[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12265-S12271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FUNDING
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise for two brief colloquies with the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I first want to
bring to the distinguished chairman's attention some confusion
regarding the committee's intent for approximately $6 million of the
Army Corps of Engineers' budget. This money was intended to fund a very
important project in Washington State. Unfortunately, we have been
informed by the local Corps of Engineers office that without more
specific direction from Congress, the agency cannot spend these funds.
The Senate accepted the House position on this project, which was to
provide $6 million for the Corps of Engineers to extend the south jetty
at the Grays Harbor project to provide a permanent solution to the
ongoing erosion problem. Would the chairman agree that my description
of where these funds will be spent is consistent with the Conference
Committee's intention?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. The conference committee intends
for the $6 million to be allocated to extend the south jetty at the
Grays Harbor project to provide a permanent solution to the ongoing
erosion problem
Mr. GORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My second colloquy pertains to
an additional $2 million from the Corps budget that should be allocated
to dredge, monitor, and maintain the channel to determine the potential
for cost effective maintenance near the Willapa River. Regrettably, the
direction that our committee gave the Corps did not adequately
distinguish between two phases of the Willapa Project. The first phase,
which called for beach nourishment to protect the highway from wave
erosion has been completed. The second phase, calling for channel
dredging, monitoring and maintenance, has yet to be started. It was the
original intention of the project proponents that the $2 million
allocated for this project be directed to its second phase. The local
office of the Corps of Engineers has indicated that it can spend the
funds appropriately, provided it be given the necessary direction by
Congress. Mr. chairman, given this misunderstanding, do you have any
objection to the Corps using these funds for this purpose?
Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection to the Corps using the funds for
that purpose. We have allocated significant funding for these projects
and it is very important to ensure the funds are not wasted on needs
which have already been addressed.
Mr. GORTON. Thank you very much for the clarification, Mr. chairman.
I greatly appreciate the Chairman's efforts on these two projects which
address important economic, environmental, and public safety needs in
southwest Washington. I also want to commend the chairman of the Energy
and Water subcommittee, Senator Domenici, whose efforts were crucial to
securing the necessary funds.
Mrs. MURRAY. Would the Chairman yield?
Mr. STEVENS. Of course.
Mrs. MURRAY. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman for his
hard work on this bill and for his clarification here today. These
projects will accomplish a great deal for two communities in southwest
Washington state and I appreciate his hard work, as well as that of the
subcommittee chairman's.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by
section analysis of Title II of the D.C. appropriations portion of the
omnibus appropriations bill be printed at this point in the Record.
[[Page S12266]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Explanatory Memorandum Regarding Title II of The D.C. Appropriations
Potion of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill Submitted by Messrs. Mack,
Graham, Abraham, Kennedy, and Durbin
purposes of the bill
The purpose of this Act is to ensure that nationals of
certain specified countries who fled civil wars and other
upheavals in their home countries and sought refuge in the
United States, as well as designated family members, are
accorded a fair and equitable opportunity to demonstrate
that, under the legal standards established by this Act, they
should be permitted to remain, and pursue permanent resident
status, in the United States.
In recognition of the hardship that those eligible for
relief suffered in fleeing their homelands and the delays and
uncertainty that they have experienced in pursuing legal
status in the United States, the Congress directs the
Department of Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to adjudicate applications for relief under this Act
expeditiously and humanely.
Section-by-Section analysis
Section 201--Short title
This Act may be cited as the ``Nicaraguan Adjustment and
Central American Relief Act.''
Section 202--Adjustment of status of certain Nicaraguans and
Cubans
This section provides for Nicaraguans and Cubans who came
to the United States before December 1, 1995 and have been
continuously present since that time to adjust to the status
of permanent residents provided they make application to do
so before April 1, 2000. The Act also extends this benefit to
the spouses, children, or unmarried sons or daughters of
those individuals. This portion of the Act is modeled on the
Cuban Adjustment Act.
Section 203--Modification of certain transition rules
Section 203 of the bill modifies the transition rules
established in Section 309 of the Illegal Immigration and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (``IIRIRA''), Public Law
No. 104-208; division C; 110 Stat. 3009-627.
Section 203(a) amends the transition rule governing
eligibility for suspension of deportation for those who were
in exclusion or deportation proceedings as of April 1, 1997,
the effective date of IIRIRA. Under the rules in effect
before then, on otherwise eligible person could qualify for
suspension of deportation if he or she had been continuously
physically present in the United States for seven years,
regardless of whether or when the Immigration and
Naturalization Service had initiated deportation proceedings
against the person through the issuance of an order to show
cause (``OSC'') to that person. As a result, people were able
to accrue time toward the seven-year continuous physical
presence requirement after they already had been placed in
deportation proceedings.
