[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12258-S12265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS, MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM, AND 
                      EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the House bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2607) making appropriations for the government 
     of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
     in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1621

  (Purpose: Making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Byrd, proposes an amendment numbered 1621.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Carl Truscott 
of my staff be granted floor privileges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after 
completion of the pending motion and amendment, and passage, the 
Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, be granted 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, as the 105th Congress draws to a close, 
we are finally, at last, about to complete action on the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill. The amendment before the Senate 
incorporates the conference report to the Commerce, Justice, State 
spending bill and the Foreign Operations spending bill, together with 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the District of Columbia 
appropriations bill.
  I would like to speak very briefly to the provisions of the District 
of Columbia portion of this omnibus package. First of all, the ranking 
member of the District of Columbia subcommittee, Barbara Boxer, and I 
have ironed out all of our differences and we now have the bill that 
should have the support of the House and the administration.
  At the moment, the District of Columbia is being funded on a 
temporary basis through a continuing resolution. It is critical that we 
pass this amendment as soon as possible because the Congress has yet to 
pass a District of Columbia rescue package and the management reform 
plan, which we enacted in August. Passage of this bill will ensure that 
that work goes forward to restructure the city's finances and impose 
some much-needed management reforms on the city and its various 
agencies.
  The amendment being offered in the nature of a substitute to the 
District of Columbia appropriations bill will provide funding of $8 
million for management reforms, and these reforms are already under 
way. But without passage of this bill, the reform program will simply 
fall apart.
  Mr. President, this amendment is very similar to the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill that has been pending before the Senate 
for several weeks. This amendment reflects the work of the Congress, 
city officials, and the financial control board to bring about a 
balanced District budget. This budget is balanced 1 year ahead of the 
schedule set by the Congress in 1995 when it created the financial 
control board to rescue the city from insolvency and incompetence.
  To reach consensus on how to balance the budget, the control board 
and the elected city council first rejected several of the proposed 
budgets. This budget is a more conservative approach. This amendment 
actually cuts most city agencies, with a few exceptions, such as public 
safety. The focus of this bill is to balance the budget and reform the 
city's management problems.
  It is a good bill and I urge its support by my colleagues. I want to 
especially thank the ranking member, Senator Barbara Boxer, and Kay 
Bailey Hutchison for their hard work on the Appropriations Committee. I 
want to thank the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Stevens, and the distinguished ranking member of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, for their help and guidance in 
the past several months. I also wish to take a moment to thank Mary 
Beth Nethercutt, Jim Hyland, Dave Landers, of my staff, Jay Kimmit, and 
the rest of the minority staff for their help on this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the balance of my time.


                         privilege of the floor

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
staff members be granted full floor privileges during consideration of 
the District of Columbia and Omnibus Appropriations bills; James 
Morhard, Paddy Link, Kevin Linskey, Carl

[[Page S12259]]

Truscott, Dana Quam, Vas Alexopoulos, Luke Nachbar, Scott Gudes, Karen 
Swanson Wolf, Emelie East, and Jay Kimmit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the 
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 1998. The provisions 
came about through bi-partisan negotiations and provides $31.8 billion, 
an increase of $30.9 million above the House level, $135.3 million 
above the Senate level, and $297 million less than the President's 
request.
  Before getting to the details, I want to thank Senator Hollings, and 
his staff, Scott Gudes, Karen Swanson-Wolf, and Emelie East for all 
their hard work and dedication to getting this bill written and passed. 
Their efforts and expertise helped smooth the way for its success 
through the 99-0 vote in the Senate in July and its presentation to you 
today.
  The committee amendment includes many of the provisions that the 
Senate gave top priority to in its bill, but the funding levels reflect 
our negotiations with the House. Within the Justice Department, the 
committee amendment retains the Senate initiatives to fight crimes 
against children, increases assistance to state and local law 
enforcement, strengthens counterterrorism activities, bolsters drug 
control efforts, and provides funding for new juvenile programs.
  We have funded many programs that will further our efforts in 
preventing and combating crimes against children. The amendment 
provides $10 million in additional funding for the FBI's efforts to 
stop child exploitation on the Internet. In addition, we're making sure 
those organizations that work closely with the FBI also receive 
adequate funding to provide much needed support. There is $1.7 million 
for Missing Children; $6.9 million for the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children, of which $1.9 million is provided for Internet 
investigations; $1.2 million for the Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement 
Training Center for State and local law enforcement investigations; and 
an additional $2.4 million for State and local law enforcement to form 
specialized units to investigate and prevent child exploitation on the 
Internet. These agencies have promising ideas of ways to improve 
current law enforcement procedures in this area to stop pedophiles from 
committing further atrocities.
  We believe it is the national interest to improve the skills of law 
enforcement personnel on all levels and supports initiatives to do 
this. The Community Oriented Policing Services, known as the COPS 
program, is funded at $1.4 billion. As part of this provision and with 
direct funding, we were able to preserve the Senate number of $25 
million for the Regional Information Sharing System so that law 
enforcement officers throughout the country have increased access to 
national criminal databases.
  The Committee amendment includes an increase in funding for the 
Violence Against Women Act grants to $270.7 million. We recognize the 
need to enhance and expand current women's assistance programs as 
violent crimes against them continue. The Violence Against Women grants 
will be given to States to be used to develop and implement effective 
arrest and prosecution policies to prevent, identify, and respond to 
violent crimes against women. This funding provides domestically abused 
women and children with additional support services. Only 20 states 
received Violence Against Women grants in 1996. We believe there should 
be sufficient funding for more states to participate in these programs. 
Consequently, we have appropriated funds for this effort.
  In this amendment, we remain committed to ensuring that the U.S. law 
enforcement and intelligence community has a comprehensive strategy to 
combat domestic and international terrorism. In May Congress received 
from the Attorney General a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy 
compiled with consultation with other key departments and agencies. 
During subsequent oversight hearings, it became apparent that 
vulnerabilities to our national security still exist, especially to the 
emerging threats from chemical and biological agents and cyber attacks 
on computer systems within the United States. The hearings also 
emphasized the need for our efforts to be constantly coordinated among 
the many participating departments and agencies to make this very 
critical mission successful. To do this, the conference agreement 
provides $32.7 million for the Counterterrorism and Technology Crime 
Threat.

