Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the amendment I proposed is cosponsored, in addition to myself, by Senators Feingold, DeWine, Lott, Mack, Lieberman, Inhofe, and Nickles. Mr. President, our amendment does basically two things. First, it would strike sections 111 through 115 of the bill, which would currently begin to implement a national identification system. Second, the amendment would strike a related provision, section 118 of the bill, which would require State driver's licenses and birth certificates to conform to new Federal regulations and standards. Mr. President, I intend to devote at least my opening statement here today to the first Senate provisions that we seek to strike with this amendment, those which pertain to the national identification system. Senator DeWine, while in addition to commenting on those sections, will be speaking in more specific terms about the driver's license and birth certificate provisions. I recognize that we are not under a time agreement and that it will be the option of the Presiding Officer in terms of floor debate. But we hope Senator DeWine will have an opportunity following my remarks to be recognized soon so that he may comment on that portion of the bill which he has particularly been focused on. That said, Mr. President, let me just begin by making it clear that those of us proposing this amendment consider the hiring of illegal aliens to be a wrong thing. We think wrongful hirings, no matter how they might be brought about, are not appropriate. We are not bringing this amendment to in any way condone, or encourage, or stimulate wrongful hirings of people who are not in this country under proper documentation. The question is, how do we best address that problem, and how do we do it in the least intrusive fashion? Already this bill contains a variety of provisions which will have, I think, a marked impact on addressing the problem. In the bill we already increase substantially the number of Border Patrol employees, people patrolling the borders to prevent illegal aliens from entering the country. Mr. President, in the bill we already addressed a very serious problem alluded to by the Senator from New Jersey, people who overstay their visas, and constitute some 50 percent of the illegal alien population by for the first time imposing sharp, stiff penalties on those who violate the visa rules. In addition, as we dealt with on numerous occasions yesterday, Mr. President, we have attempted to address the issue of access to public assistance for noncitizens, and particularly for illegal aliens, as a way of discouraging some who may have come to this country, or who might consider doing so for purposes of accessing our social service programs. In addition, under the bill, we have dramatically, I think, moved to try to expedite the deportation of criminal aliens, a very substantial part of our current alien community, and by definition, in the case of those who have committed serious offenses, individuals who are deportable, and thus no longer appropriate to be in the country. I believe these steps, combined with other provisions in the legislation, move us a long way down the road toward addressing the concerns we have about the wrongful hiring of illegal aliens. I think we need to understand the provisions that pertain to verification, which, at least in this Senator's judgment, are a very obvious example of a highly intrusive approach that will not have much of an effect on the problems that we confront. Frankly, Mr. President, what we confront in this country is less, in my judgment, of a case of an innocent employer who has been somehow deceived, or baffled by a clever alien. We have largely confronted a situation in which some form of complicity takes place between employers who are looking for ways to hire less expensive labor, and illegal aliens who have no choice in terms of the options available to them. So what we find is intent on the part of the employer, and, obviously, a willingness on the part of the illegal alien to be an employee. This identification system is not going to do very much to address that problem because no matter what type of identification document is used, whether it is a birth certificate, a driver's license, an ID card, a Social Security card, or anything else, at least in my judgment, it is not going to matter if the employer's objective is to hire a lower priced employee who happens to be an illegal alien because, whatever the system is, it will be circumvented intentionally to accomplish the objective of trimming down on overhead. As a consequence, to a large extent, the system, no matter how effectively it is perfected, is not going to really have much impact on the large part of the problem we confront with regard to the hiring of illegal aliens. In my judgment, that makes the cost of this program greatly disproportionate to any potential benefit it might have in terms of reducing the population of illegal aliens who are improperly employed. I also say in my opening today that we have taken, I think, with the amendment, with the provisions of the bill that were sustained yesterday in the vote with respect to providing employers with a shield against discrimination cases, a further tool that will allow employers who are innocent to take the steps necessary to avoid hiring unintentionally people who are meant to be hired under the current laws. That is the backdrop, Mr. President. We have big Government, an expansive Government, an intrusive Government solution being brought to bear in a circumstance where I do not think it is going to do much good. For that reason, I think the verification system is headed in the wrong direction. This approach is flawed, and it is, in my judgment, overextensive in the way it is structured in the bill right now without any definition as to the dimensions that such pilot programs are envisioned in the bill might encompass, it has the potential to be a very, very large program. What is the region? And how advanced are all regions in an entire quarter of the country? The bill does not specify how large the pilot programs might be. So for those reasons we believe that the verification part of this legislation is unnecessary and should be struck. Let me talk more specifically about why the costs are going to be greater than the benefits under the program. First, Mr. President, even though this is a potential pilot program, it seems to me, it is impossible to effectively run a pilot program of this type unless a national database is collected. That national database check is going to be a very extensive step in the direction of a national identification system. Furthermore, Mr. President, it seems to me, given the enormous downstroke cost of developing that kind of system, that there will be an enormous amount of pressure on us to continue building the system into a national system in the very near future. Indeed, that is the direction that the sponsors of the legislation in both the House and Senate had originally envisioned. But the bottom line in terms of the costs of the program really falls on three categories of U.S. citizens that we need to focus on today. First, it is extremely unfair and costly to honest employers. Any kind of system that involves verifying new employees prior to hiring them in the fashion that is suggested here will be costly. The employer must phone a 1-800 number in Washington, or someplace else to determine whether an individual's name is in the database, or the person who is the employer must develop some type of, or require some type of, computer interface system, whatever it might be. These are additional business costs that will fall hard--especially hard--on small businesses at a time when I think this Congress at least in its rhetoric has been talking about trying to make the burdensome costs on small business less cumbersome. In addition, there will be a very disproportionately costly burden on those types of small businesses that have a high turnover of employees. And there are a number of them in virtually every one of our States, whether it is the small fast food restaurant, or whether it is the seasonal type of small business. The list is endless of those kinds of businesses which have huge amounts of turnover in terms of their employee ranks. For each of those under a verification system we are adding additional costs and additional burdens that must be borne regardless of the circumstances. But really, Mr. President, this is an unfunded mandate on these small businesses, on businesses in general, on employers in general, whoever they might be. And, in my judgment, it sets a very bad precedent because it would be for the first time the case that we would require people to affirmatively seek permission to hire an employee. To me, Mr. President, that is a gigantic step in the direction of big government that we should not take. I do not think we want to subject employers, no matter how, or how many employees they have, to this new- found responsibility to affirmatively seek permission to hire employees. Again, though, the people who will pay these costs and suffer these burdens are going to be the honest employers. Those who are dishonest, those who would hire illegal aliens knowingly will not engage in any of these expenses, will not undertake any of these steps because, obviously, their intent is to circumvent the law, whatever it might be. They are doing it today. They will do it whatever the system is that we come up with. So what we are talking about in short is a very costly, very cumbersome, very burdensome new responsibility on employers in this country that will disproportionately fall on the shoulders of those employers who are playing by the rules instead of those who are breaking them. As I say, Mr. President, it will, for the first time, require employers to affirmatively seek permission to hire employees, seek that permission from Washington. However, it is not just the employers who will suffer through a system of verification as set forth in the legislation; it is also the workers, the employees, U.S. citizens who will now be subjected to a verification system that, in my judgment, cannot be perfected accurately enough to avoid massive problems, dislocations and unhappy results for countless American citizens. As I have said, there is no way such a system can really be effective unless there is, first, a national database. Such a national database, no matter how accurately constructed, is bound to be riddled with errors. Indeed, some of the very small projects the INS has already launched have been discovered to have error rates, in terms of names in the database, as high as 28 percent. Now, I hope that we could do better than 28 percent, but let us just consider if the database had an error margin of 1 percent and let us also consider that that was a national program. That would be 600,000 hirings per year that would be basically derailed due to error rates in the database. The project, of course, is not a national program to begin with, but 1 percent of any sizable regional project is going to mean that U.S. citizens who are entitled to be hired will not be hired and be placed in limbo because of this experimental program. Again, though, Mr. President, this is not going to be a problem in the case of illegal aliens hired by employers who knowingly choose to do so because they will not be subjected to this verification process. If we were to have this margin of error, if we were to even have a small handful of American citizens denied employment under these provisions, we would set in motion what I think would be an extraordinarily costly process for those employers and employees so affected. Is it right to impose a system that would in fact mean that U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents who are entitled to work would be potentially put on hold for weeks to months while the system's database is corrected? I think that is wrong. I think it is the wrong direction to go. Anybody who has dealt with computer databases knows the potential for error in these types of systems. In my judgment, to invite that kind of high cost on the employees and employers of this country would be a huge mistake. So those are the first two issues to consider, the first two. The victims are the honest, play-by-the-rules employers and employees or potential employees who want to play by the rules. They are going to be the victims. They are going to pay a high cost. So, too, Mr. President, will the taxpayers pay a high cost for this, in effect, unfunded mandate, because just building the database capable of handling any kind of sizable regional project will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The question is, is it going to produce the results that are being suggested? I would say no. As I have indicated already, those who want to circumvent a system will circumvent this system, and they will do so intentionally. Meanwhile, the taxpayers will be footing a very substantial bill for a system that can be easily avoided by those employers and illegal alien employees who wish to do so. I intend to speak further on this amendment this morning, but let me just summarize my initial comments. I believe we should strike these verification procedures. I believe that the cost of imposing these programs even on a trial basis is going to be excessive. I feel as if it leads us in the direction of big Government, big Government expansion and the imposition of costly Federal regulations and burdens, especially on small businesses that they do not need at this time. I believe that the tough standards we have placed in the bill to deal with illegal aliens, combined with some of the other relief that has been granted to employers to try to ferret out those who should not be employed, are the sorts of safeguards that will have the least intrusive effect on those who play by the rules. The costs of this verification system, in my judgment, far outweigh any potential benefits. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support our effort to strike these provisions. At this point, as I said, Mr. President, I realize we are not on a time agreement to yield time, but I know the Senator from Ohio would like to speak to another part of this, so I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Does that make this pilot program that we are talking about, this identification verification program, the linchpin in this legislation? Is the absence of that going to make this toothless, Mr. President? I do not think so. Quite the contrary. I think, if anything, it will burden the bill and burden American citizens--taxpayers, employers, and employees--with an excessive amount of redtape, bureaucracy, and big Government intrusion that is not going to handsomely pay off in terms of the benefits it produces. Let me just talk about some of those costs once again. First of all, this approach is the kind of big Government bureaucracy approach that I think most of us in this Congress have been arguing we find too dominant already in the American economy. Do we really want to have another bureaucracy, another effort here to try to create hoops for businesses to jump through as they make employment decisions, or for U.S. citizens, who are entitled to be employed, to jump through in order to secure employment? Clearly, it is going to be a costly venture and a costly one both in terms of bureaucratic redtape as well as in taxpayer dollars. I was glad to hear the term ``$10 billion'' used as a possibility of the cost involved here. I do not know what the total costs are going to be. No one, in fact, on the floor knows that. But it is certainly conceivable that it will be great. Just as far as we are aware to this point, the assembling of this database is going to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The Social Security Administration has said that a national program would be $3 to $6 billion, and then it would have to be sustained. Mr. President, that is thousands of dollars per illegal immigrant in the country just to build this system, if that is what we would end up doing. I do not think that is exactly the kind of cost-benefit approach we want to take. Let us not just talk about the burdened taxpayers; let us talk about the burden to business, and particularly to small business. We can debate the terminology, we can talk about whether it is seeking permission or some other way to describe what would be called for under this type of an approach. But it certainly would be an additional step in the process, and it certainly would require, in some way, communicating with someone in a bureaucracy run by the Federal Government somewhere in America to determine whether or not verification indeed has occurred. We have never, in my judgment, Mr. President, ever placed that level of burden on employers in this country. It is a costly burden, potentially a very costly burden, for small businesses, and particularly for those small businesses that have a large turnover of employees. In addition, it is a burden on the employees themselves. Again, we have one pilot program in Santa Ana, CA, carefully monitored by the INS, who are presumably pulling out all the stops to try to minimize delays on a database. So there are 22 cases out of 1,000--1, 2, 3 percent. Extrapolate that to the entire country or a large region, as is contemplated by the pilot program, and we are talking about thousands of American citizens who will be, in one way or another, denied initial hiring because the verification system database is not able to run at 100 percent. While it may be the case that when a program is highly localized in a single city, with INS monitoring, the 22 people can get relatively quickly into the correct category, I do not think such a quick turnaround will be possible if the program is indeed larger, whether it is larger in terms of a full State or a region that goes beyond one State, or certainly if it was a national program. We have had other similar kinds of things happen, Mr. President. Whenever databases are involved, there could be interminable delays. The Social Security Administration encounters this quite often, and it takes days to months to correct errors. I do not think that is the way to deal with the illegal immigration problem in America--by creating problems for people who are citizens who are entitled to work, rather than cracking down on those who are not entitled to work. Let us not overlook the acquisition costs of the documents that will be required in order to effectuate this type of system if it goes beyond a very small project. The acquisition costs were so, I think, accurately and movingly laid out by the Senator from Ohio earlier. Imagine what we will encounter from our constituents if they determine or learn that we have moved us in a direction where new birth certificates are required, whether it is for passports, weddings, or anything else. Imagine what we will encounter if when young people go to get their driver's license, now living in a wholly different State or part of the country, find out that our law here today, in attempting to crack down on illegal immigration, has thwarted that effort, forcing them to incur additional costs in order to get their first license. These are significant costs--costs not borne by the people who are breaking the rules, but by the people who are playing by the rules. I do not believe, Mr. President, that we should attempt to solve the illegal immigration problem by bringing huge burdens on people who are playing it straight. I am sympathetic to the problems raised with respect to people who live in States such as California. I understand that they have different circumstances than we might have in my State, or yours. But to basically impose upon the entire country ultimately or, in the short-term, full States or regions the kinds of burdens that are contemplated by this type of verification system, it just seems to me, Mr. President, that is not a cost-benefit analysis that works out favorably for the American people. Now, Mr. President, the real issue that we should focus on, in addition to costs, are benefits, because that is the calculus. I think it is important for everyone who is considering how they feel about this issue to think about the degree to which such a program as is being contemplated here can possibly work. Will the forgery stop, Mr. President? Will it really mean that there is not the capability of circumventing the new system that might be developed? Do we really believe that a system can be made perfect? Do we really think that on Alvarado Street in Los Angeles, or in any other city where there might be this type of forgery, in a couple of years, if not sooner, somebody not will come up with a system that breaks the code, that somehow penetrates the new security that is developed as part of these pilot programs? I am very skeptical, Mr. President. But, also, let us not lose sight of the fact that, even separate from the ability to develop a foolproof system, we have the problem that many, if not an overwhelming percentage, of the employer problems we have are intentional. So let us ask ourselves this: If there is an employer who knowingly or intentionally intends to hire someone who is an illegal alien, are they even going to participate in the verification system? I do not think so. I do not think so, Mr. President. So while the people who play by the rules are incurring the additional costs of setting up the kinds of systems that will be required to interface with the database in Washington, the ones who would shun the rules today will shun the rules tomorrow. As a consequence, the issue of whether or not there is a job magnet will not be very effectively addressed by this type of an approach, because as long as there are people willing to work around the rules, there will be an audience of people who will think they can come to the country illegally and get jobs with those who basically eschew the responsibilities as employers of following the rules today. So there we bring ourselves to the final balance. On the one hand, massive costs, taxpayer costs, putting this kind of program together. Whether it is a national database, regional database, State database, it is going to be costly--costs for the small businesses, in particular, but for the employers of America, who have to develop whatever system it is to comply with and interface with the database; and then costs in terms of actually doing such compliance; costs to the employees themselves, who will be required to go through the additional step, and especially to those who, because of a database mistake, do not initially get hired and have to go through the additional bureaucratic red tape to get back into the system; costs to all who will need either birth certificates and driver's licenses and find out that because of what we have done, they now have to get a new one. Those are the costs on one side. On the other side, as I say, the benefits, in my judgment, are substantially less than that which has been suggested earlier, because I think it will ultimately still be possible to find a way around the system. For those who want to find a way around the system on the employer side, a verification system will only make a very minimal impact. For that reason, I think we do not need this step in the direction of more big Government. I think we should strike the verification system and the driver's license and birth certificate provisions of the legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not intend to speak much longer. I just wanted to give a brief summary of a few points, both in response to some of the arguments that have been made by the last few speakers and also just to kind of put in perspective exactly what this all comes down to. First of all, a statement made earlier that this pilot program approach or the broader approach would not have any cost to employers is simply not the case for a variety of reasons, but the National Retail Federation has suggested that even the pilot program as conceptualized would probably work out to something in the vicinity of $7 per verification. That might not mean a lot to a business that does not have much turnover, but to those that have lots of employees coming and going it is a pretty big impact. In addition, it has been suggested that somehow because the 1986 legislation has not gone as far as people had hoped for, it is a mistake to resist this approach that is being proposed with the pilot program. I think that is actually counter-intuitive, Mr. President. The fact is, every few years people come along with a new, better mousetrap, it would seem, or they would claim, for addressing the problems of illegal aliens securing employment. Ten years ago we burdened the American economy and our businesses and employers with a lot of redtape--I-9 forms and other things--and they have not worked. Those who bring this amendment today are saying, ``Let's not add yet another level, another tier, another round of redtape to those people who are trying to play by the rules and create opportunities for people in this country.'' Third, Mr. President, it has been suggested that somehow this is really something good for employers, it is good for people who might be discriminated against because of their ethnicity or their race. This is a case, though, where frankly the people who are the alleged beneficiaries are saying, ``Thanks, but no thanks.'' That is why this amendment that we are bringing, both the verification amendment as well as the amendment that Senator DeWine has separately offered with respect to birth certificates and driver's licenses, are being supported by the National Federation of Independent Business, and they are key votes for that organization, by the chamber of commerce, by the National Association of Manufacturers, by the National Retail Federation, and yes, the National Restaurant Association. We have heard earlier somehow that restaurants were supporting this. The national association opposes it. The businesses who will have to implement this, whether in pilot program form or otherwise, say, ``Thank you, but no thanks.'' So, too, do groups historically fighting discrimination, such as the ACLU and others. The fact is, the beneficiaries are not really going to benefit, Mr. President, if this is looked at closely. Meanwhile, I draw attention to the issue of the pilot project. We are being asked to support this on a theory it is not really a national system but a pilot project. The way the legislation is drafted allows that type of pilot