'' and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, as my colleagues no doubt are aware, I joined with Senator Hollings, to submit a concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 52) to reaffirm the Senate's support for the traditional, simple, and honest use of the ``Made in U.S.A.'' label. That use was in accordance with the long-standing rule that articles so labelled be made ``all or virtually all'' in the United States. Over two hundred members have cosponsored a measure similar to the Hollings-Abraham resolution in the House of Representatives, introduced by Representatives Bob Franks of New Jersey and John Dingell of Michigan. Senator Hollings, Congressman Franks and Congressman Dingell joined me in sending a letter to the Federal Trade Commission urging that agency to maintain the current standard. As we said in that letter, ``Any definition or enforcement standard of `all or virtually all' that would allow more than a de minimis level of foreign content is unacceptable to us and, we strongly believe, would be unacceptable to the Congress.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to Walsh College on the occasion of their 75th anniversary. Since 1922, Walsh College has been highly instrumental in turning business leaders of tomorrow into business leaders of today. Michiganites, and many others across America, have benefited immensely by the quality of education and rich tradition bestowed upon its students. Over 11,000 Walsh College alumni have worked to improve Michigan's economy and bring about a better quality of life for those near to them. With over 3,000 students and 4 campuses--soon to be 5 campuses-- Walsh College continues to enlarge its positive impact on Michigan's southeastern communities. It is well known by businesses in Michigan that Walsh students excel in their work. For example, 10 have received the Paton Award for achieving the highest Michigan score on the CPA exam, and 13 have received the Sells Award for placing in the top 100 of those taking the test nationwide. Through its six undergraduate degree programs and five graduate programs, Walsh College brings to Michigan an unparalleled excellence in education. Again, congratulations for 75 great years in business education and, on behalf of the U.S. Senate, I offer my highest appreciation and praise to all who have made the past 75 years a great success.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to one of Michigan's most outstanding citizens, the Honorable Dorothy Comstock Riley. After a long and highly successful career, in which she reached the highest level in the Michigan judicial system, she has decided to retire. For Dorothy, success came early. Always a bright and industrious student, while at Wayne State University, she was recognized as the top graduating woman. Following her law degree from Wayne State, she entered private practice. In 1956, Dorothy left her practice to serve the community as an assistant Wayne County Friend of the Court. She excelled in this capacity and helped ensure the needs of families and children were well represented. Although she returned to private practice in 1968, where she helped found the firm of Riley and Roumell, her commitment to public service was only beginning. A few years later, Dorothy's outstanding abilities and dedication to the legal profession were again recognized. In 1972 she was appointed to the Wayne County Circuit Court. Four years later she received an appointment to the Michigan Court of Appeals, and was reelected to a 6- year term on the Court. Soon after, the integrity and fairness she had shown throughout her career were recognized once more when she was appointed to the Michigan State Supreme Court. Dorothy's commitment to her profession was rewarded in 1987 when she was elected Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. During her long, distinguished career, Dorothy has belonged to many organizations and received numerous accolades. From honorary doctorates to the presidency of professional associations, each award and membership reflected Dorothy's commitment to integrity, honesty, and leadership. And while Monday evening's event represents one award among many, I am thankful for this opportunity to express how grateful I am for Dorothy's service. Throughout her career, Dorothy personified what is best in our legal system: a fair-minded justice with a passion for truth. Because of her long commitment to the State of Michigan, Dorothy's presence will be greatly missed. As she enters this new phase in her life, I want to express how great an impact she has had on both her profession and those individuals fortunate enough to know her. I wish her all the best.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1283, legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor Congress can bestow upon civilians for acts of public service and patriotism, to those civil rights leaders history will remember as the ``Little Rock Nine.'' As all of my colleagues are aware, on September 25, 1957, nine young students, in the face of unspeakable hostility and hatred, voluntarily integrated Central High School in Little Rock, AK. In doing so, they confronted not only an angry mob assembled in fierce opposition, but also an entrenched culture of bigotry and racism. In today's day and age, lofty terms like valor, heroism, and bravery are used so frequently and in such a casual context the proper impact of their meaning has unfortunately been devalued. However, it is sometimes within the most ordinary acts, such as a child's steps through a schoolhouse door, in which the most extraordinary instances of courage can be found. Jean Brown Trickey, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Melba Patillo Beals, Terrence Roberts, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed Wair, Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, and Jefferson Thomas are all civil rights pioneers. In addition, however, to serving as national symbols as racial progress, each deserve individual recognition for the dignity and grace they displayed on that September morning 40 years ago. Mr. President, awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the ``Little Rock Nine'' would provide this long overdue honor to these exceptional people. As a U.S. Senator, it is my pleasure to cosponsor this legislation. As an American, it is my privilege to have the opportunity to say thank you to nine men and women who, in pursuit of their own education, taught the rest of the nation an invaluable lesson about racial equality.