IIRIRA changed that rule to bar additional time for
accruing after receipt of a ``notice to appear,'' the new
document the Act created to begin ``removal'' proceedings,
the repatriation mechanism IIRIRA substituted for deportation
and exclusion proceedings. Over a strong dissent, a majority
of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Mater of N-J-B-
interpreted IIRIRA Section 309(c)(5) to apply not only
prospectively in removal cases initiated by means of this new
document but also retroactively to those who were in
exclusion or deportation proceedings initiated by an order to
show cause. On July 10, 1997 Attorney General Reno vacated
and took under review the BIA's decision in Matter of N-J-B-.
Section 203(a) generally codifies the majority decision in
Matter of N-J-B- by stating explicitly that orders to show
cause have the same ``stop time'' effect as notices to
appear. Excepted from retroactive application of the ``stop
time'' rule are (1) those whose cases are terminated and
reinitiated pursuant to IIRIRA Section 309(c)(3); and (2)
those who, based on their special circumstances, are eligible
for relief from repatriation under this Act, as described
below.
As defined in Section 203(a) of the Act (amending IIRIRA
Section 309(c)(5)), those who are eligible for relief under
the Act (referred to hereinafter as ``Eligible Class
Members'') include:
Salvadorans who entered the United States on or before
September 19, 1990 and who, on or before October 31, 1991,
either registered for benefits under the settlement agreement
in American Baptist Churches, et al. v. Thornburgh, 760 F.
Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (the ``ABC Settlement'') or
applied for temporary protected status.
Guatemalans who entered the United States on or before
October 1, 1990 and registered for benefits under the ABC
Settlement.
Salvadorns and Guatemalans not included in the foregoing
groups but who applied for asylum on or before April 1, 1990.
Nationals of the Soviet Union (or any of its successor
republics), Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland,
Czechoslovakia (or its successor republics), Romania,
Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, East Germany and Yugoslavia (or
its successor republics) who entered the United States on or
before December 31, 1990 and applied for asylum on or before
December 1991.
Under Section 203(a) of the bill, the foregoing Eligible
Class Members may pursue and be granted suspension of
deportation or cancellation of removal without having their
continuous physical presence in the United States terminated
as of the date of service of an order to show cause or notice
to appear. As Section 203(a)'s amendment to section
309(c)(5)(C)(i) of IIRIRA makes clear, these class members
are eligible for this treatment even if they were not in
proceedings on or before April 1, 1997.
Also eligible for relief from repatriation under this Act
are those who, at the time an Eligible Class Member is
granted relief from repatriation under this Act, are either
(1) the spouse or child (as defined in Section 101(b)(1) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act) of such person; or (2)
the unmarried son or daughter of such person, provided that,
if the unmarried son or daughter is 21 years of age or older
when the parent is granted relief under this Act, the son or
daughter must establish that he or she entered the United
States on or before October 1, 1990.
Those who otherwise would be eligible for relief but have
been convicted of an aggravated felony (as defined in Section
101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) are not
eligible for relief. Moreover, those deemed ineligible for
relief under this Act may not seek judicial review of this
decision.
Section 203(b) of the bill adds a new subsection (f) to the
IIRIRA Section 309 transition rules. Under this new
provision, Eligible Class Members who were not in exclusion
or deportation proceedings as of April 1, 1997 may apply for
cancellation of removal--the relief from repatriation
replacing ``suspension of deportation,'' which was available
under the pre-IIRIRA rules--and adjustment to permanent
resident status under a special set of standards, subject to
the following limitations:
Generally speaking, Eligible Class Members will be eligible
for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status if they
can establish that: (1) they have been physically present in
the United States for a continuous period of seven years
immediately preceding the date of application for relief; (2)
they have been of good moral character during that period;
and (3) removal would result in ``extreme hardship'' to the
person or to a spouse, parent or child who is either a
U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Those who are inadmissible or deportable because of certain
offenses--including engaging in certain activities
threatening U.S. national security (8 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 212(a)(3), 237(a)(4)); conviction of an aggravated
felony at any time after admission (8 U.S.C.
Sec. 237(a)(2)(A)(iii); or participating in the persecution
of others (8 U.S.C. Sec. 241(b)(3)(B)(ii))--are ineligible
for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status.
Those who are inadmissible or deportable because of certain
other offenses--including engaging in specified criminal
activity (8 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2)); or
failure to comply with certain INS rules, including engaging
in document fraud (8 U.S.C. Sec. 237(a)(3))--are eligible for
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status if they can
establish that (1) they have been physically present in the
United States for a continuous period of ten years
immediately following the event that otherwise would
constitute a ground for removal; (2) they have been a person
of good moral character during that period; and (3) removal
would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to
the person or to a spouse, parent or child who is either a
U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
These standards generally echo the standards for suspension
of deportation that had been in effect until IIRIRA. Nothing
in these standards is intended to preclude the Attorney
General from adapting the procedures under which Eligible
Class Members' applications for cancellation or suspension
are to be adjudicated in a manner appropriate to the
circumstances of the individuals whose cases are before her.
These cases have already been drawn out enough as a result of
the uncertainties about the applicable standard brought about
by the changes to the law made by IIRIRA and uncertainties
about the meaning of those changes.
