Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Unfortunately, the INS appears to maintain, regardless of the intention, that the law clearly calls for a record of every entry and departure by noncitizens entering or departing the United States. I will be sending a letter to INS Commissioner Doris Meissner to ask how the agency interprets section 110, how the agency plans to implement the law, and how we might work together to remedy what I see as an enormous problem on the horizon. Bumper-to-bumper traffic is not an unusual occurrence in many parts of the country, whether its a morning or afternoon commute or a trip to a football game. This also occurs every day at already busy border crossing points. But imagine if you will, the traffic nightmare of back-up for miles and miles that would result from implementing this new provision at all U.S. border crossings. Under the section 110 statute, every Canadian citizen and American permanent resident must present a visa or proper immigration form to border inspectors. In 1996 alone, over 116 million people entered the United States by land from Canada. Similarly, over 52 million Canadian residents and United States permanent residents entered Canada last year. The new provision would require a stop on the U.S. side to record the exit of each person in every car. That's more than 140,000 every day; 6,000 every hour; 100 every minute. And that is just when you exit the United States. Those person entering the United States from Canada will also confront a similar circumstance. These delays will affect American citizens alike. Now imagine the economic impact of such a policy. 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. Together, trade and tourism between the two nations is worth a billion dollars a day for the United States, and Canada is the United States' largest trading partner. The State of Michigan is an important beneficiary of this longstanding close relationship. The Ambassador Bridge in Detroit is the largest land border crossing point in North America. The United States automobile industry conducts $300 million worth of trade with Canada every day. Michigan, and Detroit in particular, would be severely impacted by excessive delays that would surely arise if truckers were forced to show a visa or fill out immigration forms at each port of entry. 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 is another industry that would surely be affected by the implementation of section 110. Suddenly, people in Windsor, Canada, who thought they'd head to Detroit for a Tiger's baseball game or Red Wing's hockey game think again and stay home--with their money. In fact, this provision would force all Canadian residents who visit their family and friends in America to obtain a visa or obtain other immigration forms. It is for these reasons that we have twice rebuffed previous attempts in the Senate to impose a tax on border crossings. Mr. President, our borders are already crowded. In 1993, nearly 9 million people traveled over the Ambassador Bridge I referred to earlier, 6.4 million traveled through the Detroit-Windsor tunnel, and approximately 6.1 million crossed the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron. Think what it would mean to load them down with paperwork and fee payments. Optimistically, the new 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, and we must act to prevent it from happening. As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, I intend to hold hearings in both Michigan and Washington to learn more of the impact of section 110. I am certain these proceedings will be useful in determining how to clarify the act and make the case to my colleagues that we must remedy this situation. The illegal immigration law passed last year focused on those persons who enter our Nation illegally, not those who come here legally to make a better life for themselves and their families--let alone those who visit family here on a regular basis or help carry out our crucial, ongoing trade with Canada. I should also note that Canadians have not historically presented significant illegal immigration problems and that I appreciate very much the unique and close relationship Americans and Canadians share. Section 110 will not go into effect until September 1998. In the meantime, it is my hope that Congress will take the time to closely consider the problems I have outlined and conform the act to reflect current policy and our special relationship with Canada. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence after quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Canadian Ambassador to Congressman Smith to which his letter responds be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I want to bring to the Senate's attention an issue of great concern, not only to my home State of Michigan, but also to many other Northeastern States that border Canada. Section 110, a rather small provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, has generated waves of controversy here in the United States and in Canada because of its unintended negative impact on trade and travel between the two countries. Section 110 requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop an automated entry and exit system to document the entry and departure of every alien arriving in and leaving the United States. The term ``every alien'' certainly would be interpreted to include both Canadians and American permanent residents who cross our land borders with Canada. This interpretation conflicts with the decades-old practice of not requiring Canadians to present a passport, visa, or border crossing identification card at the border. As previously described, this interpretation was not intended by the law's authors. My former colleague, Alan Simpson, who preceded me as chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, and Representative Lamar Smith, who is the current 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I rise today to speak in support of the amendment offered by the Senators from Florida. This may be a somewhat unusual occurrence in the Senate, because it is often the case that individuals who chair authorizing committees, in this case the Immigration Subcommittee which I chair, frequently are at odds with Members who seek to use appropriations bills as vehicles for substantive legislation. So I wanted to come down today to speak on behalf of this amendment and to explain it a little bit, both why I am not here in opposition on the basis of the process we are using, and also why I support doing something at this time along the lines outlined in the amendment. First, Mr. President, let me just indicate that a number of us have been working for some months to try to resolve the issues that are addressed by this amendment. We are working with our House counterparts. We will continue to work, even as we move forward in the Senate today, to try to find an ultimate solution. At the same time, though, time is of the essence. There is a sense of urgency, I think a growing sense of urgency, among a number of Members, as expressed by both the Senators from Florida, as well as in my case and probably other Members as well, because the impact of the 1996 immigration legislation is slowly but surely coming into effect. The people who may or may not be affected by that legislation, depending on the various decisions to be made by the Department of Justice and the courts, are living on a day-to-day basis under the threat of the prospect of deportation. It seems it is in everyone's interest, but it is also in the interest of fairness for these individuals, for us to try to take legislative action