  We remain concerned about the proliferation of illegal drugs coming 
across our borders and its impact on our children. In an effort to 
support law enforcement efforts to combat the rampant spread of illegal 
drugs, the committee devotes $11 million through the DEA to combat the 
trade of methamphetamine and $10 million for efforts to reduce heroin 
trafficking. The COPS Program includes $34 million to stop 
methamphetamine production. We have created a new Carribean initiative 
that will disrupt the drug corridors and block the flow of illegal 
drugs into the United States.
  Over the last few years, the infrastructure needs of the 
organizations funded in this bill have been neglected. We have made a 
point of providing funds to repair buildings throughout our agencies. 
Over $300 million will go to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
Drug Enforcement Agency, and Bureau of Prisons to make much needed 
infrastructure improvements.
  Regarding the INS, the agreement provides 1000 Border Patrol agents, 
over $200 million in new initiatives to restore the integrity of the 
naturalization process, and adds 1000 new beds for detention, and the 
ultimate deportation of criminal and illegal aliens.
  As a last mention within the Justice portion of the bill, we have 
increased funding to $238.6 million dollars for juvenile justice 
prevention programs with an additional $250 million for a new juvenile 
accountability block grant.
  In the area of the Commerce Department, we have made some difficult 
decisions, but, I think they are constructive ones. We have, for 
example, provided strong support for the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, which does high quality research and 
provides technical data important to our economy. The Sea Grant 
program, which conducts research of regional importance through 
colleges and universities, is strongly supported in this bill at a 
level of $56 million.
  The committee amendment provides increased funding for the National 
Weather Service. Many of us are concerned that the agency have the 
necessary resources to ensure timely warnings of severe weather, 
including tornados and hurricanes.
  There is $23.4 million for the U.S. Trade Representative taking into 
account the amended request made by the President recently.
  The Bureau of Export Administration has two new requirements which 
deserve mention. First, the Department of State's encryption export 
control responsibilities have been transferred to the Export 
Administration. Second, with the ratification of the Chemical Weapons 
Convention, the Export Administration will have primary responsibility 
for enforcing the convention and is thus provided with $1.9 million to 
do this.

  And I've kept the best for last--well, at least the issue that seems 
to have the most interest of late--The Census compromise achieved by 
the White House and the House leadership--it has two parts. First, it 
establishes a commission to oversee the Census and report regularly on 
the conduct of the Census. Second, it establishes fast track procedures 
for judicial review of sampling.
  In the Judiciary portion of the bill, we have had to confront some 
difficult issues, but, I believe we are providing the American people 
with a better Judiciary through our efforts. The appropriation is 
sufficient to maintain current judicial operation levels and takes into 
account the increase in bankruptcy caseloads and probation population. 
We are also providing the Justices and judges with the 2.8 percent cost 
of living adjustment requested in the President's budget.
  We have established a commission to study the current structure of 
the circuit courts, especially the controversial Ninth Circuit. During 
the 1996-1997 session, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned 96 percent of 
the decisions they reviewed from the Ninth Circuit. This

[[Page S12260]]

high turnover rate is a beacon that the Ninth Circuit is not meeting 
the needs of the people it serves. The debate over whether to split it 
has raged for some years. The commission should end the debate over the 
Ninth Circuit once and for all.
  Moving on to the State Department, we have fully funded, to the best 
of our ability, the operations carried out by this Department. We made 
sure that the day-to-day functions of the State Department are funded 
at acceptable levels, and we are trying to upgrade their outdated 
technology systems. Maintaining infrastructure was a top priority for 
the Senate this year. We are providing $21.4 million above the 
President's request for the Capital Investment Fund so that desperately 
needed upgrades in information and communication systems can be done.
  And as a final noteworthy item, this bill covers the first down 
payment for U.N. arrears as well as the State Department 
Reauthorization bill which includes U.N. reform and State Department 
reorganization, which we have worked so hard to achieve.
  That is a quick run down of the Commerce, Justice, State, and 
Judiciary provisions before us. I want to thank my staff--Jim Morhard, 
Kevin Linskey, Paddy Link, Carl Truscott, Dana Quam, Vas Alexopoulos, 
and Luke Nachbar--for all their hard work. They, and their democratic 
counterparts, have spent long hours drafting this legislation. I 
believe this amendment contains sound provisions that have been agreed 
to by both parties. The departments and agencies funded in this 
legislation can only benefit from the passage of these new funding 
levels. I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of this 
committee amendment.
  Just to quickly comment on that section of the bill, the language 
which is in this bill dealing with the funding for State, Commerce, 
Justice, is similar to the language which passed this Senate by a 99-0 
vote. The language which is before the Senate at this time is language 
which has been agreed to by the Democratic and Republican members of 
the Appropriations Committee unanimously. Again, I strongly encourage 
the Senate to pass it.
  At this time, I yield back the time allocated to myself and Senator 
Hollings under the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time is yielded back.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are awaiting another Member who wishes 
to ask some questions, so I will not yield my time yet.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I fully support the efforts of the chairman, 
and I congratulate him for the proposal that he has just described 
which, if adopted, makes it possible to greatly shorten the process of 
completion of the remaining appropriation bills.
  The pending amendment contains the committee's recommendations for 
the remaining three Fiscal Year 1998 appropriation bills, namely, the 
Commerce/Justice/State, District of Columbia, and Foreign Operations 
Appropriation Bills. As Members are aware, the Commerce/Justice/State 
and Foreign Operations Appropriation Bills were passed by the Senate in 
July of this year and have been in conference with the House. For those 
two bills, the committee's recommendations include, to a large extent, 
the agreements reached by the House and Senate conferees. There are, 
however, certain issues upon which the conferees were unable to reach 
agreement. For those particular issues, the committee has recommended 
proposals which we hope will be acceptable to the Senate and, if so, 
which the House can then accept. The chairman and ranking member of the 
Commerce/Justice/State Subcommittee, Senators Gregg and Hollings, and 
the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, 
Senators McConnell and Leahy, will make statements regarding their 
portions of the pending amendment. These very capable chairmen and 
ranking members have worked tirelessly for months on their respective 
bills, and they are to be commended by the Senate for their efforts.
  For the District of Columbia, as Senators are aware, the Senate has 
not yet passed the Fiscal Year 1998 appropriation bill. Here again, 
there are a number of issues which, up to this point, have been 
unresolved. I am certain that the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, Senator Faircloth, and the equally able ranking member, 
Senator Boxer, will explain in some detail the D.C. portion of the 
pending amendment and will be prepared to answer any inquiries which 
Senators may have.
  Mr. President, hopefully we are nearing the conclusion of the Fiscal 
Year 1998 appropriations process. As I have stated, the pending 
substitute, if enacted, will complete action on the remaining three 
appropriation bills. Like last year, this has been a very difficult 
year for the Appropriation Committees. These difficulties, however, 
like in other recent years, are due largely to attempts to attach 
controversial legislative riders to appropriation bills. The delays in 
enacting the remaining appropriation bills are in no way attributable 
to the chairman or other members of the Appropriations Committee.