In particular, given the special solicitude Congress is
showing toward the Eligible Class Members by enacting this
legislation in large measure to see to it that their claims
are fairly adjudicated, it would, for example, be entirely
consistent with that intent for the Attorney General to
direct INS attorneys to consider the special hardships
undergone by them and the fragile economic and political
conditions in their home countries as relevant to the extreme
hardship determination. For this reason, it would also be
appropriate for the Attorney General not to challenge
applications for relief by Eligible Class Members on hardship
grounds if the applicant satisfies the seven-year presence
and good moral character requirements. This would be similar
to the approach taken by President Bush in the context of the
review of asylum applications by Chinese nationals based on
China's policy of forced abortion and coerced sterilization.
See November 30, 1989 Memorandum of Disapproval signed by
President Bush; December 1, 1989 and January 4, 1990
cables from INS Commissioner Gene McNary to all field
offices (File CO 243.69-P); Executive Order 12711 (April
11, 1990); 55 Fed. Reg. 13897 (April 13, 1990). More
generally, it would be entirely consistent with
Congressional intent for the Attorney General to establish
procedures that keep to a minimum the burdens an applicant
of good
[[Page S12267]]
character has to shoulder in order to qualify for relief,
both in terms of the paperwork the applicant has to
complete and the showings the applicant has to make.
In addition to recognizing the special circumstances to
which the ABC class members have been subjected, application
of the foregoing approach would greatly reduce the need for
protracted analysis of the more subjective aspects of the
suspension standard, thereby reducing the administrative
burden on the Immigration and Naturalization Service and
minimizing further delays in according relief to these
individuals. Adoption of such an approach would be entirely
consistent with Congress' intentions in adopting this
legislation, and with its interest in seeing to it that any
future difficulties these people may experience in getting a
final resolution of their status here to be kept to a
minimum.
Section 203(c) of the bill permits Eligible Class Members
previously placed in deportation or removal proceedings who
claim eligibility for relief from repatriation under the Act
to file a single motion to reopen such proceedings to pursue
relief from repatriation; such relief might otherwise have
been barred on procedural grounds. The Attorney General must
designate a time period not greater than 240 days within
which motions to reopen must be filed; the time period must
begin within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
We note that because a number of the Eligible Class Members
arrived in this country with no understanding of the court
system and no English, some may have had court proceedings
initiated against them and been tried in absentia. Others
were minors too young to remember that they had been in
immigration court. As a result they may not know that they
have final orders of deportation entered against them. We
encourage all elements of the Department of Justice and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to work to facilitate
making that information available to these individuals,
including by affirmatively serving notice on Eligible Class
Members subject to such orders. We also note that nothing
herein prevents the Attorney General from adopting an
approach to the deadlines set out here consistent with
application of ordinary tolling principles. Finally, we note
that if an Eligible Class Member files a motion to reopen and
it is determined that the applicant would qualify for some
other form of relief, such as adjustment on the basis of an
approved visa with a current priority date, that could be
adjudicated far more easily than a suspension application,
that relief may be granted instead.
Section 203(d) establishes certain temporary reductions in
the number of visas made available in the ``other workers''
and ``diversity'' immigration categories. Beginning in FY
1999, up to 5,000 fewer visas shall be made available on an
annual basis in the diversity category. A similar annual
reduction shall be made in the ``other workers'' category,
but that reduction shall not begin to be made until everyone
with an approved petition for a visa in this category as of
the date of enactment of the Act has had a visa made
available to him or her. The total reduction in the visas
issued under these two categories shall equal the total
number of individuals described in subclauses I, II, III, and
IV of section 309(c)(5)(C) of IIRIRA, as amended by this Act,
who are granted cancellation of removal or suspension of
deportation under the Act. Each category shall absorb half of
the reductions.
Section 204--Limitation on cancellations of removal and
suspensions of deportation
IIRIRA established a 4,000-person annual limit on the
Attorney General's ability to grant relief from repatriation.
Eligible Class Members and designated family members, as well
as those who were in deportation proceedings as of April 1,
1997 and who applied for suspension of deportation under INA
Section 244(a)(3) (as in effect before IIRIRA), are excepted
from this annual limit.
These exceptions to the 4,000-person limit having been
made, it is expected that that limit should accommodate the
remaining annual flow of successful suspension and
cancellation applications. Should that projection prove
erroneous, however, nothing in this Act is intended to
prevent the Attorney General and those adjudicating
suspension or cancellation applications on her behalf from
pursuing the course that she has been following to this time
of entering provisional grants of suspension or cancellation
of deportation but postponing a final decision on the
application until a slot becomes available. In no case is it
Congress's intent that an otherwise meritorious application
should be finally denied, and the applicant deported or
removed, because the 4,000-person limit has been reached.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this legislation.