to resolve and address these matters once and for all. Both Senators have already talked at some length about the chronology of circumstances that brings us here today. I won't go into all the detail, nor do I have the sort of personal, firsthand experience of having served in the Senate or the Congress at the time many of these issues were previously debated. I am a late arrival to the debate, and I am more an observer of the circumstances that took place in Central America than a participant. Those were significant times, Mr. President. The civil wars of the 1980's in El Salvador, in Guatemala, and Nicaragua were integrally related to the national security policy of our country, as well as our views with regard to America's role in our hemisphere. Throughout the 1980's and into the early 1990's, El Salvador lived through a brutal civil war which left tens of thousands of people killed, over a quarter of the population driven from their homes and the economy in shambles. Hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans made their way to the United States seeking asylum out of fear of being killed by the military, the leftist guerrillas or the extreme right death squads. In fact, from fiscal year 1981 to fiscal year 1991, approximately 126,000 Salvadorans applied for asylum. That was a quarter of all our asylum applications in that timeframe. Meanwhile, similar events took place in Guatemala. Approximately 42,000 Guatemalans applied for asylum in the United States. Meanwhile, the civil war in Nicaragua in the 1980's also prompted actions of a similar nature. As you know, Mr. President, during the 1980s, there was a war between the Communist-influenced Sandinistas, who controlled the government at the time, and groups seeking to overthrow that government. These groups ultimately were supported by the U.S. Government and became known as the Contras. The war drained the Nicaraguan economy, which was battered as well by a United States embargo on trade and a series of natural disasters. Approximately 126,000 Nicaraguans applied for asylum in the United States from 1981 to 1991. What happened when these various people came to our country was somewhat different than what happened to others who have come here. First of all, many of these people were, in one form or another, either asylees or invitees. Indeed, the actions with regard to the Nicaraguans in particular suggests that the American Government was actively promoting the notion that those Nicaraguans, fearful of the outcome of these uprisings, come to America. The extended voluntary departure program, which was granted by our Attorney General, was a form of temporary protection from deportation granted under the discretionary authority of the Attorney General. When that program, which began in 1979, expired, it was extended further through a variety of other congressional actions and administrative actions. In 1987, the Reagan administration established the Nicaraguan Review Program. The NRP provided an extra level of review to Nicaraguans denied asylum. The Attorney General, taking into account a new Supreme Court decision bearing on standard of proof for an asylum applicant to show fear of persecution, encouraged Nicaraguans to reapply for asylum under the new standard and instructed the INS to conduct outreach in Nicaraguan communities and to issue work permits to Nicaraguan applicants as soon as they applied for asylum under the new standard. When that program ended in 1995, the INS published a notice announcing the termination of the program. Instead of facing deportation, however, under a phaseout program, Nicaraguans were encouraged to reopen their deportation cases and apply for suspension of deportation, for which they were told they may be eligible if they had been in the United States continuously for 7 or more years. The point of my statement with respect to Nicaraguans, and a similar set of circumstances as pertains to the Salvadorans and Guatemalans, is that during this period, Mr. President, in the 1980's, this country actively encouraged people fearing persecution, fearing death squads, fearing disruptions of their communities to come to America. Then we took extraordinary measures to make it feasible for them to stay here, even those who had been denied asylum through the official asylum-seeking procedures. All of this transpired, Mr. President, prior to the passage of the 1996 immigration bill. At that point, things changed. Here I think it is very important to understand some of the legal circumstances that changed. Prior to the passage of the 1996 bill, if someone had been in this country for a period of 7 years or more, they were permitted to seek suspension and adjustment of their status from being in illegal status here or being here under one of the special programs for the Central Americans. Extensions were given to the Central American communities I have mentioned to allow them to stay here long enough to apply for these programs. Detrimental reliance on their part occurred under the belief that if they continued to follow these programs, they would be given their day in court and given a fair adjudication of their status, and that is what transpired. At every step of the way, either through an act of Congress or through an act of the executive branch, these individuals were given, I think, a very clear signal that they would be able remain if they played by the rules that were then existent: That if they stayed for 7 years and proved themselves to be of good moral character, they would be given an opportunity to have a full adjudication of whether or not any process to deport them would be suspended and whether or not they would be given a green card and a chance to stay permanently. However, the 1996 bill changed the rules under which this would be permitted. In my judgment, Mr. President, it was not the intent of Congress to have this 1996 legislation retroactively apply to the people in these circumstances. I believe that Congress tried to avoid changing the standard retroactively. We specifically provided that, generally speaking, the old rules are supposed to be applied to people in deportation proceedings before April 1, 1997, the effective date of the act. The problem is the INS has interpreted the act as saying that many of the Central Americans were not in deportation proceedings before that time and, hence, it has to apply the tougher new standards to them. Now, the basis on which this determination was made by the INS, I believe, Mr. President, is extremely subject to question. I think it is an extremely difficult case to make that the group that the INS has argued were not in proceedings as of April 1, 1996, truly were not in proceedings. I believe they acted exactly as they had been told they should act, to qualify for the adjudications I have mentioned. But for whatever reason, the INS has concluded that, as to them, we will retroactively change the rules. Let me talk about what those rule changes would be. First, as opposed to being required to be in the country for 7 years, the requirement was changed to 10 years, meaning an additional 3 years before one could even seek to have their status cleared. In addition, the standard to be used in such adjudications was made much more difficult. In other words, the standard that people had been promised they would be judged by for all the years they were here was altered and made a much tougher standard retroactively after they had stayed longer, after they had detrimentally relied on the assurances they had been granted with regard to whether or not they would be given a hearing, and after they had been told what they had every reason to