  In his first year as chairman of the committee, Senator Stevens has 
carried out his responsibilities in an outstanding manner. At every 
step of the process, from the first meeting of the committee this year 
and throughout all of the hearings and markup sessions that he has 
chaired, he has shown not only great expertise and skill as it relates 
to all appropriation matters, but, just as importantly and, perhaps 
more so, my distinguished friend and colleague from Alaska, Senator 
Stevens, has unerringly displayed great patience and bipartisanship on 
every occasion throughout this, his first year as chairman of the 
committee. I know that he would have preferred, as I would, to have the 
thirteen appropriation bills separately adopted and signed into law. 
But at this late date, I support the chairman's decision and commend 
him for bringing this proposal to the Senate that, if agreed to, will 
enable us to complete action on the remaining bills expeditiously.
  It may well be that the House will be unable to agree with every 
recommendation made in the pending substitute. If that is the case, the 
House may wish to ask for a conference with the Senate on the matter; 
or, the House could simply amend the Senate amendment and send the bill 
back to the Senate without the need for a conference. My point is, that 
even with the adoption of this proposal, we are not out of the woods. 
Further action may be required by the Senate. But, I am convinced that 
if we proceed in the regular manner and continued separate conferences 
on the Commerce/Justice/State and Foreign Operations Appropriations 
Bills, and separately complete action in the Senate on the District of 
Columbia Appropriation Bills, and then conference with the House on it, 
we may be in for several more weeks of controversy on these outstanding 
issues on the remaining appropriation bills. Furthermore, there is no 
assurance that these separate conferences would ever be able to 
overcome the impasses which have developed and mired them down.
  Mr. President, I want the Record to show that if given the 
opportunity to vote on these three appropriation bills separately, I 
would have voted against passage of the conference report on the Fiscal 
Year 1998 Foreign Operations Appropriation Bill. At a time when we are 
under continuing severe budgetary constraints on discretionary spending 
for our nation's infrastructure--its highways and bridges, water and 
sewage treatment projects, education and other national priorities--I 
am opposed to providing appropriations for foreign countries at the 
same or increasing levels year after year. For example, in my view, the 
$3 billion payment to Israel and $2 billion payment to Egypt should be 
reduced under the circumstances facing the nation. Even though we are 
achieving reductions in the Federal budget deficit, we nevertheless 
still have a Federal debt exceeding $5.43 trillion and the interest on 
that debt each year amounting to $251 billion.
  I strongly urge all members to support the chairman of the committee, 
as well as the chairmen and ranking members of the relevant 
subcommittees, in the proposal that is before the Senate, and I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that we will 
file a statement within 2 days following passage of the bill after the 
House has acted on the bill, or Congress as a

[[Page S12261]]