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to commemorate the staff and governing board of the Ann Arbor District Library for earning distinction as the 1997 Library of the Year. Through their hard work and commitment to the Ann Arbor community, they turned a series of difficult circumstances into a winning outcome, and have recently been recognized by the Library Journal and Gale Research, Inc., for their accomplishments. The hallmark of their success came through the reorganization of the library's administrative structure while continuing and expanding the library's community service. Through high-speed communications lines, computer training, and expanded programming, the Ann Arbor District Library has served its patrons well by using new technology to give the community greater access to the world. Although worthy of praise for its past accomplishments, the librarians and staff are committed to continuing this record of improvement. Expansion of staff development programs and a maintained commitment to improving service, the Ann Arbor District Library is one of Michigan's finest examples of the success which can be achieved when local residents band together in pursuit of a common goal. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I would like to give a special thanks for their efforts.

Mr ABRAHAM

Mr ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of Joe K. Kozo's 50-year professional career with the Boys and Girls Clubs of Southeastern Michigan. Mr. Kozo's increasingly important achievements include the last 25 years as executive director. Currently, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Southeastern Michigan serve more than 10,000 children in 8 area centers, with activities designed to help them mature into productive, responsible adults. During Mr. Kozo's tenure an estimated 200,000 children have benefited from his leadership, determination, and commitment. Joe Kozo has been a very active member and leader since first joining his local Boys and Girls Club. Mr. Kozo had always promoted the goals of the Boys and Girls Club of Southeastern Michigan: to build children's self-esteem, confidence, and respect for others, as well as develop healthy attitudes about life and morality. Joe Kozo remains dedicated to the goals of the Boys and Girls Club of Southeastern Michigan, and proved his leadership capabilities in 55 years of unblemished tenure as chief operating officer. I congratulate Mr. Kozo on his fine work, and fully support his continued efforts to provide the youth of southeastern Michigan with a fun, safe, and nurturing environment.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senator Mack and Senator Nickles in cosponsoring Senate Concurrent Resolution 57. This resolution concerns the imminent state visit of President Jiang Zemin of the People's Republic of China and his summit meeting with President Clinton. It expresses the sense of the Senate that that meeting should address critical human rights and national security issues. Mr. President, I have come to the floor several times in recent days to express my belief that it would be inappropriate and counterproductive for our President to welcome the Chinese Communist leader at a state visit without insisting on significant progress on the part of the Chinese Government in areas of great concern to our country. The ceremonial niceties and diplomatic prestige of a state visit in my opinion may, particularly if unaccompanied by substantive action, give the unfortunate impression that the United States approves of the numerous human rights abuses and instances of weapons proliferation undertaken by the current Chinese Government. I joined with Senator Feingold and Senator Helms in sponsoring a resolution calling on the administration to make this a working rather than a state visit so that the administration might work on the many issues of concern to both our countries without providing undue legitimacy to current Chinese practice. Let there be no mistake, Mr. President. China is an important player on the world scene. We cannot and should not attempt to avoid dealings with this nation of a billion people. That is why I supported maintaining most favored nation trading status with China. In my view it is critical that we remain engaged with the people of China through greater trade, private investment and openness. But I also am convinced that this administration must do more to add substance to our relationship with the Chinese Government. Twenty-one gun salutes and red carpets, both used to welcome President Jiang on his landing in Hawaii, are inappropriate, given our serious disagreements on critical issues affecting American national security, human rights, and international peace and stability. Amidst the champagne toasts of a state visit, we cannot ignore Chinese sales of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear technology to countries like Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. We cannot ignore Chinese Government restrictions on the ability of Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and others to practice their religions outside of state-controlled organizations and the common practice of detaining worshipers