expect was the basis on which the relief would be granted. Furthermore, based on a judicial decision made within the immigration courts, the clock was stopped with respect to the accrual of time toward the 10-year standard, or, for that matter, the old 7-year standard, because it was determined as soon as the individuals had received so-called orders to show cause, the clock would stop. Mr. President, these are obviously fairly complicated legal terms, and I will try to simplify them here for purposes of this discussion. The rules were changed in the middle of the game to the detrimental reliance of literally thousands of individuals who had been waiting and playing by the rules and, in most cases, had actually made themselves available for this process by coming forward in response to requirements that had been in the earlier legislation that had set the process in motion. Now they had a choice when the earlier legislation was passed. They could have disappeared into the country, never subjected themselves to the process, and been totally immune from any deportation unless they were somehow discovered. Alternatively, they could make themselves available, accept orders to show cause, subject themselves to the process under a standard they believed would remain in place until they had their trials, and then either be able to stay or be required to leave based on a fair adjudication. For the people who played by the rules, the second group, the rules are now being changed. They will be disadvantaged as opposed to the people who did not play by the rules. To me, Mr. President, that would be a complete and catastrophic mistake for us to make. It has to be addressed in the interests of fairness. Now, there is another thing that has changed that I will also mention in the bill that was passed in 1996, a limit, a cap of 4,000 suspensions and adjustments per year was placed and put in force. I believe it was put in force at that level because it was the view of the drafters of the legislation that 4,000 would be adequate to meet the amount of such suspensions and adjustments of status that would be granted by the reviewing boards, the immigration courts. I believe that 4,000 figure was recommended by the Immigration Service because it was never contemplated that it would be applied to those who are in this category of Central Americans we are trying to address today because this category is a much larger group. They will consume more than 4,000 adjustments per year, because at least that many and probably as many as 7,000 or 8,000 more per year will meet the standard and be permitted to stay. The cap now in place has the perverse effect of literally putting people in a position where if they somehow meet the 7- or 10-year standard, if they somehow meet the adjudicatory standard of whether or not they will be permitted to stay if the 4,000 cap is reached, they will still be deported. Now, I can't imagine that that was the intent of the drafters, and I can't imagine, frankly, Mr. President, it would be sustained in the Federal court system. I believe it is one of a variety of problems that now exists and which will be effectively addressed by Senator Mack's proposal. To summarize what these problems are, there are the constitutional issues that I think will arise. The due process question is whether the standards could be changed in the middle of the game and applied retroactively. We have the problem of this cap, which potentially creates the absurd circumstance I just described where people who have been adjudged to be able to stay in the country are still deported because the 4,000 limit has been reached. We have the anomaly I have described where those people who were trying to play by the rules, who subjected themselves to the process in response to legislation we passed, would suddenly find themselves in a disadvantaged position as opposed to those who never played by the rules in the first place. And what we have, in effect, is a circumstance that I describe as bait and switch. We encouraged people to come forward, to make themselves available for the adjudicatory process, and once they do, based on this interpretation of the 1996 bill, we have now changed the standard by which they will be subjected and changed whether or not even if they successfully meet a standard, they will be allowed to stay. For all those reasons, I think we really have to do something in the short run, not wait any longer. I think the bill offered by Senator Mack makes sense, and it is consistent with the long history of America's response to the Central American community and to the struggles of the 1980's. For that reason, as I said at the outset, although it is a little bit unusual for an authorizing committee chairman to come down to the floor to support the inclusion of legislation within their sphere on appropriations, I support this legislation and look forward to working with other Members--if we are going to pass this--work both with the Senators as well as with our House colleagues to try to ultimately reach a solution that is satisfactory to everyone affected.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to draw the attention of my colleagues to an article I recently read on the subject of religious freedom. The author, Mr. Philip Peters, a senior fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, offers a keen assessment of the tragedy that currently faces Christians who are being persecuted in their homelands. In his article, ``Persecution and Redemption,'' Mr. Peters makes specific reference to the treatment of Christians and other victims of religious persecution living in the former Soviet Union. It is unfortunate but true that tens of thousands of people in the former Soviet Union cannot practice their religion without encountering hostility from their government. As the author points out, ``About one fourth of Russia's regional governments have laws restricting religious activity.'' I agree with Mr. Peters' assessment that refugees from the former Soviet Union ``deserve the support of anyone concerned about Christians and other victims of religious persecution around the world.'' I have joined with Senators Kennedy, Hatch, and Leahy in urging President Clinton to restore the refugee ceiling on refugees from the former Soviet Union in fiscal year 1998 to its level in fiscal year 1997. Mr. President, I ask that Mr. Peters' article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Times, Sept. 25, 1997] Persecution and Redemption (By Philip Peters) This year, Washington has caught on to a fact that human rights activists have known for some time: Persecution of Christians is on the rise around the world. This issue was at the center of the debate on China's trade status, and the State Department issued a special report on it in July. Now, the question is whether anything will be done about it. New legislation introduced by Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Frank Wolf, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, is so laden with new economic sanctions and foreign policy prescriptions that it has drawn the opposition of the Clinton administration, business, and pro-trade groups, and is destined for prolonged debate. While that debate goes on, four other senators have proposed a far more immediate and concrete way for the U.S. to help. On Sept. 10, Sens. Spencer Abraham, Edward Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, and Patrick Leahy called on the administration to abandon its current plan to cut next year's admissions of refugees from the former Soviet Union. They deserve the support of anyone concerned about Christians and other victims of