whole. That will be printed as a document, to be a report for this bill 
that combines these three appropriations bills.
  The Senator from Michigan has 10 minutes. If he wants to use that 
now, Mr. President, I would be pleased to yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  I wish to speak in relationship to this legislation, and in favor in 
particular of title II of the District of Columbia portion of this 
legislation.
  Title II incorporates an agreement reached recently between House and 
Senate negotiators to correct provisions in last year's immigration 
law. These provisions, as they were being interpreted by the Board of 
Immigration Appeals and others, would have had the effect of changing 
the rules in the middle of the game for thousands of Central Americans 
and others who came to the United States because their lives and 
families had been torn apart by war and oppression and are seeking 
permanent residency here. That violates the sense of fairness that is 
so much a part of the American character.
  Mr. President, during the 1980s civil wars rocked Central America. 
These civil wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala were of great 
importance to the United States. They critically affected our national 
security policy, as well as our conception of America's role in the 
Western Hemisphere.
  In 1979, the Sandinistas seized power from Anastasio Somoza. Upon 
gaining control of the state they carried out a program of land 
seizure, suppression of civil liberties, and other forms of oppression. 
They also aligned themselves with the communist government of the 
Soviet Union. A number of groups formed, seeking to overthrow the 
Sandinista regime, including some who had played an active role in the 
overthrow of Somoza on account of his civil liberties violations. These 
groups ultimately were supported by the U.S. government and became 
known as the Contras.
  The Contras' cause ultimately met with success when, in a stunning 
upset, Violeta Chamorro defeated the Sandinistas in national elections. 
But the war, combined with a United States embargo on trade and a 
series of natural disasters, ruined the economy and added to the unrest 
that endangered many lives. Approximately 126,000 Nicaraguans fled 
their homeland, came to the United States, and applied for asylum 
between 1981 and 1991. That was a quarter of all our asylum 
applications during that time period.
  During that same time, El Salvador experienced a brutal civil war 
which left tens of thousands dead. Over a quarter of the population 
were driven from their homes. The economy was left in a shambles. Faced 
with these terrible circumstances, and with continual danger for 
themselves and their families, hundreds of thousands of Salvadoran made 
their way to the United States. They asked for asylum because they 
feared death at the hands of the leftist guerrillas partially backed by 
the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, or at the hands of the military and the 
extremist death squads. Between 1981 and 1991 approximately 126,000 of 
these Salvadorans applied for asylum.
  During the same era, Mr. President, the people of Guatemala faced 
similar tragic and extremely dangerous circumstances. Approximately 
42,000 of them made their way here and applied for asylum in the Untied 
States.
  A great many of the Central Americans who came here during this 
period received some form of encouragement or support from our 
government for that decision. This started in 1979, when President 
Carter's Attorney General used his discretionary authority to protect 
recent arrivals from Nicaragua by establishing an extended voluntary 
departure program for them. When that program expired, it was extended 
further through a variety of other congressional and administrative 
actions.
  During the early to mid-1980s, Nicaraguans' claims for asylum had a 
high success rate, and very few were deported. That success rate began 
to decline toward the end of the decade. Recognizing the dangers 
presented by the civil war, however, the Reagan administration in 1987 
established a special Nicaraguan Review Program. Based in part on a 
recent Supreme Court decision bearing on the standard of proof for 
asylum, the NRP encouraged Nicaraguans to reapply for asylum under the 
new standard, thereby providing an extra level of review to Nicaraguans 
whose applications had been denied.
  When Violeta Chamorro won the election in 1990, conditions in 
Nicaragua began to change for the better and the Nicaraguan Review 
Program began to dissipate. In the meantime, however, many of the 
Nicaraguans had laid down strong roots here.
  The Nicaraguan Review Program was officially ended in 1995. However, 
the INS established a special phase out program under which Nicaraguans 
could remain in the country an additional year and receive work 
authorization. The work authorizations were again renewed in 1996.
  There were a number of reasons for this phase out program. But one of 
its purposes, as expressly stated in agency documents, was to allow the 
Nicaraguans who had laid down roots here to utilize the additional time 
to accrue the 7 years they would need to be eligible to adjust their 
status to legal residents under a procedure called ``suspension of 
deportation.'' In one form or another, this relief has been in 
existence for 40 years. In recent times, and until April 1 of this 
year, it was available to anybody who had been here for 7 years, was of 
good moral character, and whose deportation would cause extreme 
hardship to the person or his or her citizen or permanent resident 
immediate family members.
  The Salvadorans and Guatemalans likewise received special protection 
from U.S. government authorities. Their asylum claims received a less 
sympathetic hearing initially. As a result, the Salvadorans filed a 
class suit, knows as the ``ABC''' class action, subsequently joined by 
the Guatemalans, in which they challenged the way in which their asylum 
applications were being handled. President Bush's Administration 
settled this suit by agreeing to readjudicate their claims, and in 
order to facilitate this Congress gave the class members a special 
``temporary protected status'' in the 1990 Immigration Act. That 
temporary status was administratively extended in one way or another 
while the class members awaited their readjudications.
  My point, Mr. President, is that during the 1980's people fearing 
persecution, fearing death squads, fearing disruptions of their 
communities, came to America and we took extraordinary measures to make 
it feasible for them to stay here, even if they had been denied asylum 
through the official asylum-seeking procedures.
  At every step of the way, acts of Congress or acts of the executive 
branch gave these refugees a very clear signal, that they would be able 
to remain if they played by the rules then in existence. An informal 
understanding developed that in the absence of some other mechanism 
being devised, suspension of deportation would be the means through 
which they would become permanent residents of this country.
  That understanding was undermined when last year's immigration bill 
changed the rules for suspension of deportation. There are good 
arguments, Mr. President, indeed, I believe, arguments that would 
ultimately prevail if tested in court, that those changes were not 
intended to operate retroactively. That, however, was not the view of 
some of the leading sponsors of these changes, nor was it the initial 
view of the INS or the Board of Immigration Appeals. As a result, these 
Central American refugees--as well as refugees from other countries in 
like circumstances--face the realistic prospect that a retroactive 
change in our laws might uproot them yet again.
  I am happy to say that, under the negotiated arrangement with the 
House, this will not happen. The U.S. government will keep its word to 
Central Americans.
  Under the version of the legislation incorporated into this bill, 
Nicaraguans who were in the United States prior to January 1, 1995 will 
be permitted to adjust to permanent residence--and get green cards--if 
they have maintained a continuous presence here. The same right will be 
extended to their Nicaraguan spouses and children.