and clergy who practice their religion through their own organizations. We cannot ignore the People's Republic of China's massive, routine, and systematic human rights abuses in Tibet, including arbitrary arrest, torture and even death for those who seek to peacefully practice their religion and/or work for expanded political and human rights. We cannot ignore the Chinese Government's routine, systematic, and massive program of coercive family planning practices, including forced abortion, forced sterilization and even infanticide. We must forcefully raise these issues with President Jiang. We must insist that they be addressed, and that progress be made toward greater respect for human rights and the requirements of international peace and stability. Toward that end, Mr. President, I believe it is crucial that this be made a substantive, rather than merely a ceremonial visit. That is why I am happy to join Senator Mack and Senator Nickles in introducing this Sense-of-the-Senate Resolution, outlining a concrete agenda for the Jiang-Clinton summit. Specifically, this resolution declares that it is the policy of the United States to uphold the Taiwan Relations Act, and insist that President Clinton fully implement that important agreement. This act provides the framework for strong economic and security relations between the United States and the democratic Government of Taiwan. Full implementation will protect an important ally and show our commitment to freedom in the Asian-Pacific region. Further, this resolution declares our policy to encourage freedom and democracy in the People's Republic of China and to deter the Government of that country from engaging in activities contrary to the national security interests of the United States, and the peace and security of the Asian Pacific region. The resolution encourages the Chinese Government to take concrete steps to assure freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association in compliance with international standards of human rights. It also declares that United States policy should encourage the Government of the People's Republic of China to channel its emerging power and prestige along paths conducive to peace, stability and development in the Asian Pacific region. Mr. President, this resolution is intended to move President Clinton to communicate this country's resolve to defend freedom, democracy, and international stability, as well as our commitment to encouraging the People's Republic of China to integrate itself peacefully into the community of nations. It also calls on President Clinton to make a number of specific demands, including: First, that the Chinese Government dismantle tariff and nontariff barriers to American exports to China and stop its export to the United States of products made with prison labor; Second, that the Chinese Government cease persecuting Chinese Christians, as well as members of other religious faiths, and release all persons incarcerated for their religious or other human rights related activities, in particular Wei Jeng Sheng and Wang Dan. Third, that it end its coercive population control practices, including its practice of forced abortion, forced sterilization, and infanticide; Fourth, that the Chinese Government stop its activities leading to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and advanced ballistic missile technology, and Fifth, that the Chinese Government stop its evasion of United States export control and other laws. Mr. President, by making these demands on the Chinese regime, the President would put in place the structure needed for a coherent China policy; a policy aimed at protecting our national interests and improving human rights conditions in China. I firmly believe that it is America's duty as well as our interest to make the extra effort necessary to improve overall human rights conditions in China and to integrate her into the community of nations. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and I call on the President to demand that the Chinese Government bring itself into compliance with international standards of human rights and put itself on the side of international peace and stability.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay homage to a man of great character, commitment, and integrity. Lee H. Clark has dedicated his life to public service. Beginning at the tender age of eighteen, Lee entered the United States Navy in 1943 where he served honorably for three years. After his commitment to the Navy, Lee entered college where he threw himself into academics, gaining a Master's degree in business from the University of Michigan. Following his education, Lee returned home and started his own business. Soon after, with his company flourishing, Lee's interest in the political process was sparked after serving as a precinct delegate in 1956. Lee entered into the political realm with the same determination and vigor that he displayed throughout his entire life and four years later ran for Congress. Although his bid for office was unsuccessful, Lee's desire for public service was unabated and he began a long, meritorious career in service to the State of Michigan. Michigan has been greatly affected by Lee's energetic guidance and leadership. In the intervening years between 1956 and the present, Lee has been a driving force for the Republican Party. From community elections to those elections national in scope, Lee always offered great wisdom and foresight. Throughout his life, Lee has shown tremendous concern for his fellow citizens and was always a willing volunteer for any task. I am proud to have had the chance to work beside him. Mr. President, I am extremely honored to have this opportunity to thank him for his many years of service and friendship. He is a very dear friend and my thoughts and prayers go out to him, his wife Nancy, and the rest of his family.