Included within this appropriations bill is historic legislation,
produced on a bipartisan basis in the Foreign Relations Committee,
regarding the institutional structure of, and funding for, American
foreign policy. This important legislation to reorganize the foreign
policy agencies of the U.S. Government and authorize the payment of
U.S. arrearages to the United Nations is similar to a bill approved by
the Senate last June by a vote of 90-5. Unfortunately, the bill which
the Senate overwhelmingly approved has been bogged down in conference
with the other body over an issue which has no relevance to this bill.
I am therefore grateful to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, for
agreeing to include provisions of our legislation in this bill.
I can assure my colleagues that the decision to include the
authorization bill in an appropriations bill was not taken lightly. The
Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, and I
sought to do so after careful consultation with the Senate leadership.
But because two major elements of this bill are so critical to American
foreign policy, the Chairman and I believed that we could not afford to
delay this bill until next year. I hope my colleagues will agree.
Specifically, the bill addresses two important issues which were the
focus of much heated debate in the last Congress. First, the bill
provides for the payment of U.S. back dues to the United Nations,
contingent on specific reforms by that body. Second, the bill
establishes a framework for the reorganization of the U.S. foreign
policy agencies which is consistent with the plan announced by the
President last April.
Importantly, the bill also contains sufficient funds to restore our
diplomatic readiness, which has been severely hampered in recent years
by deep reductions in the foreign affairs budget. The funding levels in
the bill largely mirror the Fiscal 1998 budget request submitted by the
Clinton administration. The wide support in this Congress for providing
increased funding for foreign affairs is an important achievement, and
reverses a troubling trend of the past few years.
Although the cold war has ended, the need for American leadership in
world affairs has not. Our diplomats often represent the front line of
our national defense; with the downsizing of the U.S. military presence
overseas, the maintenance of a robust and effective diplomatic
capability has become all the more important. Despite the reduction in
our military presence abroad, the increased importance of ``diplomatic
readiness'' to our Nation's security has not been reflected in the
Federal budget.
The increase in foreign affairs funding contained in this bill could
not have come too soon. According to a report prepared at my request by
the Congressional Research Service earlier this year, foreign policy
spending is now at its lowest level in 20 years. Stated in fiscal 1998
dollars, the budget in fiscal 1997 was $18.77 billion, which is 25
percent below the annual average of $25 billion over the past two
decades, and 30 percent below the level of 10 years ago, near the end
of the Reagan administration. In fiscal 1997, such funding was just 1.1
percent of the Federal budget--the lowest level in the past 20 years
and about one-third below the historical average.
I should remind my colleagues that the bill is truly a bipartisan
product. It began with negotiations involving the Foreign Relations
Committee and the Clinton administration early in the year. The Senate
subsequently passed that bill overwhelmingly in June, by a vote of 90-
5. Since that time, several changes have been made as a result of the
conference deliberations with our House counterparts and negotiations
with the Clinton administration. These were also undertaken in a spirit
of bipartisanship. Because of these changes, I am confident that the
bill will be acceptable to the President.
Enactment of this bill will mark another important milestone in
reestablishing a bipartisan consensus on foreign policy. Like our
predecessors five decades ago, we stand at an important moment in
history.
After the Second World War, a bipartisan and farsighted group of
senators, led by Chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee such as
Thomas Connally and Arthur Vandenberg, worked with the Truman
administration to construct a post-war order. The institutions created
at that time--the United Nations, the World Bank, the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--are still
with us today, but the task of modernizing these institutions to make
them relevant to our times is just beginning.
For example, the Clinton administration and the Senate are
cooperating on
[[Page S12268]]
the first significant expansion of NATO--an expansion to the east which
will encompass three former adversaries in Central Europe. The Foreign
Relations Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Helms, has
initiated a series of hearings on the proposed enlargement of NATO,
setting the stage for what I hope will be successful amendment to the
Washington Treaty next spring. Similarly, this legislation now before
us calls for significant reforms of the United Nations, an important
instrument in American foreign policy which has become crippled both by
growing U.S. arrearages and an unwillingness within that body to
reform. Enactment of this legislation will be an important step forward
in resolving both those problems.
Just as we are trying to revise and reenergize international
institutions, we must reorganize our own foreign policy institutions.
Two years ago, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee put
forward a far-reaching plan to consolidate our major foreign affairs
agencies--the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), the United
States Information Agency (USIA), and the Agency for International
Development--within the Department of State. In the context of an
election cycle, it was perhaps inevitable that the Congress and the
President would not come to agreement on it.
But continued stalemate was not inevitable. With the onset of a new
presidential term and the appointment of a new Secretary of State, a
window of opportunity to revisit the issue was opened. The Chairman, to
his credit, took advantage of this window by urging the new Secretary
of State, Madeleine Albright, to take a second look at the
reorganization issue. And, to her credit, the Secretary did so; the
result was the reorganization plan announced by the President in April.
Under the proposal, two agencies--ACDA and USIA--will be merged into
the State Department. The Agency for International Development will
remain an independent agency, but it will be placed under the direct
authority of the Secretary of State.
The legislation now before the Senate closely reflects the
President's proposal. The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency will be
merged into the State Department no later than October 1, 1998, and the
U.S. Information Agency will be merged no later than October 1, 1999.