program to encompass regions with no definition as for their size. In addition, because of the nature of verification, it almost certainly will require the creation of the type of national data base that will be both costly, onerous, and burdensome. To say that a pilot program is just a small step is not accurate, Mr. President. It is a very big step. That brings me to the final point I want to make today--the cost versus the benefits. The costs will be great to employers who have to verify new employees, whatever the size of the program. The cost will be great to the employees themselves who are playing by the rules--U.S. citizens and those who legally can seek employment--because those people in some cases will be denied employment because of data base malfunctions. The cost to taxpayers of setting up the type of data base involved will be considerable, and the cost to average American citizens who, because of this type of program, find they need new birth certificates or new driver's licenses, will be considerable as well. A lot of costs, Mr. President. The benefits, on the other side, are not very clear to me. First of all, as I have said in previous comments, those employers who intend to fire illegal aliens at lower-paying jobs or below the wage level they otherwise would have to pay will get around any kind of verification system because they will not participate. To the idea that we will create a foolproof system, a card that defies any type of tampering or counterfeiting, to me, is a remote possibility. There will be plenty of costs and very few, in my view, benefits. Rather than going down the route we went in 1986, it is our argument that we understand, very simply, the losers here are the taxpayers, the employers, the employees, the people playing by the rules. Those are the folks we should be helping, Mr. President. The balance of this legislation does exactly that, by cracking down on the people who are violating this. I do not think we should take a step other than in that direction. For those reasons, Mr. President, I strongly urge passage of this amendment, support for the striking of both the verification procedures as well as the procedure of the driver's license and the birth certificate procedure.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would say this is an amendment brought by Senators DeWine, Feingold, Inhofe, Mack, Lott, Lieberman, Nickles, and myself. It represents an effort to strike from the bill a verification system that is a Government intrusive system to try to verify employment. In our view it will not succeed, but it will be very costly, costly to employers, costly to employees who will be denied jobs because it is impossible to perfect such a system, costly to the taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and costly for reasons that the Senator from Ohio will now address in terms of the need for people to obtain new birth certificates in order to comply with this legislation. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the decision of the parties to the crisis in Lebanon to institute a cease- fire. Every day last week, I urged Secretary Christopher in the strongest possible terms to do everything in his power to cease the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. I would like to congratulate Secretary Christopher for his intense efforts in negotiating this cease-fire. It is my sincere hope that the parties will abide by the cease-fire, and eventually work toward a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. The cease-fire is based upon an agreement on a set of understandings, the most important of which is the agreement not to fire weapons at civilians or civilian populated areas. With over 150 civilians dead as a result of the violence in Lebanon, the urgency of ceasing hostilities aimed at civilians is of utmost priority. Now that an agreement to end the hostilities has been reached Mr. President, I urge the administration to contribute more financial resources to assist the civilians in Lebanon. As part of the most recent cease-fire agreement, the United States, France, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Russia, and the European Union have agreed to form a consultative group which will assist in the reconstruction needs of Lebanon. It is my hope that the United States will take a leadership role in the consultative group by granting considerably more additional assistance to Lebanon than what it already has.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning the recently-passed Terrorism Prevention Act. I was actively involved in working out the version of the bill that passed the Senate last year. However, I was not a conferee in the negotiations between the House and the Senate that produced the final version that was enacted into law last week. Recognizing how difficult it can be to reach agreement among a majority of one hundred Senators, I appreciate the daunting task of attaining agreement between not only the two congressional bodies, but also between Congress and the President, especially on such an important piece of legislation as the Terrorism Prevention Act. Nevertheless, I do want to note that in my view, while the final version contains provisions that make the bill one of this Congress's proudest accomplishments, it also contains other provisions included at the insistence of the Administration that have rightly raised serious concerns among serious people from all across the political spectrum. Violent acts against American citizens, whether for political reasons or otherwise, cannot be tolerated. But for too long, our criminal justice system has been excessively solicitous of the rights of violent criminals whose guilt is not in doubt. This must stop. The Terrorism Prevention Act's habeas corpus reforms will play an important role in stopping it by preventing prisoners on death row from gaming our legal system with countless appeals. So, too, will its provisions limiting the ability of non-citizens who have committed serious crimes in this country to avoid deportation by filing countless meritless court challenges to deportation orders. At the same time, it is also important that we do not let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction and trample on the civil rights of those who have committed no crime. Other provisions in the Terrorism Prevention Act that were included at the insistence of President Clinton will restrict fundraising for organizations suspected but not proven to be terrorist on the basis of secret evidence. These, I believe, present a serious risk of jeopardizing the freedoms of all Americans. I would like to discuss both types of provisions. I was delighted, though admittedly confused when, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton stated that the perpetrators of that bombing would be brought to swift and certain justice. As the victims of any type of crime in this country know, and apparently know better than the President himself, our criminal justice system in its present form makes ``swift and certain'' justice for criminals all but impossible. Instead, convicted criminals--murderers, child molesters, and thieves--have been able to game the system for far too long. The parents of children who have been molested and murdered and the families of other murder victims many of whom were tortured or raped before they were killed have had to wait year after year as their child's murderer appeals a capital sentence time and time again--not on grounds of innocence but because their trials were not perfect. And sometimes the attackers have been released by courts more concerned about the technical rights of criminals than the need to see that the law is carried out and justice served. Swift and certain justice has not been possible in this country, not for common criminals and not for the perpetrators of terrorist acts, because of the endless appeals permitted by the habeas corpus procedures enacted by Congress. As Senator Hatch has recently noted, there were about 2,976 inmates on death row in 1995. Yet, the States have executed only 263 of these convicted killers since 1973. Habeas appeals alone make up 40 percent of the total delay from sentence to execution. The notorious case of Robert Alton Harris demonstrates rather vividly where the vices in our present criminal justice system lead. Harris killed his first victim in 1975. In a savage attack that included hours of torture, Harris beat his next-door neighbor to death. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to prison. Even in prison, his uncontrollable violence was said to make him a danger to the other inmates. Six months after he was paroled, Harris abducted two high school sophomores as they sat eating hamburgers in a car. He drove them to a wooded area and shot them to death, chasing one of the boys through the woods and gunning him down as he crouched in the bushes screaming for his life. Harris then returned to the first victim and shot him again. Over that boy's dead body, Harris sat down and finished the boys' half- eaten hamburgers. Harris did not deny his guilt, but in fact admitted the murders in open court. He explained he had murdered the boys because he needed their car to commit a bank robbery--the crime for which he had originally been arrested. He was given the death penalty by a jury on March 6, 1979. Thirteen years passed before the jury's verdict was carried out and Harris was finally executed. During those 13 years--the years when his teenage victims could have been completing college, starting jobs, getting married, and having children--Harris filed 10 habeas corpus petitions with the State courts and 6 habeas corpus petitions with the Federal courts. The boys' parents were notified of five execution dates, four of which were canceled by the courts. But for Harris' habeas petitions, he could have been executed as early as October 1981, after review by the California Supreme Court and further review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Reform of our habeas corpus system has been needed, and needed badly, for several decades now. The Oklahoma City bombing finally provided the clarion call that made it possible for the Republican majority, with President Clinton's reluctant acquiescence, and over stiff resistance by a majority of the Democrats, to enact reforms to this legal quagmire. These reforms are long, long overdue. At last, because of the Terrorism Prevention Act, the limitless opportunities for the Federal judiciary to overturn criminal convictions will come to an end. And at last, State courts will be allowed to enforce capital sentences against convicted murderers without the Federal courts granting repetitive hearings that have allowed death row prisoners to languish in prison for a decade or more. The habeas corpus reforms may well be the single most important legislation that this Congress has passed. If the Terrorism Prevention Act had no other provisions to recommend it, I would have voted for the act for its habeas corpus reforms. Also praiseworthy are the provisions that address the serious problem this country has with deporting criminal aliens. Though officially designated ``criminal aliens'' rather than ``terrorists,'' as far as I am concerned, noncitizens who commit violent, felonious acts against American citizens are resident terrorists, irrespective of their official designation. Indeed, according to the FBI, alien terrorists have been responsible for exactly two terrorist incidents in the United States in the last 11 years: the World Trade Center bombing and a trespassing incident at the Iranian Mission to the United Nations. Meanwhile, more than 50,000 crimes have been committed by aliens in this country recently enough that the perpetrators are still incarcerated in State and Federal prisons right now. Noncitizens in this country who are convicted of committing serious crimes are deportable and should be deported. These are not ``suspected'' criminals or members of secretly designated terrorist groups: These are convicted felons. And there are about half a million of them currently residing on U.S. soil. The reason these criminal aliens are here, despite their deportability under U.S. law, is that they are able to manipulate our immigration laws by requesting endless review of their orders of deportation. Exactly as in the habeas corpus context, these are convicted criminals obstructing the operation of law by abusing unduly generous provisions of judicial and administrative review. As long, as a petition for review is pending, they cannot be deported. Thus, at present, aliens who are convicted felons are deported at a rate of about 4 percent a year. The case of Lyonel Dor is typical. Lyonel Dor, a citizen of Haiti, entered the United States illegally in 1972. This alone made him deportable as an illegal alien. Six years later he participated in the murder of his aunt. For this, he was convicted of first degree manslaughter and served 6\1/2\ years in prison. This made him doubly deportable, since aliens who commit crimes of violence in the United States are deportable even if they were here legally in the first place. Accordingly, Dor was ordered deported in March 1985 following a full administrative hearing on whether such an order should be entered. At