religious persecution around the world. The State Department wants to cut admissions from the former Soviet Union to 21,000, even though 27,000 were admitted this year. The senators propose instead 30,000 admissions from the former Soviet Union, with no reductions in planned admissions from other regions. This proposal is modest. The Clinton administration has driven refugee admissions down 40 percent, and if the senators' proposal is accepted, total 1998 admissions would be 87,000, far lower than the 100,000-plus refugees admitted annually from 1989 to 1995. The senators' letter has ignited a debate among administration aides, who must soon decide on the number of refugees to admit in 1998. They need look no further than the administration's own reports on religious persecution in the former Soviet Union. These reports document that: Legislation passed last week by the lower house of Russia's parliament would require the registration of new religious groups, and would require these groups to wait up to 15 years to obtain full legal status. During this period, these groups would be barred from importing or distributing religious materials, and it would be difficult for them to own property or have bank accounts. This bill does not apply to Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism or Buddhism; instead, it would affect faiths newer to Russia, especially evangelical Christians. President Yeltsin vetoed the bill once but now seems prepared to sign it. About one fourth of Russia's regional governments have laws restricting religious activity. Russian authorities have made Christian missionary work difficult or impossible in some regions, and they have made recovery of property difficult for non-Orthodox faiths, including the Catholic church. As a result, Pentecostals and other evangelical Christians now account for about half the refugees from the former Soviet Union. The State Department argues against any increase in refugee admissions. In spite of conditions in the former Soviet Union, it claims that interest in the U.S. refugee program is declining, even though 6,000 more were admitted this year than it proposes to admit next year. But even if less than 30,000 admissions slots for the former Soviet Union are needed in 1998, the increase in overall admissions would give the administration greater flexibility to address other crises. This year, the administration exceeded its planned admissions from the former Yugoslavia by 25 percent. If the implementation of the Dayton accords continues to prove difficult, the need to resettle refugees from this region will grow. And, following the historical pattern in other refugee crises, American action to resettle refugees from the former Yugoslavia will cause European and other countries to accent greater numbers of these refugees for resettlement. Last year, the House and Senate defeated legislative attempts to slash refugee admissions. The senators' action is one more demonstration of the bipartisan consensus supporting American action to help refugees fleeing oppression. President Clinton should view their proposal as an opportunity to help victims of religious oppression, and to revitalize American humanitarian leadership around the globe.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor those of Right to Life of Livingston County, Inc. and Right to Life of Michigan for their enduring commitment and dedication to one of today's most important social issues. Mr. President, to those of us who are pro-life, being pro-life means protecting our families and respecting the sanctity of life. It also means maintaining the central role of the family in all our lives. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those of Right to Life of Michigan for their perseverance in support of those goals. Unfortunately, we still must spend much of our time in the political sphere, arguing against laws that promote the taking of unborn human lives, and I am grateful for all their efforts in that area as well. Ending the tragedy of abortion will not be easy. But groups like Right to Life of Livingston County, National Right to Life of Michigan, and the National Right to Life Committee, are fighting a winning battle. By their example, as well as their arguments, they are showing the power and the beauty of human life.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Judge Robert and Helene Brang on the occasion of their Golden Wedding Anniversary. A long and successful marriage is truly a cause for celebration, well worthy of recognition by the United States Senate. Their commitment to each other and their family is commendable and a great contribution to the tradition of strong American families. Robert Francis Brang and Helene Marie Foley met at the University of Detroit while both were students. Helene was a reporter for the Varsity News and Bob was the President of the Student Union. They met on the steps of the Commerce and Finance Building when Helene approached him for an interview. They were married at St. Scholastica's Catholic Church in Detroit on October 4, 1947. In 1956, Robert and Helene moved their growing family from their home in Detroit to Redford Township where they reside to this day. Bob practiced law and Helene reared 8 wonderful children. In 1968, Bob was elected a Judge for the 17th District Court and retained that position until his retirement. Mr. President, on October 4, Robert and Helene will have celebrated fifty years together. Their children--Kathleen, Robert, Mary, William, Barry, Stephen, Daniel, and Patrick--along with their twelve grandchildren--Diana, Laura, Rob, Patrick, Amy, Beth, Adam, Kellie, Sarah, Kaitlyn, Dakota, and Austin--will join with them in celebration. Martin Luther once wrote: ``There is no more lovely, friendly and charming relationship, communion or company than a good marriage.'' Robert and Helene are blessed to enjoy such a strong and enduring bond. On behalf of the United States Senate, I wish them a happy anniversary and many more years of joy.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, for 3 years now, the Department of Commerce has been the target of critics in Congress and around the country. With the completion of the Balanced Budget Act and the tight discretionary budgets mandated by that law, I believe it is time once again to raise the question of Commerce's ongoing existence. Is it necessary to have our Nation's weather and mapping services housed in the same department as our trade promotion activities, or would the American people be better served by smaller, tighter agencies with more clearly defined objectives? I suggest that through comprehensive restructuring we can both better serve the American people and help keep the budget within the spending targets that are now law. Why terminate the Department of Commerce? The debate over the past 3 years has provided us with a simple answer: It's the least defensible department in a Government littered with wasteful, unnecessary departments. Its bureaucracy is bloated, its infrastructure is in disrepair, and its resources are strained to encompass numerous activities that have absolutely nothing to do with commerce or trade. Former Commerce Department officials, the General Accounting Office, and the inspector general have repeatedly testified before Congress that the Department of Commerce suffers from mismanagement, duplication, and a general lack of accountability. Confronted with this weight of evidence, I believe that the Commerce Department cannot be reinvented. Instead, the only responsible action is dismantle the Department to better serve the Congress and the American people. Today, I am introducing