As with the President's plan, the Agency for International Development
will remain a separate agency, but it will be placed under the direct
authority of the Secretary of State. And, consistent with the
President's proposal to seek improved coordination between the regional
bureaus in State and AID, the Secretary of State will have the
authority to provide overall coordination of assistance policy.
The bill puts flesh on the bones of the President's plan with regard
to international broadcasting. The President's plan was virtually
silent on this question, stating only that the ``distinctiveness and
editorial integrity of the Voice of America and the broadcasting
agencies would be preserved.'' This bill upholds and protects that
principle by maintaining the existing government structure established
by Congress in 1994 in consolidating all U.S. government-sponsored
broadcasting--the Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Worldnet TV--under the
supervision of one oversight board known as the Broadcasting Board of
Governors. Importantly, however, the Board and the broadcasters below
them will not be merged into the State Department, where their
journalistic integrity would be greatly at risk.
With regard to the United Nations provision, the bill provides $926
million in arrearage payments to the Union Nations over a period of 3
years contingent upon the U.N. achieving specific reforms. This will
allow us to pay all U.S. arrears to the U.N. regular budget, all
arrears to the peacekeeping budget, nearly all arrears to the U.N.
specialized agencies, and all arrears to other international
organizations.
It is difficult to exaggerate the significance of this achievement.
We are finally in a position to lay to rest the perennial dispute over
our unpaid dues that has severely complicated relations between the
United Nations and the United States. This bill would give our
diplomats the leverage they need to push through meaningful reforms
that promise to make the U.N. a more capable institution.
Two important changes were made to the legislation that cleared the
Senate last June. First, the bill now allows the crediting of $107
million owed to the U.S. by the U.N. against our arrears. Second, it
gives the administration added flexibility by allowing the Secretary of
State to waive two conditions. The waiver will not apply to the
reduction of assessment rates or the establishment of inspectors-
general in the specialized agencies. But report language will make a
clear commitment that Congress would, if necessary, consider on an
expedited basis a waiver on the condition for a 20 percent assessment
rate for the U.N. regular budget.
Of course, not everyone is happy with the agreements the Chairman,
Senator Helms, and I worked out. Some would have preferred to see no
conditions at all attached to the payment of our debts. Others are
unhappy that the United States is paying any arrears whatsoever.
I think it is fair to say that the Chairman and I approached this
issue from two very different points of view. I make no excuses for my
support of the United Nations. I believe that the U.N. is an
indispensable arrow in our foreign policy quiver. The Chairman, I think
it is fair to say, has been skeptical of the role of the United
Nations.
But despite our differing outlooks, over the course of nearly 8
months of negotiation, dialogue, and old-fashioned bargaining, we each
gave something and got something to return. The Chairman got several
important conditions attached to the payment of arrears. Among other
items, these include important managerial reforms, assurances that U.S.
sovereignty will be protected, and a lowering of our assessment rate
from 25 percent to 20 percent of the U.N. regular budget.
For me, it is important that this bill sends a strong signal of
bipartisan support for putting our relationship with the United Nations
back on track. Restoring our relationship with the United Nations is
not a favor to anyone else--it is in our interest.
The United Nations allows us to leverage our resources with other
countries in the pursuit of common interests, be it eradicating
disease, mitigating hunger, caring for refugees, or addressing common
environmental problems. And as the unfolding crisis with Iraq
demonstrates, the United Nations can be a useful instrument in our
diplomacy. The United States has played a leading role in the United
Nations since its founding, and I believe that this legislation will
secure that leadership.
While the purists on either side may not be happy with the agreement
before us, I believe that we have produced a responsible piece of
legislation that warrants the support of our colleagues.
In sum, the bill before the Senate, the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act, is a significant achievement. I want to pay tribute
to the Chairman for his continued good faith and cooperation throughout
this process. I want to thank the President, the National Security
Adviser, and the Secretary of State, for their support and assistance
during the negotiations. I also want to thank our colleagues in the
other body, particularly the ranking member of the International
Relations Committee, Lee Hamilton, who played an important role in
pushing for changes to make this proposal more acceptable to the
administration.
I believe we have produced a good compromise that a large majority
will be able to support. I urge its adoption.
Amendments to the Prison Litigation Reform Act
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the Commerce-State-Justice portion of
this bill contains a few technical and clarifying changes to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act enacted last year. The Majority Whip of the House
of Representatives and I have been working together on this language,
and I believe this statement reflects both of our views.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act was specifically designed to protect
the Tenth Amendment powers of the sovereign states, to enforce the
Guarantee Clause, and to preserve and strengthen key structural
elements of the United States Constitution such as separation of
powers, judicial review, and federalism. In passing the Act Congress
made clear that it intended that the courts enforcing the Act
scrupulously ensure
[[Page S12269]]
that these goals be accomplished. In order to avoid any possibility of
misinterpretation, we are seeking through the language contained in
these amendments to clarify that stated intent.