[[Page S12262]]

  In addition, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who either applied for 
asylum before 1990 or were members of the ABC class action suit settled 
with the U.S. Government, as well as members of their families, will be 
entitled to receive a hearing on their claims for suspension or 
withholding and adjustment under rules similar to those in effect prior 
to the 1996 immigration law. Nothing in the amendment precludes the 
Government from adapting those rules further to the special 
circumstances of that class.
  Similar relief will be available to those who fled communist regimes 
in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union by December 31, 1990, and 
filed an asylum claim by December 31, 1991. They too will be able to 
seek suspension of deportation or withholding of removal under the 
rules similar to those in effect before passage of last year's law.
  This relief also improves current law as applied to the members of 
these groups in two other respects. First, members of these groups will 
be eligible to have their cases adjudicated under the more generous 
rules whether or not they were in deportation proceedings as of the 
effective date of last year's immigration law. That makes good sense. 
There is no reason to apply the more generous rules to someone who 
filed an asylum application, lost on it, and was placed in deportation 
proceedings, while subjecting to the new rules someone who filed an 
asylum application at the same time and whose asylum claim has yet to 
be adjudicated.
  Second, none of these refugees will be subject to the 4,000 cap last 
year's law placed on the number of adjustments that may be granted in 
any given fiscal year. Thus they will not have to wait in line for a 
number to become available before their application may finally be 
acted on. With Central Americans and Eastern Europeans being placed 
outside the cap, it is expected that the 4,000 ceiling will accommodate 
the ordinary flow of successful applicants. Should there be more 
favorable adjudications than 4,000 in any fiscal year, the legislation 
assumes the INS will continue with its present approach of only issuing 
conditional grants until a number becomes available. Thus no one who 
would be the beneficiary of a favorable adjudication would be forced to 
depart because of the cap's having been reached.
  When the outlines of an agreement along these lines first emerged in 
the House, it included a proposal to eliminate an entire category of 
legal immigration, albeit a relatively small one, as the price for 
allowing these people to seek to stay under the rules they had been 
told would apply to them. Under the final version of the agreement 
embodied in this amendment, there will be no elimination of any legal 
immigration category. There will be a temporary reduction of no more 
than 5,000 visas per fiscal year in the ``other workers'' employment-
based immigration category, but only after those now in the backlog 
receive their visas. There will also be a temporary reduction of not 
more than 5,000 visas per fiscal year in the Diversity visa program. 
These temporary reductions will last until the cumulative total of 
these reductions equals the number of Salvadorans and Guatemalans who 
ultimately adjust to permanent residence. The numbers will be taken 
evenly out of the two categories.
  The legislative process of necessity involves compromise. The version 
of this legislation before us today contains some provisions that were 
not in Senator Mack's original proposal. I am quick to say I preferred 
the original for that reason. First, while I think that temporary 
reductions in legal immigration categories are far superior to 
elimination of any, as the House originally proposed, I am not 
persuaded that we should be doing either. Moreover, since we have 
current categories with unused visas, if we must turn anywhere to 
``borrow'' visas for these refugees, an approach that I feel is at odds 
with our humanitarian traditions, I would prefer to borrow any unused 
visas from the previous fiscal year before making any reductions.
  Second, while the legislation makes clear that no retroactive change 
is to be made in the standards for suspension of deportation as applied 
to Central American, Eastern European, and Soviet asylum applicants, it 
also makes clear that we are retroactively changing those standards for 
everybody else. I see no reason to do so. I have opposed the 
retroactive application of this provision to all individuals, 
regardless of their nationality. This is not because I take issue with 
the objective I believe the House is seeking: to make it harder for 
some people who have been abusing the rules by dragging out their 
deportation proceedings in order to accrue the 7 years they need for 
suspension of deportation. The problem is that the legislation does not 
and cannot distinguish between those who have been taking advantage of 
this loophole and others who have done nothing wrong and who have been 
stuck in administrative backlogs through no fault of their own.
  Retroactivity is particularly unjustified with respect to refugees 
from countries not covered by this compromise who have equities similar 
to those of the Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans. In recent 
years, many people came to the United States under a legal or quasi-
legal status, fleeing tyrannical regimes that were either enemies of 
the U.S. or allies whose domestic abuses were countenanced because of 
the country's strategic significance in the struggle for world freedom 
going on at the time. The retroactivity may force some of these people 
to leave despite the roots they have laid down and the fact that the 
conditions they are returning to remain dangerous.
  Despite these reservations, I support this agreement. On the whole it 
will advance the cause of fairness and the promise that America will 
make good on its commitments better than if we were to do nothing. It 
will free a large number of people from the threat of immediate 
deportation. It will allow some of them to adjust to legal status and 
assure others of a fair hearing on their effort to do so. Accordingly, 
Mr. President, I urge adoption of this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here, even though 
it is 7 o'clock on Sunday night, to finally finish up the D.C. 
appropriations bill. When Senator Faircloth and I started working 
together on this, it was way back in the summertime, and in September 
our bill, this D.C. appropriations bill, was voted out of committee.
  It was very easy to do that because the mayor, the city council, the 
control board, all agreed on the D.C. budget. We basically put it in 
this bill and we followed on the authorizing committees which had 
passed the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
Improvement Act. So what we did was to carry forward the will of this 
Congress and the will of the people of D.C. as repleted by their 
control board, their city council, and their mayor putting together a 
consensus balanced budget.
  That all was fine until we came to the floor and, of course, suddenly 
this bill became a very attractive sort of Christmas tree, way before 
Christmas, and Senator Faircloth and I found ourselves looking at each 
other as the debate swirled around us on immigration, on school 
vouchers and other things that we really did not anticipate being a 
part of this bill.
  The two of us had very much wanted to move it forward, and I was very 
candid at the time that there were a couple of provisions in this bill 
that I was not happy about because I did not think it showed enough 
respect for the women of D.C. in terms of their right to choose and to 
those who are seeking recognition of domestic partners, which I think 
is a local issue.
  But I stated at that time that majority rules, and I was not going to 
hold up the bill because I did not agree with these things, and so we 
were ready to move forward.
  I am very pleased tonight that we have a resolution on the 
immigration portion. It was a very legitimate issue that was raised by 
Senators Kennedy, Mack, and Graham, and I think Senator Abraham was 
very eloquent on the point that there were in fact refugees who came 
from Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador, and Guatemala who were going to be 
thrown out of the country without any sort of hearing whatsoever. 
Senator Moseley-Braun has raised the issue of Haitians in a similar