a bill along with Senators Brownback, Kyl, Faircloth, Gramm, Nickles, Allard, Hutchinson, and Hagel which targets this waste and duplication. It transfers those functions that can be better served elsewhere, consolidates duplicative agencies, and eliminates the remaining unnecessary or wasteful programs. Preliminary estimates indicate the bill will save about $2.5 billion over the next 5 years. How does it achieve these savings? First, it eliminates unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful programs such as the Minority Business Development Agency, the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, the Technology Administration, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Second, it takes NOAA--which comprises the lion's share of the Department's activities--out from under the Department umbrella. Many of the functions under NOAA, including the Nation's weather service, are vital activities that all observers agree should be carried on. As an independent agency, NOAA will have the opportunity to focus on these core functions, free to achieve the savings necessary to fulfill its responsibilities. Third, it rationalizes U.S. trade policy by consolidating the International Trade Administration, the Bureau of Export Administration, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative within the U.S. Trade Administration. Currently, 19 Federal agencies are charged with promoting trade, but only 8 percent of total Federal spending on trade promotion is directed by Commerce. The bill before us takes a dramatic step toward consolidating our existing trade activities, achieving the administrative savings necessary to rationalize our trade promotion efforts and make them more effective. Finally, the bill establishes a new Federal Statistical Service by combining the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis with the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the Department of Labor. It also creates within the service a Federal Council on Statistical Policy to advise the service and Congress on statistical issues. Once again, the goal is to consolidate functions of the Federal Government that have been dispersed across the Federal Government. It's a more rational, efficient means of accomplishing these tasks. Mr. President, some have argued that this effort will handicap American businesses by depriving them of their chief advocate in Washington. That's nonsense. Businessmen and women across this country understand what's necessary to promote economic growth and jobs--and it's not another Government handout. As Jim Barrett, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce stated: ``Of all the priorities that the Congress can set to assist Michigan business, keeping the Commerce Department is not even on the radar screen. * * * A balanced budget with lower interest rates will do much more than the Department of Commerce as it is presently structured ever could.'' A poll conducted by the Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce indicates Mr. Barrett wasn't just speaking for himself. Forty-seven percent of those polled support eliminating the Department of Commerce--while only 6 percent were opposed. That is a ratio of almost 8 to 1 in favor of eliminating the Department of Commerce. The lesson of the Commerce Department is simple. Absent clearly defined responsibilities and goals, the Department has become the resting place for the odds and ends of the Federal Government. In the process, it has provided shelter for numerous programs that do not serve the American people well. This legislation targets those programs, unburdening the taxpayer from being forced to continue their subsidy, while freeing the more worthy programs to better accomplish their jobs. This legislation is an exercise in good government, and I hope my colleagues will support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's report on S. 1173, the Intermodal Transportation Act of 1997. The sponsors of this legislation argue that it will provide an adequate level of federal highway funds, distributed equitably among the states, so as to meet our surface transportation needs over the next six years. I wish I could be as optimistic, but I have concerns that this bill will simply perpetuate the intolerable situation under which donor states, like Michigan, have been forced to suffer. There are two basic fundamental flaws with our current surface transportation funding process that must be addressed in order to provide every state the ability to meet its highway needs. First, the vast disconnect between how much an individual state contributes to the Highway Trust Fund and how much it receives in Federal highway aid must be bridged. Second, the vast disconnect between how much the Federal government takes into the Highway Trust Fund from gas taxes, and the total amount it distributes to the states in Federal highway aid must also be bridged. Until these two problems are properly addressed, donor states such as Michigan shall be forced to suffer under a inequitable system that is neither justified nor effective. The bill to be reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, S. 1173, the Intermodal Transportation Act attempts to rectify the problem of this unequal distribution among the states by allegedly guaranteeing each state a 90-percent return on the gas taxes it contributes to the Highway Trust Fund. Unfortunately, this will not be the case. In FY 98, Michigan is expected to contribute over $795 million in gas taxes to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Nonetheless, according to data provided by the sponsors of S. 1173, this new distribution formula will provide only $686 million in federal highway aid to Michigan, an 86-percent rate of return. And it only gets worse, for by FY 2003, when Michigan is projected to contribute $1.07 billion in gas taxes, it will receive only $726 million in federal highway aid, down to a 68-percent rate of return. Even these funding levels are just $5.7 billion per year more than the average ISTEA levels for Michigan. This formula, Mr. President, is far away from what I would call a fair means of distributing this country's limited highway dollars. I will stand firmly against any measure that perpetuates this inequality. As for the issue of overall funding levels, S. 1173 does not address the Federal government's unfair practice of collecting gas taxes from American motorists, while refusing to expend them. We know this process to be a sleight of hand scheme by which the Federal government shirks the full burden of responsibility for the true size of the budget deficit. Years ago, American motorists were told that a gas tax would be collected as a ``user fee'' to provide a ``pay-as-you-go'' funding source for the Interstate Freeway System. They should expect the taxes they pay at the pump to be necessary to maintain the roads upon which they drive, and to be spent on those roads. In my opinion, when those taxes are not used for transportation purposes, the American motorist can rightfully conclude either those taxes are not necessary, or more likely, are being unjustly withheld from their proper use. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 took an important step towards correcting this unjustified withholding by transferring gas tax revenues which previously were being directed to the general revenue back to the Highway Trust Fund. These 4.3 cents of gas tax represent almost $5 billion in additional revenue for the Trust Fund, an account that will grow to over $30 billion in annual revenue by 2003. Yet the Intermodal Transportation Act only authorizes funding levels of approximately $24 billion per year, continuing to withhold nearly $6 billion per year in highway gas taxes to mask the deficit's true size, while allowing the continuation of wasteful government programs. Even under the unfair distribution formulas found in ISTEA, these $6 billion additional dollars would represent over $150 million in extra federal aid per year for Michigan, an increase of about 25 percent. Mr. President, it is clear what we must now do. Any successor legislation to ISTEA must guarantee each and every state at least 95 cents in federal highway aid for every dollar it sends to Washington in gas taxes. The entire justification for this historically unfair distribution, a distribution scheme that forces states like Michigan to suffer as donor states, is rendered moot with the completion of the Interstate System, a declaration made six years ago in the very opening paragraph of ISTEA, to recognize America entering an era in which new construction transportation projects are started to fulfill regional, not national, demands. Furthermore, Mr. President, we must stop withholding highway funds from the states. The successor legislation to ISTEA must guarantee that all the states are provided the opportunity to use all the revenues raised by gas taxes. Therefore, we must ensure that legislation is in place that will force the Federal government to spend on our highways an amount at least equal to that amount raised in gas taxes. Absent that, we must provide an opportunity for the States to raise their own gas tax revenues by repealing that portion of the gas tax not needed to fund the federal aid highway program, thereby allowing the states to raise, and keep for their roads, the gas tax revenues that would otherwise be siphoned off to unscrupulously mask the true size of the federal deficit and unjustifiably continue unnecessary federal spending. Many of my colleagues are raising very similar concerns, Mr. President, and the next few weeks will likely see an intense debate on this issue. For my constituents in Michigan, no issue is more important than the federal road funding process, and I commit to them all my resources and efforts to rectify this inequitable situation. I will be joining many of my colleagues in proposing alternative methods of distributing our federal road funds so as to not only make it fairer for individual states, but also to ensure that the entire National Highway System, and our States' road system, are adequately maintained. And when Members of this Senate are able to score quick increases in their State's share of the federal dollar by threatening a filibuster, it makes the rest of us wonder what might be the most effective way for us to improve our States' situation. I plan to offer a series of amendments to address the fundamental issues I have discussed today, as well as proposals that will streamline. Only time will tell, Mr. President, but I trust we will be able to work together and derive an equitable and mutually beneficial funding solution.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to note a recent injustice done to one of America's most valuable associations, the Boy Scouts, by one of our most valued institutions, the Smithsonian. I also rise to express my appreciation to Smithsonian Secretary I. Michael Heyman for his assurance that such an injustice will not occur again in the future. Mr. President, in January of this year the Smithsonian Institution denied an application from the Boy Scouts of America to use the National Zoo's auditorium for a Court of Honor ceremony for District of Columbia area Scouts. Why would the Smithsonian deny such an application from a group known for its commitment to environmental conservation? According to Robert J. Hoage, Chief of the Smithsonian's Office of Public Affairs, the Smithsonian's policy prohibits co-sponsoring events with any organization that exercises bias on the basis of religious beliefs. Asked about this decision, the Smithsonian's communications director, David Umansky, explained: ``Our lawyers have documented cases of the Boy Scouts denying membership to atheists, and that violates our non- discrimination code.'' The Smithsonian also claimed that the honor court event was not sufficiently relevant to the National Zoo's mission. But that claim stretches credulity because of the Boy Scouts' myriad programs devoted to environmental education and conservation. Indeed, the Scouts' highest honor, awarded to only about 1,000 Scouts since 1914, recognizes exceptional work for environmental conservation. In a letter to my colleagues dated September 12, I expressed my dismay that the Boy Scouts, an organization that has helped literally millions of American boys reach responsible manhood, should be denied access to a federally supported institution because it exercises its constitutional right to free exercise of religion. I also expressed concern that the Smithsonian Institution should enforce a policy diametrically opposed to the principles on which our nation was founded. The Smithsonian, our premier teaching museum, is entrusted with, among other treasures, the Star Spangled Banner, the flag that Francis Scott Key saw flying when he penned our national anthem. I recently sponsored legislation appropriating $8 million to the Smithsonian for restoration of that flag. I was frankly disturbed to see that the institution to which it has been entrusted was acting in this manner. However, Mr. President, I am now relieved to report that Secretary Heyman, in a September 15 letter to my distinguished colleague, Senator Frist, who serves as a regent to that Institution, has apologized for this action. Further, Secretary Heyman's letter expressed his conviction that ``our special events policy clearly allows the sponsorship of events by all groups, including religious groups, that are consistent with the mission and tradition of the Smithsonian.'' Recent events at the Smithsonian, including the proposed Enola Gay exhibit, with its misleading and inaccurate treatment of the Second World War, and a number of new exhibits distorting history to cast America and American values in a bad light, have caused me to worry about the future of this distinguished and crucially important institution. I thank Secretary Heyman for his courageous statement of fundamental policy and hope that it heralds a new, more positive era at the Smithsonian. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my September 12 letter to my colleagues and the September 15 letter from Secretary Heyman to Senator Frist be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, the Forest Service has expressed its desire to purchase these acres. I understand that this acquisition is on the Forest Service's priority list.

Mr. ABRAHAM. The senior Senator from Michigan is correct. These funds have been budgeted but have not yet been earmarked for specific purchases.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the acquisition of 7600 acres of private land located in Michigan's Huron and Manistee National Forests by the U.S. Forest Service. As the result of a settlement between the State of Michigan and one of Michigan's power companies, 11,000 acres of the utility's land are being--or have been--transferred to the Great Lakes Fisheries Trust. The trust is a coalition of the State's environmental agencies and several conservation groups which was established as part of the settlement and is authorized to sell these lands in order to capitalize a trust fund that will support projects to restore the Great Lakes fishery. Approximately 7,600 of the settlement acres lie within or along the boundaries of the Huron-Manistee National Forest, and a significant portion are located along the popular Au Sable and Manistee Rivers. Both these rivers boast some of the State's best fishing. The acquisition of these parcels by the Forest Service would ensure the protection of the water and forests and species located within them.

