[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.

                          ____________________