Subsection (a)(3)(F) establishes that a state or local official,
including individual state legislators, or a unit of government, is
entitled to intervene as of right in a district or appellate court to
challenge prisoner release orders or seek their termination. No
separate time limits are included because the sponsors think it clear
that a court should implement the intervention provisions in a manner
that gives them their full effect by ruling in timely fashion on such
motions.
Subsection (b)(3) corrects the confusing use of the word ``or'' to
describe the limited circumstances when a court may continue
prospective relief in prison conditions litigation. The amendment makes
clear that a constitutional violation must be ``current and ongoing''.
Both requirements are necessary to ensure that court orders continue
only when necessary to remedy a presently occurring constitutional
violation. These dual requirements thus ensure that court orders do not
remain in place on the basis of a claim that a current prison condition
that does not violate prisoners' Federal rights nevertheless requires a
court decree to address it because the condition is somehow traceable
to a prior policy that did violate Federal rights. Likewise, the
clarification insures that prisoners cannot keep intrusive court orders
in place based upon the theory that the government officials are
``poised'' to resume allegedly unlawful conduct. Congress does not
presume that government officials who have been advised that a
particular practice is unlawful will automatically return to an
unlawful practice unless a court order remains in effect. If an
unlawful practice resumes or if a prisoner is in imminent danger of a
constitutional violation, the prisoner has prompt and complete remedies
through a new action filed in a state or federal court and preliminary
injunctive relief.
Finally, these amendments make some changes to the automatic stay
provisions in the Act. Under the Act, courts are supposed to rule
promptly on motions to terminate these longstanding decrees. In order
to discourage delay on such motions, the Act provided that, if a court
did not render a decision on the motion within 30 days, the decree was
automatically stayed until the court had rendered a final decision.
Unfortunately, many district courts are not ruling promptly, are
keeping the decrees in effect, and are then seeking violations that
justify doing so.
Courts have also been avoiding the automatic stay by saying that it
is impossible to comply with because it sets up an impossible timetable
and that it is therefore unconstitutional. The Department of Justice
meanwhile has contended that the stay is not really automatic at all,
although no court has accepted that view.
The argument that the court is being forced to rule on anything on an
unrealistic timetable is incorrect because the automatic stay imposes
no requirement that they rule. It only provides that if they do not
rule there is no order in effect until they do so. Nevertheless, giving
the court the authority to extend the time an additional 60 days should
eliminate that basis for challenge. The amendments also clarify that
the stay is in fact is automatic by expressly modeling it on the
bankruptcy automatic stay, and they state explicitly that any order
blocking the automatic stay is appealable, thereby ensuring review of
the district court's action. Finally, they make clear that mandamus is
available to compel a ruling if a court is simply failing to act on one
of these motions.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman and ranking
member of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this bill to the
Senate. Their leadership will help break the logjam on the remaining
1998 appropriations bills, and I commend them for pushing forward.
While I support most provisions in this multi-title legislation, I
must take this opportunity to register my strong disapproval of the
provisions in the Foreign Operations title relating to International
Family Planning.
The bill provides that for the next two years, it will include the
restrictive Mexico City policy, which will prohibit U.S. international
family planning assistance from going to any foreign private
organization involved in certain abortion-related activities--even
though these activities are carried out with non-U.S. funds. This
language will cripple the work of many of the private organizations
doing the most effective work in family planning and maternal and child
health. For example, organizations that seek to advise their
governments on how to make abortions safer for women, in countries
where abortion is legal, would be restricted from doing so if they
receive U.S. money for family planning services. This restriction will
only result in more dangerous health conditions for women.
The Mexico City provision does at least include a waiver provision,
allowing the President to disregard the policy. However, if he chooses
to exercise the waiver, the family planning account will be penalized
by being reduced.
Unfortunately, this language is a compromise with those who would
terminate international family planning altogether, and thus it is
probably the best we can do. I commend the Senator from Vermont,
Senator Leahy, for working so hard to get the best language possible at
this time. However, Mr. President, this compromise must go no further.
Any movement beyond the language we have included in the Senate bill
will, in my view, seriously jeopardizes passsage of the legislation.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are waiting for the Senator from
Vermont. While I am waiting let me state for the record that the
omnibus bill that is here has some additions that were not in the
conference reports of the various bills.
We have included the Small Business Administration reauthorization
bill, a portion of the State Department authorization bill which deals
with reorganization, and with authorization for the United Nations
arrearages. We have included the Highway Safety and Transit Contract
Authority Extensions, due to the expiration of ISTEA. We have technical
corrections to the Department of Defense Authorization Act with regard
to land transfer in New Mexico. And we have the agreement that deals
with the census provision that was in the State-Justice-Commerce bills
that passed the Senate, but it has been altered substantially. I should
call attention to that.
Let me ask the Chair, what time now remains on this bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 15 minutes for the Senator from West
Virginia [Mr. Byrd]; there is 15 minutes for the Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. McConnell].