[[Page S12263]]

situation. Although this bill is silent on that, I think we have found 
other ways to handle her concerns. So it appears to me that we are on 
our way to having a bill for the people of Washington, DC, and the 
children of Washington, DC, who desperately deserve to have this bill 
completed.
  The issue of vouchers was handled, I thought, in quite a diplomatic 
way, which was to remove it from this bill and send it forward to the 
President as a separate vehicle. I think that really is a way to 
resolve the problem which right now is very contentious on both sides.
  So, Mr. President, I do not have any further comments to make at this 
time. I stand ready with my colleague from North Carolina to vote on 
this tonight. I understand we will voice vote it. I understand there 
are some colleagues who have other things they wish to discuss. I know 
Senator Wyden had a provision in the bill, which I strongly supported, 
dealing with the end of anonymous holds that we have had as a Senate 
prerogative around here. That appears to be an issue of contention that 
is no longer in the bill.
  So at this time I retain the remainder of my time in case colleagues 
come over and need it, but at this time I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, with the understanding that Senator Stevens is going 
to enter into a colloquy with Senator Wyden, I yield back the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield such time to the Senator from 
Oregon as he wishes. I know he has a matter he wishes to discuss, and 
Senator Byrd and I have time so he can use whatever time of that he 
wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. I thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. He has been exceptionally kind to me as a new 
Member of the Senate. I thank him for yielding to me this time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that I be 
permitted to offer my amendment to prohibit secret Senate holds which 
was agreed to previously in the Senate D.C. appropriations bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, then in light of the time that the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee has kindly yielded to me, I should like 
to take a few minutes to describe why I think this issue is so 
important.
  Mr. President and colleagues, I spoke yesterday afternoon in this 
body on the need to end Senate secrecy. Within an hour of my talk, 
three of the most senior Members of the Senate came to me and said they 
hoped this amendment would prevail.
  These three Members probably have an aggregate total of 60 years 
seniority in this body, and each of them told me that they had been 
frustrated by instances of this hide-and-seek process that the Senate 
now has with secret Senate holds.
  Certainly most of the American people are not aware of what a hold 
is. But the fact of the matter is, it is now possible for any Member of 
the U.S. Senate to unilaterally block the consideration of a bill or 
nomination from coming to this floor. It is an extraordinary power. It 
keeps the U.S. Senate from even discussing a nomination or a particular 
bill. It is one thing to object to something, or plan to vote against 
something. But in the case of the secret Senate hold, one Member of the 
U.S. Senate, one Member, can block the consideration of a nomination or 
bill. And during these last days of a session, this power is not just 
extraordinary, it is essentially a veto. It is a power that is 
unbeatable.
  I would just say to my colleagues that, as a new Member of the U.S. 
Senate, every day I am impressed by the greatness of this institution. 
And I don't think that the greatness of this institution will in any 
way be diminished if this body is open and accountable. I think that is 
why senior Members of the U.S. Senate have come to Senator Grassley and 
myself and said, ``I hope you prevail on this.''
  We are not seeking to block the right of a Senator to impose a hold. 
Under what we have proposed, each Member of the U.S. Senate could still 
use the hold, block the consideration of a nomination or bill. All we 
are saying is that it cannot be done behind closed doors. This Senate 
secrecy doesn't smell right. It doesn't pass the smell test to the 
American people. What Senator Grassley and I have proposed is that 
within 48 hours after a Member of the Senate informs the leadership 
that he or she is going to put a hold on a bill, that be so noticed in 
the Congressional Record.
  Recently there were more than 40 holds. Outside, much of the day, has 
been a group of people, outside the Chamber, simply trying to keep 
track of all the revolving holds, where a Senator imposes a hold for a 
short period of time and then, in effect, another Senator comes along 
and imposes a hold again. Outside the Chamber throughout this day there 
have been individuals trying to keep track of what is going on.
  I would say to my colleagues, I subscribe to the not exactly radical 
notion that public business is done in public. The use of this hold in 
the last few days of a session is not just some small thing. It is an 
extraordinary power. It can affect millions of dollars. It can affect 
the course of the judiciary and other key executive branch 
appointments. I am very concerned that at a time when the public is so 
skeptical and so cynical about Government, that this use of the secret 
hold simply feeds that cynicism. It contributes to the sense that the 
American people have that so much in Washington, DC, is not on the 
level.
  So, I am very grateful to Chairman Stevens for giving me this time to 
explain my point of view. Senator Grassley and I have indicated that we 
will be back. We will be back at the beginning of next session. I have 
tried for almost 15 months to get this issue before the U.S. Senate. 
The fact is, it is most abused right at this time, which is why we saw 
last week more than 40 holds. It was the subject of a hilarious press 
conference with the Senate minority leader, who said then that he 
couldn't figure out where all the holds were coming from.
  So Senator Grassley and I are not going to prevail tonight. I think 
that is bad news for democracy. I think the secret hold cheapens the 
currency of democracy. But we will be back. We will be back until we 
make this institution more open and accountable.
  Senator Stevens has been kind to give me all this time to explain my 
views. I appreciate that courtesy very much and I thank him for the 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret that I have objected to the 
amendment. I tell my friend from Oregon that the practice that he seeks 
to change is embedded in our rules; not in any law. During the period 
of time that I served here, 8 years as whip, Republican assistant 
leader, 4 years in the minority and 4 years in the majority, we had a 
different way at that time of handling what is now known as a hold.
  A hold is nothing more than an agreement of another Senator to object 
on behalf of a Senator at the request of the second Senator to prevent 
a unanimous consent agreement from coming into play. There is nothing 
in the rules about holds. It is a practice that has built up. To try to 
pass a law to deal with a practice of the Senate--I would call to the 
attention of the Senator from Oregon, there is a law that Congress 
cannot sit in Washington after July 31st. It has been the law for many 
years.
  We will not change the practices of Senate by law. What we have to do 
is get some rule changes, or a standing order that would apply to 
Senators. But the issue is whether a Senator in each instance, in this 
case whether the leaders, may object on behalf of a Senator who says, 
``I want to object and I may not be there at the time the subject comes 
up, and I want you to object for me.'' That is known as a hold today.
  When I first came to the Senate there was an official objectors' 
committee. It was unofficial in that sense, but on each side they had 
two or three Senators who agreed to be on the floor. At any time, one 
of them was here. And they objected to unanimous consent requests if 
they had been requested to do so by Members.