that hearing, Dor conceded deportability. He took no direct administrative appeal from the March 1985 order, although he would have been entitled to do so. Nevertheless, as of late 1989, Dor had not been deported. Instead, he remained in this country, requesting and receiving unending additional collateral administrative review and judicial review of his order of deportation, tying up the courts and the INS for more than 5 years after completing his criminal sentence. As of today, April 29, 1996, I do not know whether Lyonel Dor has ever deported, or whether he is still in this country requesting more review. According to court documents described in the 1989 case, since arriving in this country illegally, Dor received the attention of a total of 14 administrative processes and 6 judicial processes, including the criminal proceedings on his participation in the murder of his aunt. The deportation effort alone for this illegal immigrant and convicted murderer entailed 13 administrative proceedings and 4 judicial proceedings. In two of the four judicial proceedings, Federal courts directed that Dor not be deported until the order of deportation could be further subject to yet more review. In this Act, as well as in the illegal immigration bill, I have strongly promoted legal reforms that will put an end to such absurdities. The Terrorism Prevention Act contains some of these provisions, including important reforms that will place some constraints on the almost limitless opportunities for criminal aliens to delay their deportations. In particular, without touching in any way any direct appeal an alien may have in connection with his underlying criminal conviction, it denies judicial review of orders of deportation entered against criminal aliens, eliminates certain grounds for administrative review of the orders of deportation entered against criminal aliens, and requires the Attorney General to deport criminal aliens with 30 days of the final order of deportation. I should add that during the Judiciary Committee markup of the pending illegal immigration bill, S. 1664, I proposed amendments to that legislation that will make additional reforms, and I am pleased to say that they were adopted and form a part of the bill now before Congress. On the other hand, there are other provisions in this act that I believe could be construed as being insufficiently attentive to civil liberties. I say this as one who is aware that cries of civil liberties violations can easily deteriorate into crying wolf when no wolf is anywhere in the neighborhood, and that it is therefore doubly important to be sure such concerns are legitimate so as not to dull the American people's vigilance against governmental excess. Nevertheless, I believe in this instance there are legitimate grounds for concern. The provisions that most concern me regard not convicted criminals, but, at least theoretically, the wholly innocent. These are the provisions of the act that will criminalize certain fundraising activities. The fundraising provisions have a long history to which the Conference Report provided an unsatisfactory conclusion. The fundraising proposals in the bill originally sent to Congress by the President had been quite controversial. Indeed, Senators and citizens of all political persuasions--Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives--were concerned that in seeking to punish the guilty these provisions went too far in endangering the rights of the innocent. Obviously, this will always be a difficult balance to strike. But these proposals would have given a President unilateral authority, on the basis of secret evidence and without judicial review, to make it a crime to contribute money to any organization--domestic or foreign, charitable or political--designated by the President as belonging on a ``terrorist'' list. It is not difficult to imagine how such a provision would invite abuse. People with a grievance against any organization could claim that some charitable or religious organization they didn't like was a terrorist organization. The accused organization could then be designated a ``terrorist'' organization without being provided any information about the basis on which it was being so charged or afforded an opportunity to contest the designation. History teaches us that star chamber proceedings of this type present grave risks of error and injustice. At the hearings on the bill, concerns about these provisions and their constitutional implications were raised by a number of Senators, including Senator Specter and myself, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Jewish Committee. After a great deal of discussion and negotiation, the Senate bill made a number of revisions. These included additions to the fundraising provisions that would make the designation of an organization subject to the traditional legal safeguards: review by a neutral court, and maximum disclosure to the accused organization of the information against it--consistent with national security interests and the safety of those providing the information. The provisions in the Senate bill may not have been perfect. Indeed, both the New York Times and USA Today subsequently editorialized that many of these provisions still posed risks to civil liberties, even as toned down in the Senate bill. There was, no doubt, room for improvement. But instead of providing more protections for the secretly accused organizations, the Conference Report seems to provide fewer. For example, whereas the Senate bill provided for full judicial review of the designation of an organization as ``terrorist'', the act that emerged from conference provides only for limited review on the administrative record. That means that the findings of fact of the administrative officer will receive some degree of deference by the reviewing court. More seriously still, it permits an organization to be designated as ``terrorist'' in the administrative proceeding entirely on the basis of classified information. Under the terms of the bill, that material can remain secret from the designated organization or any of its representatives throughout both the administrative and judicial process. Despite the serious consequences that flow from such a designation, the Conference Report nowhere expressly provides for any disclosure of summaries or partial disclosure of the secret information to the accused organization, even though the necessity for such a total blackout may often be wanting. While the courts may well find such Congressional silence insufficient to infer an intent to bar the maximum disclosure possible, in light of our country's historical distrust of secret proceedings, I believe Congress should have made express provision for such disclosure. To a lesser degree I believe the procedures established by this legislation for removing aliens suspected of being terrorists on the basis of classified information are open to similar criticism. Although these provisions at least require some form of summary, in my view they strike the balance between the alien and the Government less carefully and less fairly than the Senate version of the bill. The fight against terrorism and all criminal acts against Americans must be conducted vigorously, relentlessly, and in a manner that respects basic civil liberties. I believe the fundraising and alien terrorist removal provisions are one area in which the Terrorism Prevention Act could have been improved by not leaving civil liberties protections to the Executive and Judicial branches. I would have preferred for the act to have to have expressly provided for disclosure of the secret information to the maximum extent possible. It is my hope that despite the administration's insensitivity to these concerns and its insistence on including these provisions in their current objectionable form, during the legislative process, the executive branch will be sensitive to the questionable constitutionality of these provisions when it turns to enforcing them and will take great care in their use. Should it fail to do so, I would expect the courts to step in. In any event, and especially should the executive branch restraint prove insufficient, and the abuses I fear prove not only hypothetical but real, I will seek the opportunity to revisit these provisions at the first opportunity. Despite these weaknesses, Mr. President, I believe the Terrorism Prevention Act is an extremely important measure, and I am pleased to have had a chance to participate in its enactment into law.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I first thank the Senator from Georgia for having come here today to help lead this discussion. I think the role he is playing in trying to focus public attention on problems in the area of crime and drugs is to be commended. We are grateful to have leadership like that on these issues because we have not had enough of it, either in the Congress or particularly in the administration. So today I will talk a little bit more specifically about some of the problems we are contending with as a society as they relate to the broadly defined topic of drug use in America. After steadily declining for a number of years, through the administrations of Presidents Reagan and Bush, drug use has been skyrocketing in recent years. It is increasing at a very alarming rate. According to the 1994 ``Monitor of the Future'' study, drug use in three separate categories--use over lifetime, use in past year, use in past month--has shown a remarkable surge during the last 2 years, for young people in particular. Lifetime drug use went from a high in 1981 of about 65 percent to a low of just over 30 percent in 1992. Recently, though, the trend has been in a different direction. In both 1993, and again in 1994, after over a decade of uneven, but steady, decline, drug use has shot up again. It has shot up not just among high school seniors either, Mr. President. According to the 1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, drug use among children from as young as the age of 12 through 17 years of age, went up by 28 percent from 1993 to 1994. That is not just percentages we are talking about. It is human lives, Mr. President. To make it a little more specific, and to really, I think, dramatize the alarming changes we are talking about, these statistics indicate that in 1994, 1 million more children between the ages of 12 and 17 were using drugs than had been the case in 1993. Mr. President, I would like to state very clearly that the decisions people make to abuse drugs or any other similarly abused substance of any type is an individual decision. This is not a partisan decision. This is a not a decision that can be blamed on any one individual in Washington. I think what is critical and what we need to assess is the response that we, as Government leaders, are making to this alarming increase. I think that is where we have to take focus here today. I think we should specifically look at what this administration has done, because I think in examining it we will get a feel for the different types of priorities that can be established and give the American people a chance to decide which priorities they prefer. In terms of the Clinton administration, the first thing that we should note is the dramatic drop in drug prosecutions, both in 1993 and again in 1994. Despite the country's increasing drug problem in those years, Federal drug prosecutions fell from a high of over 25,000 prosecutions in 1992 to fewer than 22,000 in 1994. It just 2 years, Federal drug prosecutions dropped 12 percent. In addition, this administration made the decision to dramatically reduce the budget of the drug czar's office. The war on drugs conducted through the drug czar's office, has been cut by approximately 83 percent. Mr. President, reducing the number of prosecutions and reducing the size of the budget of the drug czar's office, in my mind, at least, is the wrong set of priorities to deal with an increasing rate of drug abuse, particularly when much of the increase can be found among young people. Third, I think the administration has changed priorities in terms of the message it is sending, particularly the message young people are hearing. The Senator from Georgia has already identified, and I think accurately, and very positively talked about the impact of the ``just say no'' program. Mr. President, for the better part of a decade, the words ``just say no'' meant the same thing pretty much to everybody in America, and especially young people. It meant ``say no to drugs.'' With a theme like that resonating whether through the airwaves or in speeches of the public officials and the leadership of the First Lady, Nancy Reagan, young people heard clearly one continuous message. I think that that pervasive message helped to change the direction of drug use in this country. I think that message has been blurred a lot in recent years. Indeed, unfortunately, I think mixed signals have been sent inadvertently that have at least suggested a certain condoning of the use of drugs. I do not think that those are the kind of signals we want to send. For example, I note the Department of Health and Human Services has sponsored commercials on MTV proclaiming, ``If you use drugs, don't share a needle.'' Now, I realize that ``just say no'' may have sounded hackneyed to some, but it works and it is true. In my judgment, sending any kind of signal to our children that suggests that any form of drug use is preferable to other forms, rather than as a society we are opposed to all drug use, will confuse, and I think contribute to their reluctance to follow the message to avoid the use of drugs altogether. In addition, I think we have sent a mixed message in terms of what the leading messengers of the administration have been saying about drugs. As we know, Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders talked at length about even going so far as to legalize drug use in this country. It just seems to me, Mr. President, if young people reach the conclusion that an administration or Washington or public officials think that drug legalization is an acceptable alternative, their willingness to begin experimenting or to use drugs will increase. Indeed, Mr. President, those seem to have been the results. Again, according to the former ``drug czar'' in my State of Michigan, just a few weeks ago, the Centers for Disease Control jointly sponsored a conference in Atlanta with one of the country's leading pro-drug legalization organizations, the Drug Policy Foundation. The conference agenda was to promote needle exchanges and healthy drug use messages. These kinds of mixed messages, combined with a drop in prosecutions and a reduction in spending on the drug czar's office, I think, Mr. President, demonstrate the wrong priorities. I think we should have a healthy debate this year over this country's priorities. I happen to think that the investment of funds in the drug czar's office, the increased prosecution of drug offenders, and the sending of one clear unmistakable message that we should say no to drugs is the only way to seriously and effectively deal with the drug abuse problems we face in this country, and particularly with youthful drug offenders. I think to divert resources from that approach is to invite increases in drug use. I think the American people should understand that there are two very different courses, a course that was followed with great success for over a decade, and a new course that has blurred the message, invested fewer dollars and generated fewer prosecutions. That clear choice, I think, is one that we in Congress now should effectively try to address. I will be working hard to do that in my State, to try to make sure at least in Michigan we send an unequivocal message to just say no to drugs and I will do my best here to support efforts to beef up the forces that will crack down on drug abuse, those in both prosecutorial ranks and providing the drug czar's office and others with the adequate resources they need to combat this on the front lines. Last year, Mr. President, I was involved in sponsoring a bill which ultimately became law and was signed into law to try to make sure we did not liberalize the sentences that crack cocaine dealers would receive. We have to remain vigilant and tough. I think the sentences for those who use powder cocaine should be tougher as well. We have to make clear that young people in this country, and really to all Americans, that the war on drugs has not been won. Progress that was made in the 1980's can be reversed if we are not vigilant. I intend to come to the floor often, joining my colleague from Georgia and others, to make sure those are the messages we send. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. That would be fine.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to extend welcoming remarks to Dr. Abdalla A. Nssour, Deputy Prime Minister of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Dr. Nssour will be the honored guest at a dinner on May 2, 1996 in Livonia, MI. In addition, I would also like to welcome to Michigan His Excellency Fayez Tarawneh, Ambassador to the United States from Jordan, and Head of the Jordanian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Process. The American Arab Chamber of Commerce, Michigan, the Jordanian American Association of Michigan, and Royal Jordanian Airlines will be sponsoring the dinner honoring Dr. Nssour. In addition to serving as Jordan's Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Nssour also serves as the Minister of Higher Education and the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Jordanian Parliament. Prior to his esteemed government service, Dr. Nssour had many great accomplishments in the scientific community. I am certain that the dinner audience will be greatly enriched by Dr. Nssour's remarks. It is most fitting that the Arab American community has chosen to honor Dr. Nssour for his service to his country and I am pleased to join the community in welcoming Dr. Nssour to Michigan.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I have a couple of more issues that I want to inject at this point relative to this amendment. I know there is at least one, or maybe two, of our colleagues who have come by this morning and indicated they wanted to speak. So I urge them, if they are in their office, or if their staff is watching, at this point to please proceed here if they are still interested. I do not have any intent to prolong the debate much further. But I want to make sure that some people who we had promised to find a time for will come here for that opportunity. I would like to comment again on a couple of points I have been making today but also on some other issues that have been raised by previous speakers. One is the issue of polls and polling data. I think certainly it is a responsibility of elected officials to be observant of public opinion and constituent views. But I think it is also important to understand that polling and the use of polls is oftentimes quite contradictory and quite confusing. We all know that the polls have said for years that Americans overwhelmingly want a balanced budget. But then, as we have learned, if they are told it means something specific that affects them, they all of a sudden have a little different opinion. In that vein, I say that some of the polling related to immigration can be both, on the one hand, telling and, on the other hand, contradictory. Yes, it is true, overwhelmingly people want to deal with the immigration problems. The polling I have seen suggests, though, that the first priority they have is to deal with illegal immigration. That is why the first bill before us is a bill on illegal immigration. I also suggest that those who say they want to see the number of people who are permitted to come to the country legally reduced, those who say that would have different opinions if they understood the ramifications that might affect them or their communities. I have not seen polls go to that kind of extent. But I suspect if people understood that the children of U.S. citizens would have a lower priority than the children of noncitizens, they would surely not favor that form of legal immigration changes. I also would like to comment just as a postscript to the comments of the Senator from North Carolina. He is deadly accurate in his comments about the impact this bill has on the welfare access that noncitizens will have. Indeed one of the foremost objectives of this bill on illegal immigration has been the objective of trying to address the issuance of public assistance to noncitizens. One of the reasons we think this is a major problem with regard to immigration has been that people have--some people at least--tried to come here illegally to gain access to benefits. This bill attempts to address it. I think it forcefully will. The point I would like to touch on now very specifically is the broad question of numbers because the comments of the Senator from Arizona a few moments ago in the dialog between him and the Senator from Ohio--I do not know how many Members were watching--I thought that was perhaps as telling as any other discussion we have had here today on the question of exactly what really is going to happen if this amendment passes. As has been pointed out, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has noted that there will be a spike, an increase, in the number of people who become able to become legal immigrants in the next couple of years under the so-called family preference categories of spouses and children of U.S. citizens. That is an unlimited category. That is going to go up. But what the Senator from Ohio, I think, has said and which I think is important, is that all Senators considering this amendment should understand that increase does not mean new people coming into the United States. What it reflects overwhelmingly is a group of people who, because of the 1986 act which gave amnesty to those in the country illegally and a subsequent action by the Congress in 1990 which gave quasi-legal status to the spouses of minor children of those who gained amnesty, these people are largely overwhelmingly already in the United States. Consequently, the increase that has been alluded to is not an increase in people coming to the country; it is a shifting of people already in the country from one category to another, from a quasi-legal status category to a legal status category. It does not mean a lot more people coming as immigrants to the United States. That said and acknowledged--I might add, by everybody who has spoken here today--let us think about the ramifications of the Simpson amendment before us. What that amendment will do is basically preclude others who are not already here from coming in huge numbers and in what I consider to be appropriate priorities, as I said in my last statement. In other words, people who are noncitizens will be able to bring their children to this country and people who are citizens will not be able to bring their children if their children are either married or adults. That will be the ramification, because the use of these 480,000 visas that are part of this amendment will be exhausted by the first categories of the relatives; that is, spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and permanent resident noncitizens. In short, we will be placing priorities, in my judgment, in the wrong bay. We will be giving the children of citizens a lower priority than the children of noncitizens. We will be giving the children of citizens a lower priority than the children of people who came here as illegal immigrants. We will be giving children of U.S. citizens a lower priority simply because of making a paper transaction in the status of folks who are already in the country. That, in my judgment, is not the way we should be dealing with legal immigration issues. I also point out that the impact of this is really quite profound. We are talking about, I think, turning away from in many ways, really, the historic basis on which this country was built. Legal immigrants, the children of U.S. citizens, have been great contributors to this country. They have come here and made contributions. Literally hundreds of this Nation's Medal of Honor winners were legal immigrants. Hundreds of people who make contributions in the sciences, high-tech industries, and so on, and built our great cities are the children of legal immigrants. This amendment will basically shut the door on them--those children of legal immigrants who are not minors. Much has been made of this distinction between minors and so-called adult or married children, that somehow they are no longer part of the nuclear family. Maybe that is true for some families in this world, but it is certainly not the case in my mind. It is not the case for the Senator from Ohio, as he pointed out. I do not think it should be the policy of the U.S. Government to distinguish in that fashion. I think that would be a huge step in the wrong direction. So, Madam President, I stress that the priorities in the Simpson amendment in terms of who has access to immigration are wrong. Even if you think there should be changes in legal immigration, these are not the priorities that we should establish. Let me now move on to the point that I made a little earlier in a little different way. The complexities of these issues, the sorting out of what ought to be the priorities, the sorting out of what ought to be the method by which people gain legal access to the country ought not be dealt with in this type of vacuum, ought not to be dealt with as an amendment to the illegal immigration bill. This Senate should focus--and I would be perfectly happy to have the comments made by an earlier speaker--I would be happy to have the legal immigration at the desk be brought up for full consideration and passed. But let us deal with these issues in their totality, not a small part of them. I think that approach is the wrong way to go. That is why we, from the beginning of this discussion in the Judiciary Committee, urged that these issues be divided. It is how the House did it. It is how the Judiciary here did it, both in the full committee and in the subcommittee, and that is how the full Senate ought to do it as well. Finally, we should not lose sight of the fact that countless organizations and groups who represent the most directly affected in all of this strongly believe in maintaining the separation. It is interesting to note the many organizations that share this opinion: The American Electronics Association, American Council on International Personnel, the American Business Software Alliance, the Electronic Industries Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Information Technology Association of America. They believe we should not try to merge these issues of legal immigration into the bill before us, the bill on illegal immigration. Their opinion is the same whether the amendment is one pertaining to business immigration or an amendment, as the current one is, that pertains to family immigration. They believe we should continue the distinction we have made here all the other times we have considered immigration questions, and separate these legal immigration issues that are very weighty and very complicated from issues of illegal immigration, which are equally complicated and weighty. And that I strongly urge, Madam President, be the approach we take today. I am perfectly willing to have Senator Simpson's proposals and the proposals to be offered later by Senator Feinstein, from California, on legal immigration debated fully here the way that we did in committee along with the rest of the issues that are all around legal immigration. That is the way we should proceed. I do not fear that debate, and I suspect a bill such as was the case in the Judiciary Committee can be passed, but the sequence ought to be illegal immigration is the top priority. We have a good bill. Let us pass it and conference it with the House bill that is already out there on this topic, and then let us bring legal immigration from the desk to the floor and have at that issue as well. I know the Senator from Wyoming would like to speak, and there is one other Senator on the way here, so I am going to yield the floor at this time. I thank the Chair. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I was not as surprised as he was at the remarks of the Senator from Colorado about this effort to bring legal immigration into the illegal immigration bill. As I said in my earlier comments, and as I think the remarks of the Senator from Colorado also reflect, this is a very substantial joining together of two very, very, in my judgment, different issues that ought to be dealt with independently of each other, as we were able to do so in the Judiciary Committee, and as the House did in their consideration of immigration already this year. The fact of the matter is that these issues that pertain to the number of legal immigrants who can come into this country are very complicated, significant, and weighty issues. Mr. President, I say to you that anybody who has been watching the discussions today, who has been following this debate, I hope they recognize already what we recognized on the Judiciary Committee, that these are not simple amendments. These are not amendments that should be considered in the flash of the day here. These are, in fact, deserving of being independently considered in a much broader context that looks at the whole range of matters that pertain to legal immigration at the same time. To take the illegal immigration bill--an outstanding piece of legislation, in most respects already--and suddenly inject into it considerations of legal immigration on the basis of one amendment at the very end of this process is not the way the full Senate should take this up today. In my judgment, Mr. President, anybody watching this debate would recognize that the Senate deserves to have a full and complete consideration of legal immigration, rather than to attach one highly controversial and very complicated element of it on the illegal immigration bill. That said, Mr. President, let me move on to address some of the substantive components of the Simpson amendment, which is at the desk right now. I think it is important for our colleagues to understand exactly what would happen if this amendment were to pass. First of all, Mr. President, I think the priorities in this amendment are out of line. Under this amendment, the practical effect of priorities that have been set is that virtually no visas will be available for people who fall into categories such as the adult children or the married children of U.S. citizens. Given the backlog of spouses and children of permanent residents, given the anticipated numbers by the INS, the normal categories of an unlimited immigration of the spouses and children of legal citizens, it is clear that, for the 5-year period the legislation contemplates, there will not be any visas available, in my judgment, for anyone who is the child, married child, or adult child, of a U.S. citizen. What that means, Mr. President, and what our colleagues have to understand is that if the Simpson amendment were to pass, we would establish the following priority. The children of noncitizens would have a greater priority in terms of gaining access to this country than the children of U.S. citizens. Let me repeat that. The children of noncitizens would be given a higher priority than the children of citizens. In fact, virtually no adult children or married children of citizens would, under this amendment, have a chance to come here during this 5-year period. Let me reflect further on the point I am making, because it turns out, as Senator Simpson indicated, and as we have discussed here already today, that a substantial portion of those people who are in this category of permanent residents, were themselves amnestied here in 1986 by the legislation that this Congress passed and which was signed into law. Prior to that, they entered the country illegally. They were illegal aliens. And so if we place, as a priority, the children of these permanent residents on the basis that the Simpson amendment does, above the adult children and married children of U.S. citizens, we would not only be placing priority on the children of permanent residents, noncitizens over the children of citizens, we would be placing as a higher priority the children of illegal aliens over the children of U.S. citizens. Now, several Members have tried to differentiate between adult children of U.S. citizens and minor children, between married children of U.S. citizens and minor children, between married or adult children of U.S. citizens and minor children of noncitizens; but I have a hard time believing that any Member of the U.S. Senate or Congress wants to exclude virtually every adult or married child of U.S. citizens and, instead, propose such a substantial priority on the children of noncitizens, indeed, so many of whom were at one point illegal aliens. It just seems to me that these are not the priorities we, as a body, ought to follow. In addition to that, as was alluded to also by Senator Simpson, there are a huge number of children and siblings of U.S. citizens who are on this backlog list, people who have been waiting for, in some cases, as many as 10 years to come here. The Simpson amendment would virtually wipe out anybody on that list from having access over these 5 years that the amendment would seek to apply. These people have been waiting already a long time. They have paid the dollars that are involved in securing applications and a variety of other things that are part of this process. Now they will be told that, basically, for at least 5 years, the door is going to be shut. I think that is a huge mistake. These are the people that all of our offices hear from all the time. These are the people whose fathers and mothers contact us and ask us, ``What can be done? How can we get our children here?'' Well, many times we have had to say ``no.'' Now we are going to, with a vote today, say ``no'' for an additional 5 full years, Mr. President. I think that is a terrible delay to continue. But let me talk, also, Mr. President, about some of the other comments that have been made with respect to exactly who is affected by this legislation. We have heard a lot today about the concept known as chain migration. It is always said in a very kind of threatening way and a worrisome-sounding way--chain migration. That is something we, apparently, do not like. But let us just talk a little bit about these folks who were on the charts we saw earlier today--the sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, who we seek to keep the door open to. Are these really people we want to keep out, Mr. President? Are these really people we want to put at a lower priority? Are these really people who, as some described, are taking from our system? It is exactly those people who Senator DeWine referenced when he talked about the gutsy guys who have come here. Who are those people who have come here over the years to make a contribution? That is exactly these people. The notion of chain migration has been dramatically exaggerated here today. As the General Accounting Office study indicates, the average time between a person's arrival and their effort to sponsor somebody is 12 years. The chart, which attempts to depict huge influxes of people coming as a result of one person's immigration--in fact, that covers half a century. That, I believe, is exaggerated at that point as well. The fact is that, under the law that we are considering, the illegal immigration bill, countless provisions have been placed in that legislation to prevent this--sponsorship agreements that can be enforced, so that before people come over here, there has to be a sponsorship agreement by the person sponsoring, and that agreement can now be enforced under this legislation. That is not going to encourage immigration; it is going to advertise courage. It is a dramatically exaggerated contention. To the extent it exists, the illegal immigration bill will discourage it. To the extent that anybody is trying to exploit the system, this bill discourages it. This bill contains sponsorship provisions, deeming provisions, provisions which limit access to the Government services by illegal aliens and by noncitizens that are going to discourage any advantage taken of the system, which will leave instead the kind of country that so many people sought over its history, the kind of nation where people came here to play by the rules and make a contribution, and, indeed, they have. An earlier speaker talked about immigration places a huge strain on the process. The type of immigration we are talking about, the ability of U.S. citizens to bring their children to this country, which this amendment would dramatically reduce, is not a strain on this system. To the extent any strain might exist, we have already addressed it in this illegal immigration bill by cutting off access to the kinds of services that may have been exploited. So, although I have several other things that I will bring back to the floor so other speakers get their chance, let me just conclude by restating two fundamental points. First, the Simpson amendment is an attempt, no matter how it is characterized, to bring very weighty, very complicated legal immigration issues and inject them into the illegal immigration bill. Those issues should be considered separate and very comprehensively in the bill that is before the Senate that is already at the desk on legal immigration. To bring them in now, especially to bring them in piecemeal, is a mistake. The practical effect of the Simpson amendment, were it to be enacted here today, would be to place a higher priority on access to coming to this country on the children of noncitizens versus the children of citizens. It would place a higher priority on the children of illegal aliens versus the children of citizens. If we are to address, and effectively address, issues of legal immigration, then at least we should address them in a way that puts the priority the way it ought to be. Citizens of this country and their children should have a higher priority than noncitizens and certainly than those who are illegal aliens. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I will continue my discussion of this amendment after others have spoken. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I begin by clarifying a point here. I believe we are on the Simpson amendment here to the illegal immigration bill. References made by the Senator from California to the Abraham- Kennedy amendments being in this bill are not accurate. There is no provision related to the Abraham-Kennedy amendment in this bill because this is the illegal immigration bill we are dealing with. The legal immigration bill, which we also passed in the Judiciary Committee, is at the desk and can be brought to the floor of the Senate. I believe and hope it will be brought to the floor of the Senate for discussions of the matters that pertain to legal immigration, including debate over how the allocation of visas ought to be made. I am going to speak right now about the amendment that is pending, the effort by the Senator from Wyoming, the Simpson amendment, to inject legal immigration issues into this illegal immigration bill. Mr. President, I have only been involved with this issue during my brief tenure in the Senate. I am very deferential to the Senator from Wyoming, who has worked on this issue for 17 years. I applaud his efforts. My efforts, which have been with a slightly different philosophical approach, are not meant to in any way suggest that what he has done has not been based upon sound thinking on his part. However, I say from the outset, he indicated there were a lot of funny things that came up during immigration, a lot of intriguing twists and turns. I agree with him completely. The one thing that I learned more than anything else during our experience in the committee was the very real need to keep illegal and legal immigration issues separate rather than joining them together. I also learned it was imperative that in discussing whether it was the illegal immigration issues or the legal immigration issues, they be done in a total and comprehensive way. Indeed, our committee deliberations on this lasted almost a full month, Mr. President. That is why I think it is important that we continue the pattern which was set in that committee of dealing with illegal immigration issues in one context, the bill before us, and reserving the legal immigration issues, issues of how many visas are going to be provided, how those visas will be allocated, and so on, the legal immigration bill, which is also at the desk. It is wrong to mix these two. As a very threshold matter in this whole debate about immigration, Senators should understand the very real differences between the two. Illegal immigration reform legislation, the legislation before the Senate right now, aims to crack down on people who break the rules, people who violate the laws, people who seek to come to this country without having proper documentation to take advantage of the benefits of America, people who overstay their visas once they have come here, in order to take advantage of this country. That is what this bill is all about. It does an extraordinarily good job of dealing with the problems surrounding illegal immigration. It is a testament, in no small measure, of the Senator from Wyoming's long-time efforts that such a fine bill has been crafted. But there is a very big difference between dealing with folks who break the rules and break the laws and seek to come to this country for exploitative reasons, and dealing with people who want to come to this country in a positive and constructive way to make a contribution, to play by the rules, and, frankly, Mr. President, to make a great, great addition to our American family. It is wrong to mix these. It would be equally wrong to mix Food and Drug Administration reform with a crackdown on sentencing for drug dealers. Yes, they both involve drugs, but one deals on the one hand with people breaking the law and using drugs the wrong way, and the other deals with a reasonable approach to bringing life-saving medicines and pharmaceuticals into the marketplace. Those should not be joined together and neither should these. Anybody who watched the process, whether in our Judiciary Committee here or over on the House side, I think would understand that these issues have to be kept separate. Let me say in a little bit more detail, let us consider what happened. In the Judiciary Committee, on the committee side, we had a vote. It was a long-debated vote over whether or not legal and illegal immigration should be kept together. The conclusion was very clear: a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats in the Judiciary Committee voted to divide the issues and to keep the legal immigration debate and issues separate from the illegal immigration issues. That, I believe, is what we should also do on the floor of the Senate. It was not just at the full committee that that was the approach taken, Mr. President. It was also how the Immigration Subcommittee itself addressed these issues. It did not start with one bill on legal and illegal immigration. It recognized the very delicate and very complicated nature of each of these separate areas of the law. First it passed a bill on illegal immigration, and then it passed a bill on legal immigration. Only then did it seek to combine the two, which the Judiciary Committee felt was a mistake, and separated the two later on. On the House side, Mr. President, we had the same thing take place. On the floor of the House of Representatives, a bill that included legal and illegal immigration reforms was tested. Overwhelmingly, the House of Representatives voted to strike those provisions such as the one or similar to the ones contained in the Simpson amendment which is before the Senate, provisions which dealt with legal immigration and dramatic changes to the process by which people who want to play by the rules come to this country and do so legally. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have kept legal and illegal immigration separate. In the House of Representatives, they have kept them separate. The bill, which is sitting in the House side waiting to go to conference with us, does not have these legal immigration components that will be discussed today. For those reasons, Mr. President, as a threshold matter, I think that the amendment that is being offered should not be accepted. I believe that it improperly puts together two very different areas of the law that should be kept and dealt with and considered separately, and I think we should not move in that direction. I make a couple of other opening statements. I know there are other colleagues who want to speak, and I will have quite a bit to say on this and intend to be here quite a long time to say it. Even if there was a decision to somehow merge these together, Mr. President, I think the worst conceivable way to do it is to do it piecemeal as we are now talking about doing in this amendment. If we were to consider these together, the notion of taking just one component--and a very significant one at that--out of the legal immigration bill and to try to tack it on to the illegal immigration bill before us, would be the worst conceivable way to address the issues that pertain to legal immigration in this country and the orderly process by which people who want to come and play by the rules are allowed into our system. It is wrong, I think, as a threshold matter, to mix the two. It is even wronger to take a piecemeal approach to it as would be suggested by this amendment. Mr. President, I say it would be wrong for this body to pursue this type of amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming. I also make another note. The Senator from Wyoming in his comments, as a threshold matter, suggested because visa overstayers constitute a large part of the illegal immigrant population in this country and because they at one time came to this country legally, we should somehow bring in the entire legal immigration proposal, misses the point. With this legislation, once these folks have overstayed their visas, they are no longer legal immigrants. They are illegal immigrants. We have dealt with that effectively in the bill. So, Mr. President, my initial comments today are simply these. As a threshold, it is wrong to mix the two. As a threshold, it is even wronger to mix them on a piecemeal basis. If we are going to consider legal immigration, the appropriate way to do so is to bring the full bill that was passed by the Judiciary Committee, which sits at the desk, to the floor of the Senate. I have no qualms about having a debate over that bill. I have a lot of different changes that I might like to consider, including some in light of the INS statistics that are being discussed. But that is the way to do it, not by tacking on this type of provision to a bill that should focus, in a very directed way, on illegal immigration and the problems we confront in that respect in this country today. Mr. President, I know others are seeking recognition. I have quite a bit more to say, but I will yield the floor and seek recognition further. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I object.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I would like to reiterate the sincerity of my comments with respect to having the legal immigration bill considered separately. I was under the impression--during the April recess, in fact, I was approached, I know, by the majority leader and asked if that was an acceptable approach. I know that the people who are here today arguing that these issues be maintained separately, approved and signed off and said they were fully supportive of having that bill come to the floor. It was my understanding that the Senator from Wyoming had opposed that, and so I am a little bit uncertain right now exactly what did happen a couple of weeks ago. But I would just reiterate, from my point of view, our sincerity, and I guess my understanding was that a proposal to bring the legal bill to the floor had been rejected by the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee. Maybe I got the wrong story, but it is my understanding that offer was already extended and rejected. That is why, instead, we are here today trying to merge these issues, notwithstanding the fact that the House sought to split them, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee sought to split them. But I will reserve further comments for the moment. I see other speakers here.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment in the aid package for Lebanon which was recently announced by the Clinton administration. The aid package consisted of a mere $1 million to fulfill the International Committee for the Red Cross request, an additional $25,000 from USAID through the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, and 50,000 pounds of U.S. military medical supplies and equipment. Due to the most recent violence in Lebanon, some 400,000 refugees have been displaced. There is an extreme amount of pressure upon the country's infrastructure, particularly in Beirut where there is very little electricity. In southern Lebanon it has been reported that the water supply has been cut off to dozens of villages. The Lebanese people have suffered greatly over the last two decades, but they are particularly in need of urgent assistance. The United States has always viewed Lebanon as a good friend and ally, and thus the United States should make a greater commitment of resources. Considering the President's past emergency aid packages of $59 million for Rwandan and Burundi refugees and $11 million for Cuban and Haitian refugees, the Clinton administration efforts with respect to Lebanon is clearly and grossly insufficient. For approximately the same amount of refugees in Russia, this administration donated 1.2 million pounds of medical supplies and equipment. This inequity with respect to Lebanon is clearly unfair. Mr. President, I urge the Clinton administration to immediately redouble its aid efforts to Lebanon. In addition, as I have done for the past week, I urge the administration to utilize all of its diplomatic resources to negotiate a cease fire in this region and to bring and end to the hostility immediately.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I was not sure whether that had actually been formulated in a unanimous-consent agreement. If not, let me make a couple of quick points. I do not think we want to extend the debate unnecessarily here, because the issues on this amendment are virtually identical to the issues that were on the floor in the context of Senator Simpson's amendment. The fact is that this is almost the same amendment as Senator Simpson's amendment. As we heard, modest efforts are being made to apply some of these visas to, as I understand it, some of the other categories besides the children and spouses of permanent residents, but it is going to work out, as Senator Kennedy has said, to a very, very few, just because those categories will consume such a high percentage of the visas that are going to be available under this very substantial amendment. Second, the priorities, as I see them, that were established in the previous amendment are in this amendment as well. Once again, we see an overwhelming percentage of the immigration that will be legal under this amendment going not to the children of citizens of the United States, adult children or married children, but rather to the children of noncitizens, many of whom are, in fact, individuals who were once illegal aliens. It seems to me those priorities are not the appropriate ones that we should establish. But I have to say, Mr. President, already just in the discussion that has happened in the first few minutes of this amendment, it is quite clear--we just received this amendment late this afternoon--the projections that are being made are hypothetical projections. There is confusion with respect to this amendment. It is unclear to me, after studying it for the last hour or so, exactly what its effects will be. At least we had a little bit of time to look at the effects of the previous amendment. But from what I can tell, it would definitely cut overall family preference immigration by roughly 60 percent. It would cap and slash the immigration of parents of U.S. citizens. It would cut the immigration of adult children of U.S. citizens by over 60 percent. It would eliminate all immigration of siblings, basically. These are dramatic changes in the legal immigration laws of this country. As I said with some frequency during the debate on the last amendment, Mr. President, they should be dealt with separately from the debate on illegal immigration. These are two very distinct issues with a very powerful and important impact on citizens of this country and their families. We should deal in this bill with illegal immigration. We should maintain the split which was put together in the Judiciary Committee that divided these two. We should follow the lead of the House keeping legal immigration separate from illegal immigration. Even if we were to consider legal immigration, I once again argue it should not be done in this type of piecemeal fashion, such weighty, complicated amendments brought in this fashion. It is impossible to even determine the potential impact of this amendment. For those reasons, Mr. President, I urge the Senate to once again follow the lead of the last amendment, keep these issues separate, keep legal immigration separate from illegal immigration, pursue ahead today, and let us get a good illegal immigration bill through the Senate. I think it will address many of these problems. Then let us take the legal immigration bill that is at the desk, and then let us deal with that in a deliberative fashion here on the floor of the Senate. I think that is the way we should go. This amendment is hardly different from the last one. It has the same priorities, has the same dramatic changes. I strongly oppose it. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would appreciate being apprised of the circumstances with respect to time.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the country of Lebanon. As you know, Mr. President, Lebanon has again been the most recent victim of the fighting in the Middle East. The hostilities of last week which continue today have caused a great loss of Lebanese lives. The United States has always supported the independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon. However, in the most recent negotiations to end the fighting in the region, the U.S. administration has been focusing its efforts on Syria and Israel. I believe that the State Department is sincere in upholding it support for the sovereignty of Lebanon. But I am afraid that the United States views a resolution to the Israel-Syria conflict as the only priority--and the consequence is the plight of the civilian population in Lebanon is ignored. It is Lebanon that is suffering the most in this conflict, and it is with that country which the United States should focus its immediate attention. The influence and support of the United States is critical to giving Lebanon the help it needs to move forward and rebuild after two decades of civil war. As its stands, the presence of all foreign forces in Lebanon irritates the situation, making it difficult for the Lebanese to find a peaceful solution to their quest for independence and sovereignty. Only until there is the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon, combined with a diplomatic solution, will peace in the Middle East be achievable. I believe that Lebanon will than be on its way to returning to the independent, sovereign and unoccupied land that it once was--free of all non-Lebanese forces. Not only will this advance the case of Middle East peace in the region, but it will also be in America's best interest to have its friend, Lebanon, stable once more. Today, President Clinton is meeting with President Elias Hrawi of Lebanon. It is my hope that the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon is the subject of much discussion. President Clinton will also be announcing a humanitarian aid package for Lebanon, and I was pleased to lead the efforts in the Senate to insist upon this assistance for the innocent civilians of Lebanon. But the humanitarian assistance is only one part of the equation. I, once again, urge the administration to persist in trying to negotiate a cease fire in this region and to bring an end to the hostility immediately.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my warm congratulations to Dr. Mahmoud H. Fahmy of Dallas, PA who will be honored by his colleagues, friends, and family at a testimonial dinner this evening. Dr. Fahmy has recently retired from Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, PA where he spent 30 years of his professional life. Although formally retired from Wilkes University, Dr. Fahmy is currently the President of his own business, serves as chairman of the Luzerne County Community College Board of Trustees, and is a member of countless community service organizations. I have had the pleasure of personally knowing Dr. Fahmy and appreciating his dedication, not only to domestic educational endeavors, but to international projects as well. Dr. Fahmy's exemplary duty and service to the community at large has earned him the great respect of his colleagues, friends, and family. I would like to join them in commending him for his dedication to his community and to his profession. Dedicating one's career to education is something very special and should be recognized by all of us who enjoy the fruits of this great country. The State of Pennsylvania is very lucky to have Dr. Fahmy amongst its citizens, and should be very proud of his accomplishments. I would like to conclude by extending to him my best wishes for a happy retirement and much success in his future endeavors.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and extend warm greetings to the Detroit chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP] on the occasion of its 41st Annual Freedom Fund Dinner, to be held on April 28. The struggles of the NAACP have had an immeasurable impact on local, national, and world events, advancing educational, housing and employment opportunities for America's voiceless. The Detroit chapter of this organization in particular has shown a commitment to both local and national action in the interests of its neighbors and community. The rewards of these efforts are shared by all throughout Michigan and our entire Nation. Of course, Mr. President, we must continue to pursue every means by which to improve the quality of life for all Michigan residents. Ensuring that all of our citizens share in the resurgence of Michigan as a national and world leader is an important priority to me, as it is to the Detroit NAACP. My voice echoes with the many members and supporters of the Detroit NAACP in their calls for more jobs, better schools, and safer communities. It is clear to me that the NAACP stands, as it always has stood, for self-determination, hard work, and leadership. I think Frederick Douglass best captured this philosophy when he said: ``The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her August claims have been born of earnest struggle. . . If there is no struggle there is no progress.'' I am sure that all concerned citizens who hope and pray for a unified America where we can celebrate opportunity and justice join me in extending our sincere best wishes to the Detroit chapter of the NAACP.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to welcome a large group of Michigan constituents who have come here to Washington, DC, to express their opinions on the recent violence in Lebanon. I was pleased to be able to welcome them to the Senate this morning and host them for morning coffee prior to their planned events for the day. Mr. President, this group comes here today with very deep sentiments and emotions about this issue. In fact many of them have family or friends who have lost their loved ones in the tragic bombing of the U.N. shelter in Qana. I share their deep sentiments and support the overall message of the urgency of an immediate end to this bloodshed in the form of a cease-fire and the need to deliver humanitarian aid to the refugees in Lebanon. As I have been reiterating the past 2 days on the floor of the Senate, I urge the administration to persist in trying to negotiate a cease-fire in this region and to bring an end to the hostility immediately. The resulting peace will benefit everyone, but especially those innocent civilians and refugees in Lebanon, who have been most affected by the violence.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the University of Michigan ice hockey team on winning the 1995-96 NCAA Men's Division I Championship. With their 3-to-2 victory over Colorado College on March 30, the Wolverines captured the school's eighth NCAA National Championship, and first since the 1963-64 season. The win was especially significant for head coach Gordon ``Red'' Berenson. After 12 seasons in Ann Arbor, Berenson, already the winningest coach in school history, celebrated his 300th career victory with the national championship. In the past 6 seasons, the Wolverines have won at least 30 games each year, the only team in college hockey to do so. The Wolverine's accomplishments this season are certainly deserving of recognition. In addition to compiling an impressive 34 wins, tying a team record, the Wolverines were also the CCHA Playoff Champions, CCHA regular season cochampions, and Great Lakes Invitational champions. In the postseason, U-M's play was brilliant as well, managing three one- goal victories and one shutout in three different buildings in three different weekends on their road to the championship. The 1995-96 University of Michigan men's hockey team has represented their school and themselves with distinction. Our State has every reason to be proud of these student-athletes, and we salute their dedication and excellence. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the novel approach one business in my State has undertaken to educate the public about the high Federal tax burden suffered by working families in our country. The Lockwood Companies, based in Bingham Farms, are a group of seven construction, housing-material procurement, and development services firms. In the past 50 years, Lockwood has built more than $1.25 billion of housing in Michigan, including affordable and luxury multifamily housing, as well as independent living, assisted, and skilled care communities. In the previous 2 years, Lockwood has been Michigan's leading apartment builder. In early 1995, Lockwood management was discussing the high, unfair tax burden imposed upon average employees. Someone observed a major problem in our country is the general lack of public awareness as to how high our tax rates actually have risen. A suggestion was given that some sort of creative effort be made to highlight Tax Freedom Day. Tax Freedom Day is determined each year by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit, public policy research group based in Washington, DC. Tax Freedom Day is estimated to be the day average Americans must work to from January 1 just to pay their Federal, State, and local taxes for that year. To exemplify just how much taxes have risen over the years, I point out that in 1944, the year Lockwood was founded, Tax Freedom Day would have been March 30. In 1995, Tax Freedom Day was May 7, more than 5 weeks later. To draw attention to this situation, Lockwood management devised the idea of an employee strike on Tax Freedom Day, and declared it a paid company holiday. Lockwood's protest last year drew significant media coverage, both local and national. Encouraged by the positive response, Lockwood will again this year publicize Tax Freedom Day giving its employees a paid day off. Among the other Michigan companies that have been persuaded to join in this year's protest and do likewise are Sartech Distribution & Building Supply, Jordan Oliver Building Systems, and Schneider & Smith Architects. In announcing Lockwood's repeat observance of Tax Freedom Day, President Rodney Lockwood said his firm has, ``helped start more than 10 new woman- and minority-owned companies by awarding them contracts, supplying funding, or training their workers . . . If the tax situation were more favorable, we could help even more companies because we'd have more money available for that kind of discretionary spending.'' Undoubtedly, countless other job providers in Michigan and the rest of the country would appreciate tax relief that would allow them to assist fledgling small businesses as well. The Lockwood Companies' unique manner of protesting high levels of taxation deserves to be recognized. Increased awareness of the oppressive tax burden on American families can only yield positive results. The Lockwood Companies, and those who will strike alongside with them this year, are providing an invaluable public education, and I commend their efforts.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to note the passing of our Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown, in a plane crash outside Dubrovnik, Bosnia. This tragic accident took with it a vast amount of talent and expertise in the persons of numerous American business people, and specifically in the person of Secretary Brown. A dedicated member of his party and this administration, Secretary Brown fought hard for the ideals and programs in which he believed. His commitment to the Commerce Department he led was shown by his willingness to brave the dangers of Bosnia, business leaders in tow, in pursuit of opportunities to help rebuild that war-torn country. Secretary Brown also was a committed family man, and I know that his death is a great loss to his wife, his family, his friends, and his neighbors. I extend my condolences to his family in particular and hope that they can find solace in the knowledge of God's grace and in memories of the life they had with Ron Brown.