Mr. STEVENS. I am authorized to yield back the time of the Senator
from Kentucky and the Senator from West Virginia. I do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 15 minutes for the Senator from
Vermont [Mr. Leahy].
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I advise my good friend, the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, that Senator Leahy has been on the floor.
He has been detained just for a few minutes. He is on his way. I don't
think he will take his entire 15 minutes, but I would have to hold
those minutes for him, if I could.
Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Florida seek to speak?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the procedure, which I discussed with the
majority leader, was that as soon as we completed action on the
District of Columbia appropriations bill, I would be recognized for
purposes of offering legislation relative to Haitian immigration. I
wonder if it would be an appropriate use of this time, and I so ask
unanimous consent, while awaiting Senator Leahy's arrival, to offer
that legislation at this time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, with the understanding that the Senator
from Florida will yield to the Senator from Vermont, in order to finish
this bill, when the Senator from Vermont arrives, I suggest the Chair
recognize the Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the business currently
pending before the Senate be set aside temporarily for purposes of
introducing
[[Page S12270]]
legislation with the understanding that at such time as the Senator
from Vermont arrives, the Senator from Vermont will have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Graham pertaining to the introduction of S. 1504
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens; the distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Byrd; and the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations, Mr. McConnell; and all those who worked on it. This
has not been an easy time getting this bill through, partly because of
holdups in the other body, holdups that tended to disregard, frankly,
the democratic process and how we voted here and voted over there. Be
that as it may, we have done the best with a difficult situation. I
believe this bill should be passed.
INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING FUNDING
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak on the issue of funding for
international family planning, which is contained in this omnibus bill.
The agreement on the Mexico City policy that was approved by the
Appropriations Committee yesterday, is the result of weeks of tortuous
negotiations. It would establish the Mexico City policy in statute for
2 years. That is a major concession to the House that is opposed by the
administration. It would permit him to waive the Mexico City
restrictions.
But there is a penalty if he does. Funding for family planning would
be frozen at last year's level, which is the House level and $50
million below the Senate level.
Even with the waiver for the President, I believe that if the Mexico
City issue were voted on separately in the Senate it would be defeated.
We are including it as part of this larger package in an effort to pass
the Foreign Operations conference report.
It is interesting to me that despite the fact that 5 months ago the
Appropriations Committee reported and the Senate voted for $435 million
for international family planning programs with no Mexico City
restrictions, despite the fact that the Senate voted the same way in
February, and the same way last year, despite the fact that the House
and Senate Foreign Operations conferees would have overwhelmingly
supported the Senate position if the House leadership had allowed them
to vote on it, Members of the House are already saying that they will
not accept it because it permits the President to waive the Mexico City
restrictions.
Under their approach, the United States could not fund organizations
that support laws to make abortion safer in countries where abortion is
legal. And they expect the President, and the Secretary of State who is
seen around the world as a champion for women's rights, to accept the
Mexico City policy. It completely ignores reality. If they are
unwilling to budge we are doomed to failure, because their approach
would be vetoed. In fact, I cannot even say that the Mexico City policy
with a waiver for the President, as we have done, would not be vetoed.
Mr. President, I was perfectly willing to have a vote in the
conference committee, and I am more than willing to vote on this today
or next year.
But the House has been unwilling to do that. They prefer to try to
thwart the process in other ways.
They are all for democracy in Russia. They are outraged when the
Haitian Parliament does not follow the rules. But if they do not have
the votes here, they break their commitments, manipulate the
parliamentary rules to their advantage, and obstruct the democratic
process.
Six years ago we had the votes to defeat the Mexico City policy,
which was the policy in effect during the previous administration, just
as we have the votes in the Senate today. But we knew our position
would be vetoed, and that we could not override a veto.
So rather than bring the Congress to a standstill, we accepted that
we could not change the President's policy and we got the Foreign
Operations Conference Report passed and signed into law.
Today the tables are turned. The supporters of Mexico City do not
have the votes to get it through the Congress, and even if they did
they could not override a veto.
But rather than accept that, rather than concede that they cannot win
a fair fight, they prevented the conference committee from doing its
job, they refused an offer to vote when they knew they would lose, and
they tried to force their position through so that we would either have
to shut down the government again or swallow their position without an
opportunity to amend it.
That is exactly what they did two years ago. The result was that
funds for family planning were cut sharply. They tried it again last
week, when they sent over the Mexico City policy and tried to jam it
through with only Republican names on the Conference Report. They were
blocked at the last minute by members of their own party.
Mr. President, the irony of this is that not one dime of our money
can be spent on abortion or to lobby for abortion. That has been the
law for years.
This issue is about what private organizations, like Johns Hopkins
University, like Georgetown University, like the University of North
Carolina , like the International Planned Parenthood Federation, do
with their own money.
It is about whether we have a policy that says it is okay to give
money to foreign governments in countries where abortion is legal, but
it is not okay to give money to private organizations that work in
those same countries. It is totally illogical and discriminatory.