[[Page S12264]]

  It later became a prerogative of the leadership to do that. I think I 
would have to rely on my friend from West Virginia to give the complete 
history of it. I do not have the memory that he has. But I can assure 
you that he will instruct us one of these days about the history of 
this practice.
  But I do regret having to object. I understand what the Senator from 
Oregon and the Senator from Iowa are trying to do. I wish them success, 
because I find holds to be very burdensome to deal with, whether it's 
from the leadership point of view or the point of view of a chairman of 
a committee.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the chairman yield briefly for just a moment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Just for a few minutes, because I agreed to go to dinner 
with my wife tonight. If the Senator will be short, I will be glad to 
yield.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman. Far be it from me to interfere with 
that.
  First, I thank the chairman for his courtesy and say I would very 
much like to work with him, to get this practice changed. I have, in 
fact, spent a considerable amount of time with Senator Byrd on this. He 
was very helpful as well.
  I would finally say to the chairman that with respect to this matter 
of courtesy, I and Senator Grassley have no concern about that. Of 
course the hold, if we are talking about a few days or a few hours as a 
courtesy, is not what is at issue. It is when a Senator digs in to try 
to block a bill that there ought to be some public disclosure.
  But to me the chairman has been very helpful, not just on matters 
from our committee like Internet and the like, but generally. I want to 
tell him I am very interested in working with him on it because I think 
this is an opportunity to keep the greatness of this institution and 
still make it more open and democratic. I thank him for all the time.


                       central american refugees

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this appropriations bill contains 
immigration provisions to provide much-needed protection from 
deportation for Central American refugee families and an opportunity 
for permanent residence in the United States under our immigration 
laws.
  This legislation is an important step, and I commend Senator Mack and 
Senator Graham for their extraordinary work and leadership in helping 
these refugee families and for bringing this issue before the Senate.
  I deeply regret, however, that these provisions don't go far enough. 
Last year, Congress changed the rules and broke the faith with 
thousands of refugee families from Central America and Haiti who fled 
civil war, death squads, and oppression. They found safe haven in 
America, and they have contributed significantly to the United States 
and to communities across the country.
  They were allowed to remain in the United States under bipartisan 
immigration rules established by President Reagan, affirmed by 
President Bush, and reaffirmed by President Clinton.
  But last year, the Republican Congress withdrew the welcome mat. Now, 
these deserving families who have suffered so much are suddenly faced 
with deportation. They had been promised their day in court, but that 
day has been unfairly denied.
  This legislation is a frank admission by the Senate that last year's 
immigration law treated these families unfairly, and that something 
must be done to correct this grave injustice.
  But instead of correcting the injustice for all refugees, Republicans 
now propose to pick and choose among their favorite Latino groups, and 
deny any relief to Haitian refugees at all.
  Republicans want a blanket amnesty for Nicaraguans and Cubans, but 
far less for Salvadorans and Guatemalans who also faced oppression and 
civil war.
  They also provide protection from deportation for Eastern European 
refugees, but nothing for those who fled for their lives from Haiti
  The Republican proposal is unjust and shamefully discriminatory. 
These refugee groups faced similar circumstances and have a similar 
history. First the Reagan administration, then the Bush administration, 
and then the Clinton administration assured them that they could apply 
to remain permanently in the United States under our immigration laws. 
Under those laws at that time, if they have lived here for at least 7 
years and are of good moral character, and if a return to Central 
America or Haiti will be an unusual hardship, they are allowed to 
remain.

  Last year's immigration law eliminated this opportunity for these 
families by changing the standard for humanitarian relief. It said the 
families had to live here for 10 years, not just 7, to qualify to 
remain. It created a much higher standard for proving that their 
removal from the United States would pose a great hardship to the 
family. It limited the number of persons who could get relief from 
deportation to only 4,000 per year. All other families would be 
deported, even if they otherwise qualified for relief under this 
program.
  Americans across the political spectrum have called on Congress to 
ensure that the rules are not changed unfairly for these families. 
President Clinton has urged Congress to give them the day in court they 
have been promised for the past decade.
  They include people such as Zulema, who fled to Miami in 1986 to 
escape civil war. Her husband and four children are all legal permanent 
residents of the United States. They have their green cards. Two of the 
children are now serving in the U.S. Army and have been stationed in 
Bosnia. But Zulema still does not have her green card and faces 
deportation.
  Her family escaped war and persecution. They rebuilt their lives in 
America. Her children have put their lives on the line in Bosnia in 
service of their adopted country. It is unfair to suddenly change the 
rules and deport their mother.
  Roberto, age 6, was abandoned by his parents in El Salvador during 
that country's tragic civil war. He came to the United States and was 
raised here by his aunt, who is an American citizen. Today, he is 18 
years old and a freshman at Middlebury College in Vermont. He is an 
honors student planning a career in medicine. His only memories of El 
Salvador are of the war. He does not even know if his parents are still 
alive. Roberto, too, faces deportation.
  These are the kinds of persons we are talking about. They have played 
by the rules laid down by both Republican and Democratic 
administrations. They have obeyed the law. They have made worthwhile 
contributions to our communities. In fact, the assistant manager of 
Dade County in Florida estimates that Dade County would lose $1 billion 
in revenue if these families are forced to leave.