Mr. ABRAHAM. My colleague is again correct. the Great Lakes Fisheries Trust and the Forest Service have a great opportunity to protect some of Michigan's pristine natural resources. Unfortunately, if we do not act soon, this opportunity will quickly slip away.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Washington.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman for his consideration and hard work in support of this Nation's parks, national forests, and wildlife refuges.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the sixth anniversary of the Republic of Armenia. Through the devastating genocide committed by the Ottoman Turks to the search for independence, the people of Armenia have been steadfast in purpose and spirit. Today, we celebrate the event which happened on September 23, 1991, when Armenia declared its independence from the U.S.S.R. With its new-found independence, the Republic created radical free-market economic reforms, held the first free Presidential election, and is the only former Soviet Republic that is governed by a democratically elected leader with no ties to the Communist Party. Despite the hardships that the people of Armenia have endured, they continue to hold strong to the belief that independence and security are essential for the country to prosper. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said ``the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving.'' Although the Republic of Armenia continues to face an ongoing blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan, I am convinced it is not where Armenia stands now but rather the perseverance which exists, that will lead Armenia into the future. Let it be known, that I encourage the citizens and Government of the Republic to remain faithful to the ideals of democracy and to continue to strengthen the relationship between Armenia and the United States.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the members of the Westland Chamber of Commerce on the occasion of their 35th anniversary. Since 1962, this organization has done a commendable job in reaching out to the community by supporting such programs as D.A.R.E., the Annual Jobs and Career Fair, and scholarships to local college-bound students. Through these and countless other programs, the Westland Chamber of Commerce has assisted local entrepreneurs as they begin and expand their businesses, and in so doing, has made a significant and substantive impact on the quality of life for residents in the Westland Community. Mr. President, Westland is the 10th largest city in Michigan and was recently rated third in the top five shopping areas by the Michigan Retailers Association. Much of this success has been thanks, in part, to the chamber's work in promoting local businesses. The community of Westland is grateful for the tremendous support the chamber has given, and on behalf of the U.S. Senate, thanks is due to the chamber for making Michigan a better place.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of the Nation's most vibrant communities: Hispanic-Americans, and join in celebrating September 15 through October 15, 1997, as Hispanic Heritage Month. America is blessed with a wide variety of peoples and cultures. The Hispanic community, comprising cultures from Central and South America as well as Europe, has had an especially far-reaching impact on our Nation. From the arts and literature, to the sciences and business, the Hispanic community has helped shape America into a vibrant, dynamic society envied by the world. It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge Hispanic Americans and their immigrant ancestors for their many significant and positive contributions to America. This country was built by immigrants--a great many of whom were of Hispanic descent. Hispanic individuals came to this country to seek opportunity, flee oppression, or find a better place to raise their families. Many of these immigrants became successful in many disciplines, including business, education, entertainment, politics, and medicine. We know them, or their children or grandchildren, as pillars of our communities. And many immigrants went beyond the call of duty to serve their adopted homeland. One such immigrant was Alfred Rascone, who immigrated to the United States from Mexico. At age 20, as a lawful permanent American resident, Mr. Rascone volunteered for military service in Vietnam as a paratrooper combat medic. On one fateful mission Mr. Rascone twice used his own body to shield wounded comrades from enemy guns. Severely wounded, he refused to be evacuated until all the wounded were safe. He kept tending the wounded until he collapsed, so hurt that a priest at the scene gave him last rites. Mr. Rascone's comrades are to this day pursuing his proper recognition: the Congressional Medal of Honor. Our Nation is much richer for having Alfred Rascone in it. He has the kind of character any American would do well to emulate. We can only gain by attracting more Alfred Rascones to our shores. Across the Nation and in my home State of Michigan, events are taking place which demonstrate the rich Hispanic heritage in our country. These festivities will give every American the chance to participate in Hispanic culture. These events will educate, inform, and entertain, all with a distinctive cultural flair. Hispanic Heritage Month recognizes how important this community is to the United States, and I join my colleagues in looking forward to the many opportunities this month will provide.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I believe that all of us who have been inspired by Mother Teresa's life have asked ourselves what we might do to honor her memory. For me, at least, moving this legislation forward is something I would like to do to remember her great and noble works in the name of God and on behalf of humanity. I urge my colleagues to support the crucial faith-based institutions that have so enriched all our lives by supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Missionaries of Charity, Calcutta, India, July 20, 1997. Hon. Spencer Abraham, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Abraham: This brings you my prayers, greetings and gratitude for all that you have done to help my Sisters and all Religious serve the poor in the United States. I am writing to ask you to help us in solving a very urgent problem. My Sisters in New York have told me that the law which allows the Sisters to apply for permanent residence in the United States expires on September 30, 1997. Please, will you do all that you can to have that law extended so that all Religious will continue to have the opportunity to be permanent residents and serve the people of your great country. It means so much to our poor people to have Sisters who understand them and their culture. It takes a long time for a Sister to understand the people and a culture, so now our Society wants to keep our Sisters in their mission countries on a more long term basis. Please help us and our poor by extending this law. I am praying for you and the people of Michigan. My Sisters serve the poor in Detroit where we have a soup kitchen and night shelter for women. Let us all thank God for this chance to serve His poor. God bless you. M. Teresa, MC.