The compromise agreement contained in this omnibus bill will make no
one happy. I do not like it because it puts into law the Mexico City
policy, which I strongly oppose even for two years. Others on this side
feel the same way. They see that this is a major concession to the pro-
Mexico City faction in the House, and they are right. The
administration does not like it either.
It also means that funding for family planning remains frozen at last
year's level of $385 million. That is a $180 million cut from the 1995
level. I think that is a travesty, when so many people around the world
want family planning services and cannot get them. Not abortion. Family
planning, so they don't have to resort to abortion.
That is the choice. In Russia, where women had on average 7 abortions
in their lifetimes because they had no access to family planning, that
number has fallen sharply since we started a family planning program
there. It is common sense.
I would like to see twice this amount of money going for family
planning, but we have agreed to this level, which is a $50 million cut
from the amount that passed the Senate in July, as part of this
agreement to try to finish these appropriations bills.
Mr. President, the House can reject this approach. Perhaps they do
not believe the President when he says he will veto the Mexico City
policy. I do not know how many times he has to say it.
It was not easy to get here. When there is a Republican in the White
House, or the votes change in the Senate, I am sure the other side will
want to vote because they will be confident of victory. But that is not
where we are today.
I hope the House can improve on this approach. I would be overjoyed
if they can find a way to keep the Mexico City policy out of the law
entirely, without including the kind of harmful restrictions on the
disbursement of family planning funds that were adopted last year. If
the supporters of the Mexico City policy want it so badly, why not vote
on it?
As I have said time and again, I would prefer to handle this by
voting on Mexico City next year. We could agree that if it is defeated
in the Senate, the funds would be disbursed on a quarterly basis
through the 1998 fiscal year. I know that approach has bipartisan
support in the House. In fact, the Chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee has suggested that approach. Whether it could win a majority
I do not know, but I encourage the House to pursue it.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for purposes of a question?
Mr. LEAHY. Of course, I yield to my friend from California.
[[Page S12271]]
Mrs. BOXER. I say to Chairman Stevens and I know the ranking member,
Senator Byrd, and to the Senator from Vermont, thank you for working so
hard on this international family planning issue. The Senator is so
correct when he says that the Senate has spoken, the House has spoken,
and suddenly we find ourselves faced with a situation where the funds
for family planning on an international scale will be withheld.
I say to my friend, for the Record, because I think it is very
important and a lot of people are counting on us, can our friend from
Vermont assure us that this agreement that he has garnered working with
Senator McConnell is, in fact, the best he thinks he can get at this
time?
Mr. LEAHY. It is, but it is not what I would want. I would prefer to
be far closer to what the Senate has voted on time and time and time
again.
I understand the realities of the situation, though, and this is
where we are. The irony is that those who are holding up family
planning money, claiming they are doing it because of their opposition
to abortion, are assuring that there will be more abortions in the
countries we send the family planning money to.
The family planning money, in so many of these countries, has
provided a strong alternative to abortion, because many countries use
abortion as a method of birth control. Our family planning money would
cut down abortions. It has been proven.
For the life of me, I cannot understand this topsy-turvy, ``Alice in
Wonderland,'' view of cutting family planning money and saying we are
trying to stop abortions, because its does nothing of the kind. In
fact, when people have access to family planning, the abortions go
down.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman on the
floor. If he does not need further time on this, I understand the
Senator from Kentucky has yielded back his time. I, therefore, yield
back time on this side.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. As I understand it then, the balance of the time is the
time that remains to me, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. I want to thank the Senate for its consideration of the
desire of the Appropriations Committee to finish this work for this
Congress. We had hoped that we would pass 13 separate appropriations
bills. That has not been possible. But we have taken the opportunity to
put two of the bills that have not been finished on this bill--that
managed by Senator Faircloth and Senator Boxer, with the hope that we
could resolve the differences with the House. It will go to the House
now as an amendment to the House bill. It is an omnibus appropriations
bill now. And the House will work its will on it. I am hopeful that it
will decide to send the bill to the President.
In any event, it is my understanding we will soon be presented with a
continuing resolution. The continuing resolution in effect now would
expire at midnight tonight. The one I expect to be received by the
Senate will expire tomorrow night. So we are hopeful that we will be
able to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate by
tomorrow night with regard to the matters under this bill.
Again, I thank everyone for their consideration of our position. And
if there is nothing further to come before the Senate on this bill, I
yield back the balance of the time. It is my understanding that would
yield back all time on this bill. Is that correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It would yield back
all time.
Mr. STEVENS. Is there anything further we need to do to see it to
that the time agreement is carried out?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. Under the previous order, the pending
amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1621) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendment and third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The bill (H.R. 2607), as amended, was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the title is
amended.
The title was amended so as to read:
An Act making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House, and the Chair
appoints the following conferees.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Enzi) appointed Mr. Stevens, Mr. Specter,
Mr. Domenici, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Bennett, Mr.
Campbell, Mr. Faircloth, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, and Mrs. Boxer conferees on the part
of the Senate.
____________________