  But while offering assistance to Central American refugee families, 
the provisions of this amendment contain troublesome inequities that 
cannot be ignored.
  The Republican bill provides for case-by-case consideration of the 
applications of refugees from El Salvador or Guatemala. Under current 
INS practices, less than half of those eligible to apply are expected 
to get their green cards. But refugees from Nicaragua and Cuba get a 
blanket amnesty.
  Refugees from all four countries fled violent civil wars, death 
squads, rogue militias, and violations of their basic rights. Their 
families suffered persecution and death threats. Once here, they 
followed the rules laid out by our Government. But now, one group gets 
green cards--no questions asked--while the other is considered only on 
a case-by-case basis.
  I am also concerned that this legislation does not also help refugees 
from Haiti. In the Bush administration--and again in the Clinton 
administration--Haitian refugees, like Central Americans, were granted 
temporary haven in America from the rampant persecution and violence in 
Haiti. Many Haitians risked their lives by opposing the forces of 
oppression in their country and standing up for democracy and freedom. 
Yet, this amendment does nothing for these deserving families. They 
deserve their day in court, too.
  Congress should act on behalf of these Haitian families too, and I 
hope we will do so before the session ends.
  Once again, I commend Senator Mack and Senator Graham for their 
leadership on this important issue.
  I regret, however, that the Republican leadership did not see fit to 
allow us to offer amendments to ensure equal treatment for all Central 
American and Haitian refugees.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, my thanks to the chairman and ranking member

[[Page S12265]]

for their hard work on the District of Columbia appropriations bill and 
for working with me on an amendment of vital importance to the children 
and families of the District. I am very pleased that they have agreed 
to accept my amendment which would allow the District to increase the 
number of monitors and inspectors responsible for upholding safety and 
quality standards in day-care centers and home-care operations across 
the city.
  Mr. President, in early October we all had the occasion to read an 
extremely troubling article on the front page of the Washington Post. 
As part of a series on welfare reform implementation, the Post 
discussed the deplorable and unsafe conditions at many District day-
care facilities. Many of the problems could be traced to the fact that 
the people and resources dedicated to overseeing child care centers in 
the District are woefully inadequate.
  We learned that of the approximately 350 public day-care centers in 
the District of Columbia, more than half are operating without proper 
licenses. The primary inspection agency has been without a supervisor 
for almost a year and a half. There are only five inspectors charged 
with issuing and enforcing licenses to District child care centers, and 
only three people in charge of certifying which centers should be 
eligible for public funds. Those who are clearly suffering as a result 
are the children, far too many of whom are spending their days in an 
environment where they are unstimulated, uncared for, and even in 
mortal danger.
  The availability and regulation of quality day-care centers and home-
care operations in the District and across the country is a crucial 
component of successful welfare reform. Simply put, welfare reforms 
will not succeed unless moms and dads across the country have a safe 
place to leave their children while they are out earning paychecks.
  Not only that, welfare reform has and will continue to increase 
greatly the demand for day-care slots. In the District alone, it is 
predicted that 4,000 additional slots will be needed to accommodate the 
schedules of working parents. That number mirrors the situation in the 
city of Milwaukee in my home State of Wisconsin. As more, new child 
care centers spring up to meet this new demand, tough, consistent 
licensing standards, applied and enforced by an adequate number of 
inspectors, are essential to avoiding more tragedies like we are 
witnessing in the District.

  I am a supporter of welfare reform because I believe the family is 
strengthened by work. But that premise is destroyed--and the success of 
true reform, jeopardized--if we force parents to choose between work 
and the basic safety of their children. As a society, we have a 
responsibility to help American families become independent, unified, 
and strong by moving them off welfare and into the workplace. As a 
people, we have a moral duty to ensure that children of those families 
are safe and nurtured while their parents work. We will have crippled 
more than just welfare reform if, because of inadequate attention to 
the quality of child care in this country, we force parents to turn 
their children over to dangerous, deplorable child care situations.
  I am very pleased that the Senate has agreed to incorporate my 
amendment into the spending legislation for the District of Columbia. 
Obviously, this is a crisis situation which the additional staff will 
help address.
  That said, much more needs to be done. This problem goes way beyond a 
question of mere staffing numbers. As such, in addition to this 
amendment, the chairman and I will be writing a letter to the Control 
Board to ensure that oversight and proper licensing and enforcement of 
safety and quality regulations by District agencies is an integral part 
of the comprehensive management reform plans scheduled to be unveiled 
in December.
  Specifically, we will press the Control Board on procedures for day-
care center and home day-care licensing, rates of inspection, the 
effectiveness of safety and quality standards at day-care centers and 
home day-cares, the effectiveness of public subsidy and case referral 
services in the District day-care system, the effectiveness of the 
current system of public oversight of day-care center and home day-care 
operations as conducted by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory 
Affairs and the Department of Human Services, and appropriate staffing 
levels at these agencies.
  Again, I am pleased that the Senate has agreed to my amendment. I 
consider it to be one of many steps we need to take on this very 
important issue. I look forward to working with the District on finding 
solutions to this and other pressing problems relating to the quality 
of life in our Nation's Capital.
  Thank you.

                          ____________________