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide permanent authority for 5,000 visas per year for religious groups to use to sponsor for permanent residency people who come to this country to do God's work. Mr. President, the Immigration Act of 1990 took a significant step in recognizing the needs of America's religious institutions by creating these religious worker visas. At that time the Act only provided temporary authority for this program in order to see how it would work. I think we have now had enough experience with it to know that it works very well. The time has come to place religious institutions on an equal footing with businesses and universities with regards to sponsoring needed workers by giving these visas the same status as all our other immigrant visas. Prior to 1990, churches, synagogues, mosques, and their affiliated organizations experienced significant difficulties in trying to gain admission for a much needed minister or other individual necessary to provide religious services to their communities. The 1990 Act changed that. It set aside 10,000 visas per year for ``special immigrants.'' Up to 5,000 of these visas annually can be used for ministers of a religious denomination. In addition, a related provision of the law provides 5,000 visas per year to individuals working for religious organizations in ``a religious vocation or occupation'' or in a ``professional capacity in a religious vocation or occupation.'' This has allowed nuns, brothers, cantors, lay preachers, religious instructors, religious counselors, missionaries, and other persons to work at their vocations or occupations for religious organizations or their affiliates. The sponsoring organization must be a bona fide religious organization or an affiliate of one, and must be certified or eligible to be certified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Religious workers must have two years work experience to qualify for an immigrant visa. The authority for these visas is what expires this year. Mr. President, we often hear the charge that immigrants are somehow taking from our communities, when, as I heard at a recent subcommittee hearing on this subject, the opposite is much more often the case. As Bishop John Cummins of Oakland has written: ``Religious workers provide a very important pastoral function to the American communities in which they work and live, performing activities in furtherance of a vocation or religious occupation often possessing characteristics unique from those found in the general labor market. Historically, religious workers have staffed hospitals, orphanages, senior care homes and other charitable institutions that provide benefits to society without public funding.'' Bishop Cummins notes that ``The steady decline in native-born Americans entering religious vocations and occupations, coupled with the dramatically increasing need for charitable services in impoverished communities makes the extension of this special immigrant provision a necessity for numerous religious denominations in the United States.'' Mr. President, I and I am sure most Americans share Bishop Cummins' views. Indeed the special immigrant program has won universal praise in religious communities across the nation. Our office has received letters from religious orders and organizations throughout the nation. A recent letter signed jointly by Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran and Evangelical organizations states: ``Failure to extend the [special immigrant visa categories] would substantially undermine the services that religious denominations and organizations in the United States provide to their members, parishioners, and communities. Mr. President, our nation was founded by people who came to these shores in search of a place where they and their children could worship freely. It is only fitting that our country welcome those who wish to help our religious organizations provide pastoral and other relief to people in need. That is why I am introducing ``The Religious Workers Act of 1997.'' This bill will eliminate the sunset provisions and extend permanently the religious workers provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. I believe religious organizations' ability to sponsor individuals who provide service to their local communities should be a permanent fixture of our immigration law, just as it is for those petitioning for close family members and skilled workers. No longer should religious institutions have to worry about whether Congress will act in time to renew the religious workers provisions. I am pleased that the entire leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee and its Immigration Subcommittee--Senators Kennedy, Hatch, Leahy and I-- are cosponsoring this legislation, along with a large number of other colleagues. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to close with a letter that was sent to me recently. It's a letter that helped convince me that we should move without further delay toward permanent extension of the religious workers provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The letter reads as follows: Dear Senator Abraham: I am writing to ask you to help us in solving a very urgent problem. My Sisters in New York have told me that the law which allows the Sisters to apply for permanent residence in the United States expires on September 30, 1997. Please, will you do all that you can to have that law extended so that all Religious will continue to have the opportunity to be permanent residents and serve the people of your great country. It means so much to our poor people to have Sisters who understand them and their culture. It takes a long time for a Sister to understand the people and a culture, so now our Society wants to keep our Sisters in their mission countries on a more long term basis. Please help us and our poor by extending this law. I am praying for you and the people of Michigan. My Sisters serve the poor in Detroit where we have a soup kitchen and night shelter for women. Let us all thank God for this chance to serve His poor. Signed: Mother Teresa. My office received this letter, a copy of which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, only a few weeks before Mother Teresa's death.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, it is my intention to offer a unanimous consent request which I think has now been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the votes ordered with respect to the NEA issue be stacked to occur at 7:30 p.m., with 4 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the votes on those issues.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation authored by Senators Hatch and Kennedy to waive the visa fees for religious workers who enter to perform charitable functions. It is not in the U.S. interest to impose fees that inhibit or otherwise burden individuals who seek to help our communities. Mother Teresa spoke specifically of eliminating these fees for members of her mission coming to the United States to serve the poor, so as to make the money available for more good works. I applaud Senators Hatch and Kennedy for introducing this important legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation authored by Senators Hatch and Kennedy to waive the visa fees for religious workers who enter to perform charitable functions. It is not in the U.S. interest to impose fees that inhibit or otherwise burden individuals who seek to help our communities. Mother Teresa spoke specifically of eliminating these fees for members of her mission coming to the United States to serve the poor, so as to make the money available for more good works. I applaud Senators Hatch and Kennedy for introducing this important legislation.